Antigua May Be Allowed To Violate US Copyrights 482
Skleed refers us to the NYTimes for an article on the high-stakes case the US is losing before the World Trade Organization. So far the US has lost an initial hearing and two appeals on its policies regarding Antiguan offshore gambling sites. Now the lawyer pressing the case has asked for a rarely invoked, but codified, recourse under WTO rules: letting Antiguans copy and distribute American music, movies, and software. The game may be to get Hollywood and Microsoft, et al., to pressure Washington to cut a deal. But their influence may not be sufficient to move lawmakers on the question of online gambling. From the article: "But not complying with the decision presents big problems of its own for Washington. That's because Mr. Mendel, who is claiming $3.4 billion in damages on behalf of Antigua, has asked the trade organization to grant a rare form of compensation if the American government refuses to accept the ruling: permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others."
Allofmp3 mark II is coming (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Treaties only have meaning if their signatories either have sufficient personal honor to not violate them or are made to pay from any such violations by an external party. Since countries have no personal honor, on the account of not being persons or comparable entities, and since the US - the benefactory of the treaty violation
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that the US hasn't sought or received such exemptions in the context of other international organizations, but the US has no legal obligation of any kind to participate in the ICC. Some people feel that the US should feel a moral obligation, but this is unlikely as long as nations like China and Russia conti
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was the whole debate with allofmp3.com. IF the material really was legal under russian law, the copies you purchased were legal well. The only real debate was whether or not the material WAS legal under russian law.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Facinating and legally brilliant (Score:3, Interesting)
I am confussed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Backstory (Score:5, Informative)
They made it into a "moral issue," but that's just bullshit that they can sell to a few Evangelical hicks. The real issue was that the casinos felt that international companies were cutting into their business, so they had Congress close it down. It was pretty straightforward protectionism; online betting with U.S.-based B&M casinos (including internet off-track betting on horses, internet purchase of lottery tickets, etc.) is OK, but international ones are not.
The WTO saw this for what it is, and is basically saying, 'either you let everyone compete, or you shut it all down.' So this puts the U.S. in the position of either letting international casinos into the U.S. market, or shutting down all internet gambling (including aforementioned web-based off-track-betting, lottery tickets, sports books, etc.). The casinos -- particularly the Vegas ones -- wouldn't like that much either.
So it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I have to give the Antiguans -- and most of all, their lawyer [iht.com] (who is from Texas) -- credit. It takes some brass ones to go eye-to-eye with the USG, even when they're doing something that's so transparently corrupt. I hope they can pull it off.
Re:Backstory (Score:5, Informative)
Why does misinformation like this keep getting modded up as informative? It happens every time the online gambling issue comes up on Slashdot.
The American Gaming Association, the industry group representing those big domestic casinos, opposed legislation banning online gambling. See:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/5/american-gam
http://www.americangaming.org/hillupdate/reports_
They want legalization and regulation, so they can get a piece of the pie. They're currently supporting legislation requiring a "study" of online gambling, as a preliminary to repealing the ban.
Right now online gambling is a booming international industry, but American companies can't reap any of the profits, despite what should be a very strong competitive position with their strong brands. The potential gain of locking in American gamblers to land-based casinos is negligible by comparison.
They made it into a "moral issue," but that's just bullshit that they can sell to a few Evangelical hicks.
That's not the cover story - it's the whole story. Banning online gambling has been a plank of the Republican Party platform since at least 2004:
http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf [gop.com] (see page 57)
The most recent anti-online-gambling law, the Unlawful Online Gambling Enforcement Act, was railroaded through the Senate (as a last-minute amendment to a must-pass bill) by Bill Frist. Bill Frist, at the time, was a hopeful for the Republican presidential nomination, and as such needed to shore up support among the moral conservative types.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The most recent anti-online-gambling law, the Unlawful Online Gambling Enforcement Act, was railroaded through the Senate (as a last-minute amendment to a must-pass bill) by Bill Frist. Bill Frist, at the time, was a hopeful for the Republican presidential nomination, and as such needed to shore up support among the moral conservative types.
From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109 -4411 [govtrack.us]:
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.
(emphasis in the original)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am confussed (Score:5, Insightful)
Las Vegas was the Fort Knox and money printing machine for the mob in the US in the 1950's. The guys at the top had some brains and understood they had to play reasonably fair with the suckers or they wouldn't come back and the suckers had to have a "good time" while they were there. This put limits on what could and could not be done.
I don't see any limits when you move it online. How do you know if you are being cheated? You wouldn't. You get to hear from people praising their big wins. And believe me, there is plenty of money going around so people can win big. The difference between a 98% payout and a 95% payout is incredible. Bring that down to 50% and you have something that wouldn't be legit in the US but would bring in billions.
Why couldn't it be 50%? Online it certainly could and nobody would be looking at the annual reports from a site run from either some small Carribean country or Russia.
I do not see how it could be regulated. With the current grab-all-you-can philosophy in the US players would flock to sites offering the opportunity to win big. And you would have TV ads running with extremely happy big winners. Even if such ads were illegal on TV, you would have them on YouTube.
Sorry, I just see it as a new and better way to part dollars from suckers at a faster pace.
Re:I am confussed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I am confussed (Score:4, Insightful)
It's Vanguard Investments, in case anyone's wondering.
Another reason. (Score:5, Informative)
Online gambling has been banned in the US for years by the same laws that made it illegal to wager over the phone. So there were never any domestic online gambling companies, because the US would just arrest the people running them for violating existing law.
But, the US couldn't get at people who ran online gambling companies outside the country, and while the US could have technically prosecuted individual gamblers for gambling online, that would hardly be practical. So instead, the US recently made it illegal for US banks and credit card companies to process payments to online gambling companies, effectively preventing US citizens from gambling online since it's now much harder to get your money to the gambling site.
The trick here is that the law only applies to certain kinds of online gambling, specifically, the kind of online gambling common in casinos, as it was mainly the casinos pushing for this legislation (under the guise of 'gambling is evil!'). So, the US had a situation in which certain domestic companies could engage in gambling as a trade, but certain international companies could not - and that's the basis of the WTO dispute.
The US actually has a very similar construct with regard to free trade amongst the 50 US states - it isn't legal for any state to have laws which favor domestic commerce over commerce from parties in other states. For example, in a recent ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that banned companies from directly shipping alcoholic beverages to customers from out of state while allowing domestic producers to do so. Supreme Court said you had to either ban all mail-order alcohol sales or none.
And that's what the WTO is saying. The US is free to ban gambling, so long as they ban ALL gambling, not just gambling done by companies outside the country. And the US would be free to tax gambling, so long as it taxes ALL gambling. So the problem isn't that the US isn't getting a piece - they could allow gambling and tax it and get a piece. The problem is that because of the existing ban on online wagering that pit US casinos against non-US online gaming sites, the US companies were losing business to the non-US companies, so the US banned gambling at the non-US companies, which is exactly the kind of practice the free trade pacts and the WTO are supposed to prevent.
Re:I am confussed (Score:5, Interesting)
It was widely expected to fail, but then Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill.
Looking at his lifetime donors [opensecrets.org], it doesn't appear to have been for a traditional special interest group. Instead, I think it was just a failing congressman, trying to appeal to the fascist evangelicals, who wish to legislate their morality on the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of fucked-up system allows this to happen?
Seriously.
Re:I am confussed (Score:5, Informative)
It's not even the worst example of this kind of behavior. I think that is saved for the conference committee trick. If you're not aware, that is where the House and the Senate pass slightly different versions of a bill, and then a "conference committee" resolves the differences in the bill. But sometimes instead of just resolving a difference, they'll add in new language, or completely change the meaning of the laws that were just passed, thus neatly overriding the intent of the legislature.
Government is a hell of a scam.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The system the US Congress has had since approximately forever. In committee, amendments may be proposed and the bill will be changed if the amendment passes. The same when it comes to a vote before the whole chamber. There is no rule that the amendment have anything whatsoever to the original bill. Getting what you want passed by getting it attached to a must-pass bill is a favorite tactic.
Chris Mattern
A Beautiful Thing Coming (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Office of Foreign Asset Control, the entity which enforces the embargo against Cuba, has promulgated regulations (at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) that "prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States
if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located
Re: (Score:2)
You are not under US jurisdiction while in cuba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is no. The Regulations prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you will be when you come back.
From OFAC: Important Changes Effective June 30, 2004
Rules for family travel have changed. There is no longer a general license for travel to Cuba for family visitation. All family travel now requires a specific license from OFAC issued on or after June 30, 2004. Specific licenses for family travel issued by OFAC before that date are no longer valid. Specific licenses are granted only once every three years and allow visitation of immediate family only (parents, s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming (Score:4, Insightful)
There was a time when this was at least mostly true. But now it is entirely possible for anyone to create high-quality music, photography, and (almost, we're still working on this one) movies with digital tools, and to distribute this art, along with their novels, short stories, poetry, theatrical scripts, and just about anything else you can think of, over the internet for little to nothing.
Why do you think we still need the middle-men (publishers, record companies, etc)?
Re: (Score:2)
would be interesting, no less.
You mean like Britney? (Score:2)
Yeh, those overpaid "artists" might have to actually earn a proper wage for a change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming (Score:5, Funny)
MOD PARENT UP -- Insightful (Score:2)
Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I would argue (am arguing) that the drive to create is separate from the drive for money. There would still be artists if creating art was punishable by death, it has nothing to do with making money.
The connection between creating art and becoming rich and famous was propagated by the middle men who looked at artists and said, "You know, I could really make a killing by distributing this." That is capitalism.
Now that we are in the "Digital Age" and distribution can be widespread and done by anyone, the middle-men are threatened and are reacting, sometimes by adapting to the new technology [baen.com], sometimes by suing everyone in sight [blogspot.com].
The ideal solution would be to find a way to reward artists, without restricting the distribution of art. That is the goal, remember? [njit.edu]
No way... (Score:2)
No freaking way is Congress going to abandon all US copyrights over online poker. But if it did happen, which it won't, that would certainly put the lie to all of your paranoid raving about the M$AA controlling the government, no?
Re: (Score:2)
But whatever the outcome of this case, I think it's a very reasonable proposition that those organizations wield an extensive and disproportionate influence over US policy, often against the best interests of the public at large.
Re: (Score:2)
No freaking way is Congress going to abandon all US copyrights over online poker. But if it did happen, which it won't, that would certainly put the lie to all of your paranoid raving about the M$AA controlling the government, no?
OK. So either I get cheap-ass bootleg media, or legal online poker. Awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hell yes (Score:5, Funny)
MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:2)
May Be Allowed? I think not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:May Be Allowed? I think not... (Score:5, Informative)
And we care...why? (Score:5, Funny)
Leela: "The United States is part of the world."
Fry: "Wow, I have been gone a long time."
Thankfully, that is a transcript from the future, and America is not yet part of this "world" of which the UN speaks of
Burden of the Remedy (Score:2)
This is setting a bad precedent. Such remedies should be designed so as to place the burden on the groups found to be violating laws or regulations to the greatest extent possible. Searching for the deepest pockets isn't justice.
Re: (Score:2)
So, take it out of the salary of the Congress and the President?
Re: (Score:2)
What do the hope to win? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Watch the Blackhole! (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, this won't much stop satellite to the EU but smuggling is a serious offense and the US could easily put anyone involved in "facilitation" on watchlists (arrest on sight).
WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate. (Score:2)
Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate. (Score:5, Informative)
People flock in huge numbers to Florida, Mexico, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc. Why would they not go to Cuba if the choice were available, and the price was right?
I think you meant to say "Americans flock in huge numbers to ...".
And that my friend is why Cuba is such a popular destination for the rest of the world. No flocks of Americans.
AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay (Score:2)
True, but if Antigua sets up the equivalent of allofmp3.com and ThePirateBay, with legitamate sounding names, is the real "Public Opinion" going
Re: (Score:2)
By 'allowing to violate copyright' does that give them carte blanche to distribute said content outside their borders?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay (Score:4, Funny)
correction (Score:2, Insightful)
China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In short, China has much more financial clout to bully the US with than most any other nation. I just wish they'd stop talking out of their asses and start selling those US
Does this give them the right to export? (Score:4, Interesting)
The WTO and Health and Safety Standards (Score:5, Informative)
The more important question is why does Antigua respect American copyrights at all? Well, because they gain from respecting them. It's part of free and fair trade. You aren't just allowed to take something from someone. Along the same lines, you aren't allowed to bar someone from importing goods or providing services to your citizens unless they is a defendable reason - such as an authentic health and safety standard.
The WTO is the body that makes sure everyone plays by the rules. It is a voluntary association and people can leave it - and then make whatever laws they want. So, Antigua can leave the WTO and violate copyrights as much as they want - the problem is that WTO countries then can't/won't trade with them and so they loose a lot more than they would gain.
In this case, the United States would have to prove that online gambling is sufficiently worse and different from traditional gambling (which is legal in the US) - a reason why traditional gambling doesn't pose a threat to their population, but that online gambling does. Antigua needs to prove that the US regulations on online gambling don't actually protect the American people, but are rather meant to give American companies the advantage over Antiguan companies.
This isn't some weird global government looking to get rid of sovereignty. This is about using logic to determine when rules are meant to be discriminatory based on national origin and when something is a genuine health or safety standard. The US can make the argument that online gambling becomes too accessible and is therefore a much greater danger than traditional gambling. Antigua can argue that it's the same thing that happens at casinos. A court will decide which arguments hold weight based on evidence.
Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards (Score:5, Funny)
What are the odds? (Score:4, Funny)
What does poker have to do with it? (Score:2)
Do you know someone that would play an online slot machine hoping for a big jackpot? I certainly do - I live with someone that would. She has friend
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We have been under WTO sanctions before. As recently as 2004, trade partners sought WTO relief bec
I don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
If the issue were that gambling were allowed in the US by US companies and French companies but not by any other nation, that would be a big deal. But it seems to me that the US wants to exclude all its citizens from online gambling with all nations.
Or is the US allowing people in other nations to gamble at Los Vegas online, but not its own citizens? I don't know all the details.
If I can't sell to Peter, I'll rob from Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US, gambling on overseas casino websites is banned while certain domestic gambling websites (OTB, online lottery tickets) are allowed to operate. Antigua, where online casinos thrive, argues that the US policy is harming their trade. The WTO rules that the US must either all ow all forms of online gambling or ban all forms of online gambling.
Should the US disregard the WTO ruling and not allow US citizens to use overseas casino websites, Antigua would be granted the following as compensation: "permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others."
Isn't that like saying "Well, if I'm not allowed to sell to Peter, I'll steal from Paul to compensate!"? (Overlook the whole copyright-violation-isn't-stealing issue on this, and grab hold of the concept of stealing from an unrelated party as compensation.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Allowed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Other than being completely wrong though, you have a point.
Re:Allowed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Allowed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Allowed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Allowed? (Score:5, Interesting)
No kidding. It might be amusing to watch anti-war Hollywood suddenly discover that, while war is always wrong, a "narrow" use of the US military is sometimes necessary for the greater good.
Re:Allowed? (Score:4, Funny)
On the plus side, with this sort of motivation behind Hollywood they might turn out to be good movies.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on your definition of hard. People have fought over sugar, weed and other happy substances. I guess DVDs could also be on the list. It better be a good movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Allowed? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Allowed? (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, all those Al Queda terrorists that are using off-shore gambling in Antigua to launder their death money might provide the Whitehouse Junta plenty of ammo to freeze Antigua's assets that are in or pass through US banking.
Re:Allowed? (Score:5, Funny)
My god, man, we're talking about pirates here! High seas battles, raped women and children, missing gold, plunder at the bottom of the sea, "arg matey" and worse!
Those cretins are almost as bad as terrorists.
Unless you want to have your next sailing trip interrupted by these cannon-toting freaks, you'd better support a war!
Re:Allowed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Allowed? (Score:4, Funny)
Of course you can't see them, they're Ninjas!!!
Re:it better (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, what they are complaining about is that the US is blocking commercial transactions with Antiguan businesses that would be legal if the were businesses physically located inside the US. The WTO says that's a big no-no.
The US has claimed the moral exemption allowed by the WTO - That the morals of the US do not permit online gambling. However, as Antigua pointed out, the US does permit online gambling - OTB on dog & horse racing is legal interstate, and most forms of gambling are legal intrastate - in those states which have legalized gambling of any nature.
The WTO courts have rightly held that you can't claim a moral exemption for international activities, when it is permitted within your country. Either online gambling is morally offensive to the US & it's not to be allowed at all or it's not and the US has to open up the practice to everyone. The US doesn't get to pick & choose which types of gambling are offensive - it's either morally offensive or it's not.
As a case directly on point, it is currently perfectly legal to place a bet on the Kentucky Derby through the OTB website, it is however illegal to place the same bet on the same Kentucky Derby race through an Antiguan online site. This is why the US lost the case, they were claiming that the an action was morally repugnant to the US when done with an Antiguan business, but perfectly acceptable when done through a US based one.
Personally, I think you would have seen a bigger stink if they had gone for patents instead of copyright. The cries of anguish by the US pharmaceutical companies alone should be clearly audible on Antiguan beaches.
As it is, I would like to put in my request for a legal copy of Antiguan Vistas(tm) to run on my computer - just so I can smack the next BSA person I see with it. "Why yes, it is a perfect copy of Windows Vista - without all the DRM crap & calling home. OOh look here, I see that the source code has been released by the Antiguan Software Coalition."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And this is consistent with international politics how? It's either repugnant, or it's not. "You can old do it if you are this company or in this city or on this 'special' plot of land." Doesn't exactly count with most people - whether they support gambling or not. Those who are against like the status quo because it prevents the "spread of corruption", those who are for it like it because it's a safe-heaven/money pot. But
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (in WTO), article 22.3 [wto.org]:
In considering what concessions or other obligations to suspend, the complaining party shall apply the following principles and procedures:
(a) the general principle is that the complaining party should first seek to suspend concessions