Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy United States Your Rights Online

WTO Approves Suspension of US Copyright in Antigua 225

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the wto-only-applies-to-other-people dept.
hydrofix writes "On Thursday TorrentFreak broke the story (verified by BBC) that the government of Antigua and Barbuda, a tiny island nation on the Caribbean, was planning to launch a legal 'pirate' website selling movies, music and software without paying a penny to U.S. copyright holders. Now, the World Trade Organization has given its final approval for the Antigua government to launch the website. The decision follows from long-running trade dispute between the countries, related to online gambling, which was ruled in Antigua's favor in 2005. After the United States refused to compensate, the WTO granted Antigua the right to 'suspend' U.S. copyrights for up to $21 million annually." From the article: "The Antiguan government further reiterated today that the term 'piracy' doesn’t apply in this situation, as they are fully authorized to suspend U.S. copyrights. It is a legal remedy that was approved by all WTO members, including the United States."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WTO Approves Suspension of US Copyright in Antigua

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:10AM (#42724803)
    What the hell? They had an opportunity to ask for something valuable and instead asked for all the crap put out by Hollywood? Why not just ask for a few beads on a string?
    • by BeeRockxs (782462)
      Hollywood? Note that it's about movies, music and software. Not just movies.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:32AM (#42724959)

        Can they violate GPL for American written software?

        • It operates off copyright, so one would assume that they can.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          For products falling fully under US copyright like VirtualBox: sure. Same for GNU projects.
          For a lot of other GPL software a large to a majority of the contributors are from Europe and retain their copyright, and those could sue.
          I guess we have a wholly new reason to be against mandatory copyright assignment...

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            No one will play this game. The only people looking to violate the GPL for profit are companies that want to resell the code as their own. They will not open the door to the "I bought this in Antigua, so it's mine to distribute as I please" defense due to the ruinous affect this would have when turned back upon them.

            So, if you were worried that Windows 9 would be Gnome 3, rest assured, it won't be that good.

            • by whitroth (9367)

              I'm *so* glad I didn't read this with something in my mouth - I'd have sprayed it all over my monitor.

              That's deeply ill....

                            mark, passing it along

    • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @11:07AM (#42726003) Homepage

      What the hell? They had an opportunity to ask for something valuable and instead asked for all the crap put out by Hollywood? Why not just ask for a few beads on a string?

      It's not a case of asking. They're taking what they are owed because the US is refusing to compensate them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The trouble here is that the U.S. is refusing to compensate them for money lost on gambling, but the money is lost because Americans can't really gamble online anymore: to the extent that they are able, the U.S. government has effectively banned internet gambling. While this is an incredibly stupid bit of policy -- taking loose money from websites run by American companies you can control and tax and shunting it all to websites run by people you can't tax who don't care about U.S. law -- it's basically an i

        • the U.S. government has effectively banned internet gambling...[snip]... it's basically an internal U.S. matter.

          No, if the US banned online gambling outright there would not be a problem. The problem is they allow US companies to run gambling sites but will not allow companies from other nations to compete under the same laws (such as paying tax). The other member countries are also obliged to allow US companies to offer gambling in their country under the same regulatory regime as their local companies.

          Disadvantaging overseas competition is called "protectionism", it gives domestic companies an "unfair" advantage

    • by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @12:21PM (#42727141)

      They had an opportunity to ask for something valuable and instead asked for all the crap put out by Hollywood?

      It is actually quite smart. Their goal is to apply pressure on American politicians to abide by trade rules. Hollywood is very politically connected. The studios are big political donors, and they already have lots of lobbyists on K Street. If Hollywood squeals, Washington listens.

  • RIAA maths (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:11AM (#42724807)

    A limit of $21 million per year? What's that 3, 3 1/2 songs? Best get in there quick if you want to buy this year!

    • Well since the companies will charge you the same for a replacement copy as for something new, I guess the value of the copyright itself is about 0. So that's an infinite number of copies.

    • Re:RIAA maths (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:03AM (#42725219)

      This could be potentially very exciting in terms of orphaned works and works that are in danger of vanishing. That little nation could become the centre of the world's first truly global data archive.

    • by MajroMax (112652)
      Speaking seriously, it's unlikely that the math here involves the same kind of statutory damages that arise from copyright violations in the US. Statutory damages are the result of the $500/share/song fees, and those are allowed specifically by law as a penalty. Since this set of copyright-suspensions is fully legal, US law would doubly-not-apply on the matter. At best, this might be calculated based on retail price.
      • $500? You wish!

        Copyright statutory damages are in the range of $750 to $30,000 per work (not per infringement), with the lower limit reducible with great difficulty to $200, and the upper limit increasible quite easily to $150,000.

    • by DickBreath (207180) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @03:12PM (#42729799) Homepage
      Under Hollywood Accounting rules, Antigua would need to set up a store that sells Imaginary Property (IP). Then they would need to set up several other organizations that bill the store various "fees".

      Under Hollywood Accounting rules, this is perfectly acceptable. The US should not complain.

      Until the store eventually turns a profit, that $21 Million that Antigua is owed cannot be repaid.

      I hope those "fees" won't get too high. I mean, it could take Billions and Billions of dollars in sales in order to eventually turn $21 Million in profit.

      Heck, the Star Wars movies from the 1970's still are not profitable!. So poor Antigua may never get the $21 Million that the WTO says it is owed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:13AM (#42724823)

    The GPL and friends rely on copyright to function correctly. Can I get someone in Antigua to send me a copy of Linux (or whatever) unencumbered by the GPL for me to start a proprietary fork?

    • You can already start a proprietary fork, you just have to give the open source elements away. OK, yes, you can breach this if you want, but it doesn't stop people getting the open source elements, they're still out there, so you just look like a bit of a dick instead. (Not having a go, just playing along with your proposal)
    • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:29AM (#42724935)

      The ruling doesn't suspend everyone's obligations with regard to the copyrights involved, just Antigua's - while the copy sent to you may be unencmbered by a license, that doesn't mean you gain any rights to redistribution.

      • by Gaygirlie (1657131) <gaygirlieNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:55AM (#42725133) Homepage

        But alas, what does happen if you give an Antiguan a copy of something, then the person removes original copyright notices and replaces them with his/her own and distributes that copy to you? It's not anymore the original one, the copyright was stripped from it, you are not in the legal position to determine who the copyright really belongs to, and it could even be considered a derivative work -- does the suspension of copyright allow for a loophole that basically strips copyrights from an existing item and assigns a new one?

        • by Lehk228 (705449)
          the copyright still exists on the work, the ruling allows antigua to disregard the copyright and distribute the work. whoever recieves it cannot make more copies unless they want to be in violation of copyright law.
    • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:29AM (#42725541) Journal

      Can I get someone in Antigua to send me a copy of Linux (or whatever) unencumbered by the GPL for me to start a proprietary fork?

      Unlikely. Linux has contributions from around the world, and the copyright on those certainly has not been suspended.

      • by DrXym (126579)
        Seems like you've just described an easy workaround for US copyright holders - release movies and music with copyright from any other country but the US.
        • by jedidiah (1196)

          Given the nature of the modern global conglomerate, this may already be the case. Once you bother to look at the situation, you may find that there are fewer American parent companies to take advantage of here.

    • by Alioth (221270)

      Linux isn't American. The WTO didn't rule you could override the copyrights of non-Americans, and at least one major copyright holder is Finnish. At least one other is Welsh.

      • and at least one major copyright holder is Finnish.

        Not anymore. Linus became an American citizen in 2010.

  • Karma is a.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sprouticus (1503545) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:13AM (#42724827)

    This is what happens when you try to strong arm countries and, then, when the ruling goes against you, you ignore it.

    B&A is going to make $21 million really fast. The question is who sets the prices....

    • Re:Karma is a.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by SJHillman (1966756) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:25AM (#42724917)

      Note that the summary even mentions the US, as part of the WTO, approved the ruling.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Note that the summary even mentions the US, as part of the WTO, approved the ruling.

        Wrong. The summary says that the US approved an agreement that allows rulings like this under certain circumstances.

        The US no more approved this ruling than the Senator from Arizona approved immigration reform -- which they just did contingent on securing the southern border. In neither case will they ever agree that the agreed-to condition has ever been satisfied.

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      My understanding is that no one sets prices : Antigua has to use these copyrights to get $21 millions. If they do so by selling album and DVDs for 1 cent per download, it is fair.
  • Bully tactics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sorensenbill (1931240) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:15AM (#42724845)
    As a US Citizen I'm glad to see them stand up to our government's bully tactics. I hope they follow through and set an example for other countries currently getting strong armed. I think it's pretty funny they knew where to hit the politicians where it hurts, a gut shot to the copyright lobby. I really hate the way this fuels international perception of Americans, our government may feel this way but I'd say it has more to do with campaign money than actually representing the collective public interest.
    • Re:Bully tactics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DarkOx (621550) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:23AM (#42724901) Journal

      I think its also a cautionary tale about these world governing bodies and making treaties. Our earliest founders warned us about getting into international entanglements. This is clear example of how these things don't always come out as planned. We might be strong arming China one week, but might have some rulings like these go against our interests another, and it makes us look like real ass hats when we try and argue these international bodies should be abide by one moment and than ignore them the next.

      • by SirGarlon (845873)
        I guess the conventional thinking is to just do what every other country does: advocate a double standard where we don't expect to be held accountable for breaking the agreement, but insist that other countries be held accountable for breaking theirs. It has worked pretty well for the US since WWII. I, for one, expect more integrity from a government formed by the likes of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. It appears I'm in the minority, and realpolitik is the order of the day.
        • I, for one, expect more integrity from a government formed by the likes of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. It appears I'm in the minority, and realpolitik is the order of the day.

          Hahahaha!

          I don't think you know much about Adams, Washington, or Jefferson. Just like the politicians of today, they had lots of pretty speeches promoting freedom, democracy, freedom from foreign entanglements, and everything else good and great, but what they actually did was far, far from that. And man, you t

          • by SirGarlon (845873)

            I don't think you know much about Adams, Washington, or Jefferson.

            Well, I've read a few books and I know those guys would get their hands dirty, same as always. I don't subscribe to the ancestor worship that makes the founders (small "f") of the republic out to be saints. But if you look at the results of what they did, I think the word "integrity" still fits.

            • I don't want to give them no credit, but it was certainly near-miraculous the US survived and ended up as well-off as we did in many ways in spite of them.

              Things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, imprisoning your media critics, pretty much everything involving Native Americans, and so on and so forth, had very little to do with integrity.

        • I, for one, expect more integrity from a government formed by the likes of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. It appears I'm in the minority, and realpolitik is the order of the day.

          You mean the slave owners that thought that only white male landowners should be able to vote?

          • by SirGarlon (845873)
            Yes, I mean those guys. You're judging eighteenth-century men by twenty-first century standards. I disagree with that but it's a legitimate point of view. I don't criticize Galileo because he was ignorant of (integral) calculus, or Hippocrates because he didn't practice antiseptic surgery. Please don't forget, these men grew up in a society where people defended slavery as vigorously as people defend software patents today, and where women's suffrage was 150 years away. Getting all the white male landowners
      • by hduff (570443) <hoytduff AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:14AM (#42725357) Homepage Journal

        I think its also a cautionary tale about these world governing bodies and making treaties. Our earliest founders warned us about getting into international entanglements. This is clear example of how these things don't always come out as planned. We might be strong arming China one week, but might have some rulings like these go against our interests another, and it makes us look like real ass hats when we try and argue these international bodies should be abide by one moment and than ignore them the next.

        Yeah, it sucks when you must follow rules you agreed to, especially hwne you intended to use thoe rules to strong-arm others.

      • Not really. If it wasn't for treaties, Antigua could be doing whatever the hell it liked. No $21M limit or anything else. It could also impose a 100% tariff on imported US goods, as another example, or require people leaving Antigua to go to the US give up any dollar bills they have in their possession.

        The treaty results in the US being objectively better off than it would be otherwise. The WTO creates a framework where limits are set as far as tit-for-tat punishments go.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        but might have some rulings like these go against our interests another, and it makes us look like real ass hats when we try and argue these international bodies should be abide by one moment and than ignore them the next

        And that's kind of the problem, the US wants to have their cake and eat it too.

        They insist on free trade, but then they want to be sure to have an advantage. They want keep their own farm subsidies, but penalize anybody else who does it. They want other countries to open up their markets

  • $0.01/year for a subscription to a BitTorrent tracker with seeding from Antiguan servers. Might as well make that $27m go as far as possible.

  • WTO is Full of.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Big Hairy Ian (1155547) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:20AM (#42724867)
    So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

    Btw I don't like copywright but this is just wrong

    • by Splab (574204) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:28AM (#42724929)

      No, it's absolutely how it should be.

      The U.S wont respect the agreements, then Antigua doesn't have to either. Just like any other trade sanction being used around the world - you go for where it hurts to make the big guy play ball.

    • by DarkOx (621550) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:33AM (#42724971) Journal

      The WTO is not looking at is a one business though they are looking at as economies. Its not like they have an army to go pacify a nation state that is not following the rules it agreed to abide by. This type of action is the only way they have to apply pressure. It make perfect sense to me; piss off an industry with a powerful domestic lobby and hope they lean on their government to fix the situation and yesterday.

      Personally I hope the outcome is that our government does a re-think on being part of the WTO in the first place; that would be the best outcome for us citizens. That naturally is a pipe dream. We should negotiate trade agreements individually on a nation by nation basis (there is only about 400 after all our government is already BIG enough to read everyone e-mail so that should not be an issue). As to places like Antigua doing things like this or China for that matter well we either consider infringement on what we feel is our property a serious enough matter that its an act of war or we don't. I would seriously hope the answer to that is we don't but its a democracy let the people decided not some international body.

      • by Sique (173459) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:44AM (#42725041) Homepage

        We should negotiate trade agreements individually on a nation by nation basis (there is only about 400 after all our government is already BIG enough to read everyone e-mail so that should not be an issue).

        You know what then will happen? All the other nations will form a common body for the sake of negotiations with the U.S., and the U.S. will be forced to sign the same treaty with everyone. You get the WTO again, but without the leverage of being a member.

      • by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:46AM (#42725053) Homepage

        I hope the outcome is that our government does a re-think on being part of the WTO in the first place

        Careful for what you wish for; the outcomes might not be what you expect. For example, it would also mean that the rest of the world would feel no need at all to enforce copyrights held under US law, including on a lot of Free Software, or at least not until the negotiation of a whole new set of bipartite treaties.

        I wonder whether it would be legal now (if not necessarily moral) for an Antiguan citizen to do derivative works of software where the copyright holder is the FSF and change the license to a different one (e.g., a BSD variant)...

        • by vux984 (928602)

          I wonder whether it would be legal now (if not necessarily moral) for an Antiguan citizen to do derivative works of software where the copyright holder is the FSF and change the license to a different one (e.g., a BSD variant)...

          Sure, but so what? It would only be "valid" in Antigua. As soon as it's 'exported' (uploaded) back to the mainland it will still be recognized as blatant copyright infringement.

        • by steelfood (895457)

          A lot free software is written collaboratively. That means that the copyright is held not by one individual, but by multiple ones. And the thing about free software is that the individuals holding the copyright may not be in the U.S. Hence a violation of free software copyrights would be a potential violation of that other country's copyright laws.

          Yes, they can pull the pieces of code written by U.S. contributors only and redistribute that. But to be honest, I don't think that's worth the effort. There are

      • by hduff (570443)

        The WTO is not looking at is a one business though they are looking at as economies. Its not like they have an army to go pacify a nation state that is not following the rules it agreed to abide by.

        Cue US military invasion of Antigua in 3 . . . 2 . . .

    • by nedlohs (1335013) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:02AM (#42725203)

      That's how it always works. Restricting it to the same business won't work because usually there isn't a significant "same business".

      You put a tariff on importing their televisions, so they put a tariff on importing your wheat.

      The WTO was supposed to put a stop to that, but of course the only real enforcement mechanism it has is that very thing. "Hey the rules say you can't do that. Since you won't stop we'll let the other guy do this other thing that is also supposed to be against the rules".

    • Well the US government discriminated against one business in favor of another. I guess they can now tax the casinos some more and use that money to compensate the copyright holders.

    • by Clsid (564627) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:16AM (#42725389)

      Well, nobody forces you to sign those agreements. But if you want to get into the game, better play by the rules. So much for all the talk of free trade in the US.

    • by JDG1980 (2438906) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:42AM (#42725729)

      So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

      This is nothing new. Google "chicken tax" – back in 1963, there was a trade war between the US and various European nations over tariffs they put on imported chicken. In retaliation, the US put a 25% tariff on several unrelated goods – including, most importantly, light trucks. Even though the original issues were resolved long ago, the 25% tariff on fully-assembled light trucks remains, which means that foreign manufacturers usually either build their truck plants inside the US or import the trucks in "complete knock down" form and assemble them in the US.

      Anyway, remember that copyright is purely a legal construct – it's not part of customary international law, it's just a deal that the governments agreed to. If there were no treaties in the first place, Antigua would be perfectly within their rights to say that they would not have any copyright or patent laws at all.

      • by compro01 (777531)

        Even though the original issues were resolved long ago, the 25% tariff on fully-assembled light trucks remains, which means that foreign manufacturers usually either build their truck plants inside the US or import the trucks in "complete knock down" form and assemble them in the US.

        Or import "passenger vehicles" that coincidentally look just like light trucks with some easily removable extra seats bolted on.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

      Welcome to the world. Tit-for-tat trade taxes have been the default norm since well, forever. The thing is, you always target the other country's biggest export. For the US, it's culture (the technical definition - books, movies, music, etc., and not whether or not the US material is "cultured"). Basical

      • However, isn't the $21M supposed to be the profit limit that Antigua can make per year from this? Presumably, Antigua could sell films/books/software for a very small price (especially as they're not going to have to re-imburse the US copyright holders) and it could cost the US a lot more than $21M in "lost" sales.
    • So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

      Like pretty much all of international law (except the fairly narrow domain of international criminal law regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity as embodied in various ad hoc war crimes tribunals and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), the entities at issue in the WTO are nati

    • by Tom (822)

      Btw I don't like copywright but this is just wrong

      Complain to the US, they broke the rules first.

      You see, this is how a legal and punishment system actually works. If I break your arm, the punishment will be a fine and/or jail time - neither of which have anything to do with broken arms. My wallet didn't do anything to you and neither did my bank account.

      Same thing on the country level. The punishment is not identical to the crime. It's been like that in civilized societies ever since we grew old enough to realize that "an eye for an eye", even though it m

  • by BSAtHome (455370) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:26AM (#42724921)

    Lets see if they use a domain registrar that has US roots/ties and then the DHS will seize the domain name of the site(s).

    • I honestly believe that if that occurs the US would lose the root DNS servers for good. Which is not a horrible thing IMO.

      • by DarkOx (621550) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:49AM (#42725079) Journal

        I don't know that is tough one. Nobody can really force us to give up control of the root zones and the last time it was tried it was pretty unpopular.

        I really doubt our government would be inclined to yield control over an incident like this. For lots of technical reasons you could not very will mix root servers in your hints; if those root servers have a different idea of truth. You would get instability and chaos.

        If some international group or other country stand up its own root servers you will have chaos as well. Which DNS do you use? What domain registrations are valid where. What happens when I try to mail someone in another country does it go to the person I am expecting or someone else who happens to have the same domain on my DNS?

        We'd have to go back to bang paths.

    • by mug funky (910186)

      nah, they'll use good ol fashioned drone strikes.

  • Is it legal to buy? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:30AM (#42724943)

    Whilst it may be legal for them to sell $21million worth of copyright content, is it legal to import that content, be it via download or otherwise?

    This is the whole grey market import thing ...

    As to "what makes up $21million", that depends on their sticker prices, not court payments.

    They're allowed to sell $21million worth of material, so at $20/movie (for example), that's 1,000,000 movies.
    Or at $2/song, that's ~10,000,000 iTunes tracks.

    Presumably the MPAA/RIAA could garner up a few people and spend $21million "overnight", sacrificing 1 day of sales to mean that the other 364 days of the year would not be free of copyright. But that's tin foil hat stuff and requires that the long term gain be more than the short term loss and for the *AA to recognise that.

    • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:51AM (#42725103) Homepage

      Import legality won't really be a big issue, because Antigua would be able to determine the import laws. The United States could limit exports, but the United States has already agreed to this plan on the WTO side, and the US has enough enemies that may be willing to act as intermediaries. For the paltry sum of $21 million/year, I doubt anyone will really be able to effectively stop this.

      However, note that the $21 million isn't necessarily sales, but rather copyright license fees (or at least that's what I suspect, because none of TFAs are clear on the matter). If the normal fee to the MPAA/RIAA were ten cents per item, Antigua could sell 210 million copies annually. That's a pretty reasonable amount, and does exactly what it's supposed to do: boost Antigua's economy at the United States' expense.

    • by hduff (570443)

      Presumably the MPAA/RIAA could garner up a few people and spend $21million "overnight", sacrificing 1 day of sales to mean that the other 364 days of the year would not be free of copyright. But that's tin foil hat stuff and requires that the long term gain be more than the short term loss and for the *AA to recognise that.

      Or the MPAA/RIAA could just make a phone call, arrange for a wire transfer and be done with it without elaborate and expensive subterfuge. In the bigger picture, $21 million is insignificant.

  • Is that calculated on the basis of MPAA dollars or some currency that is worth something? Like Australian dollars?

    • Not really, no. The old article [torrentfreak.com] was from the 24th, stating that this was probably going to happen, and the new one [torrentfreak.com] is from the 28th, stating that yes, this is actually going to happen as the WTO has approved it. There's a big difference between a small country saying they will take US copyrights at whim and the WTO saying they are allowed to.

  • Antigua Web Proxy

    Enjoy all the benefits of living life like a pirate in a small Caribbean island without all the tradeoffs. Use our free proxy to surf anonymously online, hide your IP address, secure your internet connection, hide your internet history, and protect your online identity.

    Go PRO! for more beneficial features, including ...

    Several IP's for multiple downloads
    Improved security and encryption
    Anonymously encrypt

  • by Grizzley9 (1407005) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:34AM (#42725619)
    What everyones real question is, can I download Hollywood stuff legally from Antigua servers. I don't bittorrent any shows or movies but if it was cheap enough I'd do this (if it was legal).
  • Curiously, do we have a case of our arms fighting against our feet here? Seems if we are going to be anal about the first thing that started this whole mess, we'd also be anal about our punishment and fight it kicking and screaming.

  • Out of print (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GreyWanderingRogue (598058) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:55AM (#42725863)
    Could they sell copies of "Song of the South" or other items that copyright holders in the U.S. refuse to sell?
  • by PortHaven (242123) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @11:17AM (#42726123) Homepage

    You have a long history of "piracy". Embrace it...

  • They are limited to $21 million dollars. So what they should do is offer EVERY song and movie for streaming. And for a pretty basic annual fee (say $100/year or less). But in order to purchase the streaming agreement, you must come to Antigua to subscribe. No online sale..

    So the idea is to increase tourism. Come to our little island, have a vacation, and get the world's cheapest streaming service. But only available for purchase IN Antigua.

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      No. Never mind the streaming. Print physical copies of stuff. Then sell those with the rest of the trinkets all of those islands try to sell you.

      Wives can go to the jewelry shops and husbands can go to the Antiguan version of Virgin Megastore.

  • Easy work-around (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cfulmer (3166) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @12:01PM (#42726827) Homepage Journal

    Affected US companies just need to create foreign subsidiaries and then assign their copyrights over to those subsidiaries. Problem solved. Heck, some of these companies probably already hold their IP offshore.

  • by rossdee (243626) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @12:03PM (#42726857)

    Mark Dayton (Governor of MN) and Democrats in the State House are talking about extending State Sales Tax to i8nclude Digital Downloads.
    I don't think they are going to get much revenue if people in MN just download the digital content from Antigua

  • State sponsored Theft by Exemption. Legal worldwide!
    Question: Does that make it an Empire?

  • What time's the invasion?

    And I assume - just like Grenada - more medals will again be given out than were on D-Day.

HOST SYSTEM NOT RESPONDING, PROBABLY DOWN. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? (Y/N)

Working...