Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Government Media The Internet Politics

WTO Rules on Internet Gambling Case 171

doggod writes "The Associated Press reports today that the WTO has finally ruled on Antigua's complaint against the US over online gambling. The complaints stems from what Antigua sees as unfair trade practices relating to the US passage last year of a law that forbids banks from handling money to and from online casinos. The amount they awarded is significantly less than Antigua asked for. If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WTO Rules on Internet Gambling Case

Comments Filter:
  • by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:49PM (#21782424) Homepage Journal

    ...that the US (especially the Bush administration) is going to even pay out a measly 21 million dollars a year? There's a certain arrogance on behalf of the US - to pay out on a ruling like this is akin to being pushed around.
    Because they have to or face WTO sanctions, that's why.
  • by EOG.com ( 1206452 ) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:59PM (#21782542)
    From Eye On Gambling http://www.eog.com/ [eog.com]

    Antigua and Barbuda today expressed its mixed reaction to the ruling of the arbitrators issued today in its long running dispute with the United States over Internet gambling. The panel agreed with Antigua that it had no effective trade sanctions against the United States in the area of services and authorised Antigua to suspend its obligations to the United States in respect of copyrights, trademarks and other forms of intellectual property rights. However, it went on to set Antigua's level of annual trade loss at US $21.0 million, much less than the US $3.4 billion Antigua had requested, although considerably more than the US $500,000 the United States had proposed.

    In an unprecedented approach that is sure to arouse controversy, the arbitrators assessed Antigua's level of damages based upon a hypothetical form of compliance proposed by the United States rather than through the withdrawal of the overall prohibition on the provision of remote gaming services. This decision resulted in a rare, perhaps unprecedented disagreement among the arbitrators, with one of the three panellists dissenting from the approach adopted by the other two members.

    Mark Mendel, the lawyer who has been spearheading this case for the Antiguan government since it began back in 2003 observed "I am pleased that the panel approved our ability to cross-retaliate by suspension of intellectual property rights of United States business interests. That has only been done once before and is, I believe, a very potent weapon." Mr Mendel expressed less satisfaction with the amount of damages assessed. "I find it astonishing that two of the three panellists would in essence grant the United States the benefit of a hypothetical method of compliance most favourable to the American side in assessing Antigua's level of trade impairment. What appears to have been done here is assuming a form of compliance that has not happened and probably will not happen without giving Antigua the ability to contest the method under the WTO's normal procedures," he added. Unlike other WTO rulings, awards of arbitrators are not subject to review by the Appellate Body of the WTO.

    While questioning the low number, Mr Mendel remains positive about the dispute going forward. "US $21 million a year in intellectual property rights suspension going forward indefinitely is not such a bad asset to have. I hope that the United States government will now see the wisdom in reaching some accommodation with Antigua over this dispute and look forward to seeing efforts in this regard."
  • by huckamania ( 533052 ) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:59PM (#21782548) Journal
    Or maybe 'conspiracy to violate copyright laws'. The US government also has tax laws in its arsenal.

    It just depends on how bad they want to get you. If they want you bad enough, expect them to pull rabbits out of their hats and aces from their sleeves.
  • by Best ID Ever! ( 712255 ) on Friday December 21, 2007 @03:07PM (#21782644)
    Except that Harrah's is pro online gambling. Most of the major casinos want to extend their brand online.
  • by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Friday December 21, 2007 @03:35PM (#21782994)
    Doesn't the bill only block transfers to foreign online casinos?
  • Re:nahhh (Score:3, Informative)

    by 1001011010110101 ( 305349 ) on Friday December 21, 2007 @03:36PM (#21783018)
    Actually, you are wrong. The problem is that the US allows some local online gambling, while not allowing the same to outside countries. If the US was to actually ban all forms of online gambling,it would be ok. What they cannot do, is to discriminate against other countries like they do with Antigua.
  • by Best ID Ever! ( 712255 ) on Friday December 21, 2007 @04:07PM (#21783490)
    No. It blocks transfers that will be used for "illegal online gambling", but it defers to current federal and state laws as to what is illegal. For instance, offering sports betting across state lines is illegal under the Wire Act, except some interstate horse racing betting is legal under a later law. Then there's a hodgepodge of state laws to contend with.
  • LULZ AT YOU (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21, 2007 @04:59PM (#21784316)
    What kind of moron would even think about gambling online out of Antigua or anywhere outside the USA for that matter?

    A simple google search of 'online gambling scheme' [google.com] reveales a ton of scams involving thousands of crooks internationally. In the USA there are not as nearly as many schemes as everything is regulated very heavily and almost every scheme is caught in the end. When gambling online you not only have to worry about the odds of the house, but the odds of a cheater taking everyones money; lowering the odds even more for everyone.

    Oh you don't believe me? Guess you don't remember This Story [go.com]. Yea a major share holder/investor of absolute poker online was watching everyones hand and winning hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I guess you still want to gamble online? "It's my money its what I want to do! I want to be a dumbass in the face of clear evidence!!"

    I'm sorry but the issue has nothing to do with bush; keep this name out of it. I know around here if you talk shit about bush you automagically get modded up; fact is EVERY industry has paid off congress to protect their intrests, where it be economically or morally.

    This part of the WTO is where it does get sketchy because I think there are some people in government that genuinely want to protect the person investing their money, and to tell them where to gamble is wrong but if you know its a scam how can one responsibilly allow that? Sure they want to keep gambling in their own regulated casinos, because they are proven safe without any fear of being cheated.
  • by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Friday December 21, 2007 @05:00PM (#21784328) Journal
    The federal government is involved because it deals with interstate commerce. And it does so in a way that can circumvent the different state's existing laws. Currently, gambling is handled state by state. But when you make it available in a state that banns it, you are violating that states laws accept you haven't entered that state to be punished. The Feds put a thing in the wire something laws making it illegal to do something like this. Later, they banned the transfer of funds to illegal gambling so that residents of Ohio couldn't go on line and gamble in Nevada. Now, you actually have to go where the gambling is legal if you want to gamble.

    It sounds silly, but if there ever was something that interstate commerce clause was supposed to be used for, it would be this. Even if you don't agree with what the Feds are doing, this is exactly what their power to get involved was created for.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...