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?"
Ironclad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow, I don't see that happening. I'm betting the **AA-holes would go after you, anyhow.
cue "politics as usual" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:nahhh (Score:3, Insightful)
"Can" implies legal right. But make no mistake, the US WILL just do it.
Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Try it some day. Part of the "relief" provided by the WTO to Antigua is the right to ignore US copyrights (given that international enforcement of copyright laws is based on treaties backed by the WTO, they have the power to do this).
I suspect that anyone in the US downloading mp3s from Antigua will be "shocked" to discover that this only covers people in Antigua, not them.
Circular logic. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but, the online gambling might've allowed Antigua's economy to grow 10 or 20 or 30 times it's current size. That's like saying it's unreasonable to increase a prisoner's rations from the crust of a slice of bread to 3 square meals a day because it's 10 times the food he's currently getting and it's excessive.
I'm no fan of gambling, but every time I see this gambling case in the news, I can see the obvious hypocrisy in play here. This is simply the US trying to protect the domestic gambling industry. If gambling were really that bad, the US would outlaw it altogether. But to say that it is legal for people to gamble here, but not with foreign operators, is simply disgusting.
Um, What?... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but what does that have to do with the the WTO, Antiqua, and the US ban on online gambling? And, if it does have anything to do with the topic(s) of the article (at work - busy - no time to read TFA right now), then it would be nice if the summary posted to
Oh yeah? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:you're surely cracked (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the Constitution in its text does not (clearly) privilege treaties over laws, we have to look to the interpretation in the courts of the clause to see how laws and treaties interact. The interpretation in the courts is that laws and treaties are equal, and a ordinary act of Congress can repeal a treaty.
But, even if we assume that treaties do outrank laws, it still doesn't matter in this case. Under the Constitution, a treaty requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. The United States Senate did not ratify the Uruguay Round GATT by a two-thirds majority; instead, both houses of Congress adopted it by majority vote as an ordinary law. So the WTO and trade rules pursuant to it are either in effet as ordinary laws in the U.S. (if the Uruguay Round GATT could be adopted as ordinary legislation, which is the traditional interpretation of the courts), or they are of no legal force (under the minority view that it must be adopted through the treaty procedure to have force).
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
The above is as relevant to the issue of an unfair practices lawsuit over banking as is the gratuitous insertion of a question about copyright.
If the article can't stand on its own without throwing in an irrelevant hot button, it's not worth polluting the bit stream with it. I can see some such things getting by the editors, but there's so many of them that they must be selecting articles that have these.
Maybe next time I submit an interesting but non-inflammatory article, I should spice it up with an otherwise useless mention of RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft and SCO.
Oh, can I mention SCO, or does their bankruptcy proceedings prevent mentioning them on Slashdot?
Yeah, like that.
Mods notice: This is not a troll, because I mean it.
It may have hurmorous elements (actually, it's sarcasm), but it's not intended to be funny.
It is not flamebait, because it's not intended to elicit flames.
It is in fact a flame itself. There is not mod marker for that.
Mark it overrated if you like, but it's posted in all seriousness because of the lack of journalistic integrity when having same would cost nothing and produce a better publication.
I will go back to banging my head against a brick wall now.
allofmp3.ag? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:nahhh (Score:5, Insightful)
I was once dumbfounded by it being illegal for me to buy a bottle of wine in Massachusetts on Sunday. As I stood there arguing with the cashier, a girl behind me in line (in early twenties, seemingly "progressive", and without a Bible under her arm) expressed her support for the law. It went something like: "Yeah, it is a good idea for there being one day a week, when buying alcohol is illegal. I like it."
She could not explain why and shut up, when I suggested, she avoids sex on Thursdays. But I remain puzzled, how a modern American can see fit to impose arbitrary and gratuitous limitations on others without a good and easily explainable reason.
Re:nahhh (Score:4, Insightful)
SCOTUS recently struck down state laws prohibiting protectionism against out-of-state vineyards if in-state vineyards are allowed to sell directly to consumers.
This case is protectionism, pure and simple. Allowing multi-state lotteries, betting on horse racing, and betting on fantasy sports while denying other forms of gambling is not morally consistent with an anti-gambling position.