Responding to US Gambling Law, Antigua Set To Launch "Pirate" Site 377
An anonymous reader writes "The Government of Antigua is planning to launch a website selling movies, music and software, without paying U.S. copyright holders. The Caribbean island is taking the unprecedented step because the United States refuses to lift a trade 'blockade' preventing the island from offering Internet gambling services, despite several WTO decisions in Antigua's favor. The country now hopes to recoup some of the lost income through a WTO approved 'warez' site."
disney will object (Score:5, Funny)
if they call the site "Pirates of the Caribbean"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:disney will object (Score:4, Funny)
if they call the site "Pirates of the Caribbean"
Well, if cannibalism were legal and Caribbean were in the EU, they could ask for a Protected Designation of Origin and Disney would be left out in the cold, since they are not in the Caribbean and Antigua is.
Payment processors (Score:5, Interesting)
The United States can't really stop Antigua from running a gambling website.
They can however forbid US payment processors from processing online gambling payments. If that is how they're stopping Antigua now, I can't imagine this warez site will be different. Do you think US payment processors will handle these payments?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but do you think that for an all-you-can-eat direct download netflix-style warez smorgasboard people won't find a way to buy a few bitcoins? :)
Re:Payment processors (Score:5, Interesting)
The USA can definitely block payments from its citizens by enacting an appropriate law. But then there is the rest of the world.
And with it comes a catch. If the US goverment forced e.g. American Express to not process transactions from non-US citizens with Antigua, it might cause those non-US citizens to change to e.g. Master Card or another non-US based payments processor, weakening American Express and thus the US economy.
Of course the U.S. could threaten any payment processor - U.S.-based or not - with sanctions but since Antigua's move seems to be a WTO-approved measure, those sanctions would probably be found illegal again by the WTO allowing further compensations. And soon we are in a full-scale economic war.
All that just because of $21 million yearly revenue loss of the US media industry (which is what the WTO allowed Antigua)?
Re:Payment processors (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure the United Corporations of America really care that much about what the WTO thinks.
Re:Payment processors (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Payment processors (Score:5, Funny)
All that just because of $21 million yearly revenue loss of the US media industry (which is what the WTO allowed Antigua)?
Can the Antiguans set their own prices? Maybe 1000 movies for a penny? That would let them sell 2 trillion downloads. Not a good way to make money, but kind of a funny way to make the Yankee media companies take it in the shorts...
Re:Payment processors (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe 1000 movies for a penny? That would let them sell 2 trillion downloads.
In other news, Market Analysts made note of a number of very large stock buys today by the Antiguan National Retirement Fund (ANRF). The buys seemed largely to target hard drive and blank media manufacturers.
Re:Payment processors (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the U.S. could threaten any payment processor - U.S.-based or not - with sanctions but since Antigua's move seems to be a WTO-approved measure, those sanctions would probably be found illegal again by the WTO allowing further compensations. And soon we are in a full-scale economic war.
That's actually been happening for some time. The dollar has been on a steady decline for years as more governments and business opt for other forms of currency. The US has reacted by taking unilateral action like this -- essentially doing everything they can to strong-arm the financial world into doing things their way or else. This is one of the motivating reasons behind the creation of the EU. It's the same with the internet, and why the UN is fussing over getting power away from the United States: Especially since we're now talking about creating an "internet kill switch" and are deploying cyberwarfare weapons targetting economic infrastructure of other countries. It's nuts out there. It's no surprise the rest of the world is slowly ganging up on the 3000 ton gorilla in the room and saying "Enough is enough."
Many countries' relationships with the US have soured due to economic policy. Most of the middle east, for example. Many countries are rejecting our "intellectual property" non-sense as just another way of maintaining economic superiority... and Antigua just called their bluff. The US now either has to throw the country into the same category as, say, Cuba, which will prompt an even stronger international response, or back off.
I think you know what my vote is: The US would rather implode than admit it was wrong.
Re:Payment processors (Score:5, Informative)
But that's the same situation with the gambling website. Antigua can run a gambling website and the entire rest of the world can frequent it.
Antigua is arguing that they should be able to have a business that caters to US customers with no afford to US law.
I have no moral problem with gambling myself, but I don't see how this will help Antigua's case. They still won't get US money and reselling digital goods that you don't own is just going to cost them the support they currently have from the WTO.
Recheck the last sentence from the summary. Specifically the "WTO-approved" bit.
Since the WTO doesn't have the authority to directly countermand the trade laws of its member nations, the way it deals with nations that defy its rulings is by permitting the injured party to retaliate with its own trade laws. In this case, the WTO ruled in 2007 that Antigua could retaliate against US trademarks and copyrights. So no... Antigua isn't going to suffer any sanction from the WTO for doing this.... in fact, it technically is a WTO sanction against the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it does as the agreement which created the WTO is a treaty and the U.S. is required to treat their treaty obligations as equal to the U.S. Constitution.
Under Article II section 2
We are in violation.
Re:Payment processors (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no moral problem with gambling myself, but I don't see how this will help Antigua's case. They still won't get US money and reselling digital goods that you don't own is just going to cost them the support they currently have from the WTO.
The "ownership" of these digital goods has value only due to the government-bestowed monopoly rights that copyright comes with. The WTO ruled that the government of Antigua was exempt from those monopoly rights, due to violations of the law by the government of the USA. The WTO are the ones telling Antigua that they can do it, that doing it is a remedy for the violations of the USA. Why would the WTO then be upset if Antigua does it? That's how the WTO enforces its rulings when faced with scofflaws.
Re:Payment processors (Score:5, Informative)
You misunderstand. The reason that the WTO sided with Antigua (and allowed Antigua to take the action it is planning) is that the US allows its citizens to gamble. In banning US citizens from gambling on Antigua, the US was not taking a moral stance, but instead was taking an anti-free trade stance.
Re: (Score:2)
They can however forbid US payment processors from processing online gambling payments. If that is how they're stopping Antigua now, I can't imagine this warez site will be different. Do you think US payment processors will handle these payments?
Do you think there's nobody outside the US that buys movies/music/software that are under US copyright protection?
Re: (Score:2)
The Pirate Bay already has that covered.
Re:Payment processors (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually the US government CAN'T stop US Banks from processing legal purchases in other countries. That is the whole point of the violation of WTO treaties. This isn't some Islamic country that has a total blackout on all gambling. The USA legally sanctions all kinds of gambling internally, from rule-bending Indian Casinos, to interstate Powerball, to various sports betting operations. So the USA Federal government is overstepping IT's OWN internal laws to block an international gambling site.
The USA doesn't enforce child labor laws, rights to unions, and many other things that are basic morality here in the USA when "fair trade" is in play to make a few bucks. So the USA has no precedent to pick one arbitrary moral item to ban.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they can, but there are still a few ways to pay which are not completely controlled by the US. And Antigua doesn't have to target customers inside the US. Why not sell stuff to Europeans for 10% of the regular price? I'm sure quite a few people will be willing to buy, giving money to Antigua instead of US companies.
High-tech !? (Score:2)
LOL? Who gives a rat's ass for high-tech in Antigua? I suspect life there is about tourism, boobs and booze!
High-tech to Antigua is like McAfee or Kim Dotcom parking his yacht there!
Re: (Score:3)
And if they did that, the US would invade Antigua on some trumped up reason and just coincidentally the server farms for that DCMA ignoring service would be hit by hellfire missiles. The US has used its military to back up corporate rights many many times in the past, particularly in the Caribbean, I don't think things have changed all that much, just the media spin required...
I Don't Get It (Score:4, Interesting)
The Caribbean island is taking the unprecedented step because the United States refuses to lift a trade "blockade" preventing the island from offering Internet gambling services, despite several WTO decisions in Antigua's favor. The country now hopes to recoup some of the lost income through a WTO approved 'warez' site.
I'm pretty sure Antigua and Barbuda attended and signed the Berne Convention and have joined WIPO [wipo.int]. Furthermore I believe the WTO is fully on board with all that considering their TRIPS agreement [wto.org]. So how in the hell is there such a thing as "a WTO approved 'warez' site" and how on Earth does Antigua think the WIPO is going to view this?
Note: I'm not saying what they're doing is wrong or right, I'm just asking how they are doing it given their history. I mean, sure, this stuff happens all over China but the government pays all the copyright holders lip service about how they're cracking down on it. If the Chinese government profits from it, they don't do so flagrantly like this appears to.
Re: (Score:2)
None of those agreements restrict the country from setting allowed prices or default licence. Your free not to sell it in there country but once you do your bound by the local laws.
Re:I Don't Get It (Score:5, Informative)
According to the WTO, the agreement the US signed, the aggrieved party can extract restitution in the form of selling the offending parties IP. It is all there in the treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the WTO is levying a penalty against the US for ignoring WTO rulings by allowing Antigua to suspend up to $21 million in US copyrights per year.
Re:I Don't Get It (Score:5, Informative)
If you break a treaty with a foreign country, you have no reason to expect that country to respect other treaties you have with them. Since the WTO can't put the US in jail, it has to work with the tools it has.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, there sounds like a lot of bullshit in this...
"“What was once a multi-billion dollar industry in our country, employing almost 5% of our population has now shrunk to virtually nothing,” Antigua’s High Commissioner to London, Carl Roberts, said previously."
So, 5% of their population was in a "multi-billion dollar industry, when they have an estimated labor force of 30,000 and a total GDP of $1.6B. Riiiighht. So, where was that extra few billion in the GDP reports? http://research. [stlouisfed.org]
Request to retaliate (Score:3)
One of the things the WTO does when a country is found to violate WTO rules on tariffs, and where other methods of resolving the violation have not proven fruitf
Re:I Don't Get It (Score:5, Interesting)
They're doing it flagrantly because it's explicitly tit-for-tat. It's their way of pointedly asking "Do we have rules or not?"
Let's say you and I are sociopathic assholes, so whereas most people might have some kind of implicit social contract, and a sense of how people should act decently to one another, we're jerks and write up and agree to some formal rules. Among these rules are things like "Neither party will ever hit the other in the head with a hammer and then steal their wallet while the victim is incapacitated." Call that the WIPO rule.
We have another rule too. It's "Neither party will ever vandalize the other's car." Call that the WTO rule.
Then I go and vandalize your car, totally in violation of the rules. I don't deny it, either. Instead, I explain I had good reasons to do it. "I really wanted to vandalize your car, and it looked so vulnerable. I just couldn't help it!" but whether I had a good reason or not, you claim I broke our agreement. You might not feel all that hurt about the car, but breaking the agreement .. oh dear. We're sociopaths, but we're not uncivilized, are we?
After my amazing explanation for why I did it, you ask me: "Are you going to do it again?" and I answer "Yeah, probably. Your car still does look pretty vandalizable, and I really like vandalizing cars." You answer "What about our agreement?" and I just shrug. You ask, "Are our agreements important?" and I shrug again!!
You go see our mutual acquaintances, perhaps some people with whom I also have some agreements. They're a little concerned to hear I value our agreements so little. Will their cars be next? They think it over and say, "Yeah, Sloppy broke his agreement to not vandalize your car. You should get even."
So you do. You hit me in the head with a hammer and I wake up without a wallet. You do it openly, too. Our acquaintances nod with approval, even though you're breaking the agreement now. I ask, "How can you do that?!?"
You explain: if I think the rules are so important, and I have such a problem with being hit with hammers, THEN MAYBE I SHOULD STOP FUCKING AROUND WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S CARS.
I don't know what I'll do. I still really do like vandalizing cars. I'd like to vandalize your car again, and that other dude with whom I have a no-vandalize agreement. But I'm not sure I like this hammers development. OTOH, I don't know, maybe it's worth it. The hammers hurt and I don't like losing my wallet all the time, but the cars! Oh, the cars! That's so much fun.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing new. (Score:3, Insightful)
The US imposes its economic interests and cultural values on other sovereign nations every day.
The US has de facto jurisdiction almost everywhere on this planet, and there's nothing we can do about it as we don't get a vote, we're not Americans, we're just backward savages who don't understand what democracy and freedom means.
We are allowed to elect our leaders, as long as they are friendly to US interests. As a result we a free to be exploited by the US government and US based corporations in the guise of 'free trade', which in practice means the US government and certain corporations are free to acquire the natural assets of the client states ensuring the local population never sees the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you meant to say 'we0re just going to take your shiny things and go home'.
Business plan? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they going to be charging for these downloads? Or are they going to be making their money through ads, the way MegaUpload did?
Re:Business plan? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope their logo will be (Score:2)
a middle finger pointing at like the outline of the United States.
Did you pay for that? (Score:5, Funny)
Or did Jamaica copy of it?
Old pirates, yes, they rob I;
Put my music on computer chips,
Minutes after it came out
Dey had da dvd rips.
But my encryption was made strong
And de tracker updated nightly.
We download in this generation
Triumphantly.
Emancipate yourselves from license slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for music industry,
'Cause none of them can stop the files.
How long shall they make their profits,
While we stand aside and look? Ooh!
We need movies and songs and games
Don't forget e-books
Doesnt surpise me (Score:2, Interesting)
As a former resident of another Caribbean nation, this isn't very surprising outside the fact the government is directly involved.
Where I lived, there was the government "Ministry of Intellectual Property & Copyright" or something very similar, yet opposite the building was a street seller with counterfeit DVD's and CD's for sale.
The fact is in these countries, you pretty much can't buy music or movies legitimately that are otherwise available internationally. There's not enough market to make it worth
Kim Dotcom's new location (Score:2)
The USA representative does not understand the law (Score:2, Insightful)
either deliberately misleading or is just plain stupid by saying that IP violation is theft. It is not. Theft is a criminal offense, IP violation is a civil one.
Re: (Score:3)
furthermore it's not even a violation... it's the contract - according to the wto treaty.
when repo guys come over, it's not theft or violation.
Re:The USA representative does not understand the (Score:4, Insightful)
Never mind that old "piracy is not theft" bit. The really funny part is the "government-authorized piracy" line - that sounds like the very definition of copyright in the first place since copyright is purely a government created exception to the natural right to freedom of expression.
Time for US to assist with democratic reform (Score:5, Funny)
Tom Lehrer said it (Score:5, Funny)
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.
Antigua is being taken for a ride. (Score:3)
Antigua is being taken for a ride just like they were by Stanford. They are following the stupid advice of this lawyer and paying him millions and in then end it's going to do nothing but cost them more.
Out here in the real world it doesn't matter than the WTO allowed this. The fact is that the US can take sovereign action against Antigua even if it violates WTO rules. Antigua only recourse is another WTO hearing and sanction at which point the US enacts more measures.
In the end Antigua will suffer more than they can inflict damage. It would be trivial for the US to bar all US citizens from spending money in Antigua and overnight their economy would collapse as nearly 90% of their tourism is from Americans.
They are being taken in by another Sanford and he'll make millions and sell them down the river.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Antigua is being taken for a ride. (Score:5, Interesting)
The US government can ban all travel by US citizens to Antigua. They can make it a criminal offense for an american citizen to spend money or provide money to the nation. They can bar all US financial groups from doing business with the island.
Enacting any of these measures would immediately halt all US tourism in Antigua. This tourism is 90+% of the economy. I'm sure the WTO would allow Antigua to retaliate with equal sanctions to almost no effect to the US but the complete destruction of the Antiguan economy.
They are playing with fire and anyone that suggests it's a good idea is a moron. But make no mistake, the lawyer that convinced them to take this path has already extracted his pound of flesh in the form of millions of dollars. In the end it will end just like the Sanford affair, an american will make off with millions of dollars of Antiguan money and the average Antigua citizen will suffer.
Re:Antigua is being taken for a ride. (Score:4, Interesting)
Always these purely theoretical "we can destroy them" delusions. *sigh*
First of all, I don't know where you get the 90% figure from, a quick Google shows other numbers. Wikipedia has a detailed article [wikipedia.org] putting the figure at around 60% GDP and 50% of the jobs. But those are very old numbers. But it's all tourism, not just US tourism.
Second, the US is quick at hurting other nations, but not so quick at hurting potential voters. Quick, name three sanctions or other non-military attacks on foreign nations that the US has conducted in, say, the past 20 years that the voters have even noticed.
Third, the US has already gambled away most of the good will it had accumulated in WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. Smashing down a tiny country would do a lot of reputation damage. Contrary to what rednecks believe and the public propaganda tells you, the US is extremely dependent on the rest of the world. Luckily, it goes both ways for most powerful nations on the globe, so there's no real danger of escalation, but if you insist on these "we could kill them" delusions, do keep in mind that if the rest of the world would ever band together and cut all trade to the US, you would have lights out within a month.
Re:Antigua is being taken for a ride. (Score:4, Interesting)
The US is already getting enough heat, both foreign and domestic, about their long-standing Cuban oblivion policy. It is not at all clear the administration wants to put political capital into the same sort of programme directed against Antigua. It might just be easier, in the end, to allow Antigua to run their gambling site. Or give them foreign aid to cover their losses from not doing so.
If this is the sort of calculation Antigua has made, and they figure the odds are in their favour, then this is a fair bet to make. It will be interesting to see.
(What is presumably not going to actually happen is the mp3 site, that's just a negotiating card to force the hand of the US.)
Re: (Score:3)
It would be trivial for the US to bar all US citizens from spending money in Antigua and overnight their economy would collapse as nearly 90% of their tourism is from Americans.
Just open up those runways to Canadian charter flights and plenty of tourists will come, tourists that want to stick it to The Man (i.e. certain elements in the US government) for bullying sovereign countries at the behest of their Hollywood paymasters.
Ecuador keeps getting great press for providing sanctuary to WikiLeaks' Julian Assange (UK ---> Sweden --"temporary surrender"--> US custody), Antigua (already well-liked because of its BD and DVD ripping software tool companies) will get even more posi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
maybe all those who got free money from the US for the past 40 years?
Re:Who loves USA (Score:4, Informative)
The US has had a trade deficit for almost 40 years ...
Re:Who loves USA (Score:4, Informative)
He's talking about hand outs give to nations, not commerce.
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I hear the Pakistanis are REAL fans..
Re:Who loves USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes we are!
GIBE MOAR GREEN CARDS!
Seriously, our hatred of the west ends immediately the moment an option for us to immigrate there becomes available. We are such hypocrites...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Informative)
You could try an experiment. Get yourself a few wheelbarrows of cash money. Go downtown, and start handing out money to passerby. Rinse and repeat daily for a few years.
Come back one day, without your wheelbarrow, and see how many people are willing to buy your lunch for you.
Love? Yeah, right. Propping up a puppet in Egypt has charmed the Egyptian people, hasn't it? Current events in Egypt today seem to show that US aid is a factor in their politics, but it isn't a ruling factor. And, what the US wants Egypt to do isn't a factor at all, seems to me.
Some wise people have said that you can't buy love. If there is love for the US, I'd wager that it's found in our sister countries that were English colonies. Maybe France. Possibly some "like" in other nations, but not a lot of "love". Everyone, everywhere, loves our money, as long as it continues to flow. Even North Korea loves our money, and they'll take all that they can get, by whatever means that doesn't require them to bow down to our wishes. Ditto with Iran.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So that would be... basically, Israel. (Recipient of 25% of the total US foreign aid budget, and the only long-term beneficiary over that timescale.)
The other big recipent over the long term is their neighbor Egypt, though since that was mostly to prop up the Mabarak regime, there may not be so much love.
According the Wikipedia, other top-5 US "aid" recipients include Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not see others queuing up to join the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#Recipients [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as the country itself? I'm guessing there are a few countries smart enough to realize that our trade policy isn't the best way to define a whole country.
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if there was a fight at the bar we all go to, we could be quite certain the Israelis and Brits would get beat up with us (and maybe even the Canadians and the Aussies). After that it gets pretty thin.
I don't think a friend who doesn't want to get into a fight that you drunkenly started is any less of a friend, they're just tired of putting up with your crap.
There are many more countries who would help us if our fight was remotely justified, France, Germany, etc. Compare the countries in Afghanistan to the countries in Iraq. Interestingly, Israel isn't on either list. I don't know why that is.
British support for US war lacking ! (Score:5, Informative)
we could be quite certain the Israelis and Brits would get beat up with us
You are joking right?
You do realise that in 2001, 75% of the British public did not want to be part of the Afghan war.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/26553.htm1 [globalpolicy.org]
That 1 Million people (1 in 60 of the population of the country) went to London to protest against the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protest [wikipedia.org]
That parliament only voted for war because Tony Blair (subsequently one of the most vilified prime ministers in modern times) outright lied to parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgey_Dossier [wikipedia.org]
Sorry to bust your bubble.... but Britain & the rest of Europe isn't prepared to unilaterally support the US in war as you seem to believe. Thankfully, support for such wars is very much lacking by the majority of educated, intelligent Americans in your own country too.
Re:Who loves USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, "no one wants to be like the US", except for everybody. Seriously, what a backwards thing to say. Did you mean to say "nobody likes the US"? Because that statement could be defended; but just like everyone wants to be like the rich, successful douchebag who bangs all the hot chicks, everyone wants to be like the US -- even if we are douchebags.
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Funny)
have any evidence of that, idiot?
if anything, it's the reverse: at the present rate of incarceration, every US citizen will be a convict by 2076, which is basically how Australia started out
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Insightful)
have any evidence of that, idiot?
He's right. Maybe the majority of Ozzies doesn't, but the Ozzie politicians want to be just like US, mostly the bad part. And, if Ozzies do nothing about, it is the politicians that matter.
* Remember David Hicks? Schapelle Corby had more support from the Howard govt then him. [afr.com]... would they be right, who's ass Australia is most likely to kiss?
* Remember Gillard's reaction to Assange's Cablegate? Mastercard [abc.net.au] used it as a pretext for cutting the transfer of donations to Wikileaks.
* Have you heard of serious "cyber terror" threats in Australia? Gillard says you should be very afraid of it, give away some of you rights and have that "cyber security centre" operational (doesn't matter that the budget for the centre may or may not exists, Roxon - the AG - just can't wait to use the "scare" to push some laws)
* Wonder how the Australia's seat on UN Security Council is seen by its major trading partner, the one that kept Australia sheltered from GFC? Potential sycophancy
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who loves USA (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Canadian, I like the connection we have to Australia through being in the Commonwealth, and never saw why so many of you guys got bent out of shape over what is really just a figurehead...
Agreed. As a fellow Canadian, I don't see the point in introducing a political element (in the form of elections) for a figurehead head of state. It seems to me that Canada, for one, has a value-for-money arrangement: Although the Governor General's office uses millions of dollars, for functionaries, upkeep of grounds, security, etc., the GG himself gets only a modest salary -- it was around $120,000 the last I recall. In addition, we get to have a monarch on the cheap: the UK provides housing, upkeep, perks, etc., while we only have to provide security (and room and board, I guess) when one of the family drops by on an official visit -- which is not often. For this comparatively small sum, Canada gets a hardworking, apolitical individual, backed by serious constitutional legal minds for those infrequent times when use of real power is called for (i.e. on the advice of the prime minister, deciding whether to prorogue parliament or call an election.)
For similar reasons, Canada's judiciary is appointed, not elected: these guys are doing serious jobs which require them to be apolitical.
This isn't the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a rogue band of corporate fascists who have hijacked us. If you define them as the USA, then even the USA doesn't like the USA. So, speaking as a real American I say, "go for it"!
NOOOOOOO! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:5, Informative)
You have pretty much all of your facts wrong. Here's the cliff notes [calvinayre.com]:
Antigua believed the US effort to prevent Antigua-licensed online gambling companies from offering services to US punters was in violation of international trade law. In 2005, a World Trade Organization (WTO) appellate body agreed, and told the US to either shut down its domestic online horse betting operations or allow Antigua equal access. Instead, America chose ‘none of the above’ and in 2007 the WTO ruled Antigua was owed an annual $21m in compensatory damages. If the US refused to pay, the WTO authorized Antigua to collect by other means, such as disregarding US copyrights to a value equal to the annual damages owed.
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't further use the term USian. It's...idiotic. It solves a problem that doesn't exist and only has disadvantages, not disadvantages. Please, stick with the standard 'American'. It makes things simpler for all. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
If there exists an ambiguity, use US-American(s).
Re: (Score:3)
That is exactly why we need USians, because USians immediately think that American refers to them, and them alone.
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:5, Insightful)
US has the right to control gambling within its borders.
They pass a law limiting US based citizens from from accessing these sites and or banks from transferring money to those sites.
While at the same time publicly and officially supporting online gambling, so long as it was within the US. A breach of a treaty the US agreed to.
And you are ok with this?
Yes.
Go back, reread what I just wrote, swapping Antigua for the US and vice-versa. Would you STILL feel the same way if the US declared all Antiguan copyrights fair game, simply because Antigua didn't want some predatory US industry doing business in their country?
The US is quite happy with the "predatory industry" so long as it's US companies preying on US residents. I'd be happy with it going the other way, but it *never* is. I was happy with Allofmp3, who violated no law, Russian, American, or international. But they were shut down because of US bribes and threats. Again, the US bullies internationally and ignores any law they don't like, or makes up ones they wish existed (see Kim Dotcom case falling apart in NZ and the court agreeing that the FBI involvement was illegal).
Why shouldn't Antigua honor US Gambling laws when doing business in the US?
They did. They were shut down anyway. Did you miss that point in the whole thing? They followed the laws a US gambling site would have to operate under (other than being in the US), and the US shut them down anyway.
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that the US authorizes gambling in the US is not germane.
The US Authorizes the sale of Cigarettes in the US too. Doesn't mean you can start mail ordering them over the internet.
You conveniently seem to forget that Gambling EVERYWHERE in the US is regulated by the US, Various States, and Various Tribes under the BIA/OIG.
And as such there is some measure of control and taxation, and control of the odds, inspection of hardware, etc.
Antigua does not allow control or regulation by US authorities. Antigua want's to do business in the US, but ignore US law.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:5, Informative)
The WTO Agreement is a treaty. This is what our constitution says about our treaty obligations. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So a treaty obligation such adhering to WTO decisions has the equal weight to the Constitution of the United States.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually google provides a much better definition...
So if we read the applicable term from the constitution,
"and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"
This is what it would say written in modern English...
"The Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and our International Treaty Obligations are the supreme law of the land. Judges are required to honor our treaty obligations; in spite of anything the Constitution or laws of any state may say to the contrary."
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Authorizes the sale of Cigarettes in the US too. Doesn't mean you can start mail ordering them over the internet.
But with gambling, that's what is happening. The US tobacco companies can sell over the Internet, but the Antiguan ones cannot. That's an illegal violation of a treaty.
Antigua does not allow control or regulation by US authorities. Antigua want's to do business in the US, but ignore US law.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
So if Antigua decides to abolish copyright, but only ones held by US companies, why should the US complain what Antigua does in Antigua with Antiguan law?
Re: (Score:3)
Antigua want's to do business in the US, but ignore US law.
No Antigua wants to let US residents to business in Antigua. Modern technology lets them do this without physically having to go there so the US passed a law which restricted trade with Antigua i.e. prevented its citizens from contacting Antigua and doing business there instead forcing them to do it in the US.
It's no different than say the EU passing a law to make it illegal for EU companies to purchase software written in the US because the US company that wrote the software did not allow control or re
Re:Thanks, Antigua! (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to continue to side step the issue of the US having the right to control gambling within its borders.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the US agreed to abide by certain rules for governing international trade. The US eagerly signed the WTO treaty, a binding contract between nations defining the rules of international trade. The US broke the terms of the contract in order to protect it's domestic gambling industry, this disadvantages all other signatories to the treaty who offer international gambling (including the UK and other staunch allies). Antigua is the only one with the balls to pursue the issue with the umpire. The fact that the WTO agreed with them indicates the WTO is now more than just a lapdog of the US state department.
If the US regrets what it agreed to when it joined the WTO it can always do the honorable thing and pull out of the organisation (that it worked hard to establish). Instead they show themselves to be complete hypocrites by studiously ignoring adverse rulings and vigously enforcing benificial rulings.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to continue to side step the issue of the US having the right to control gambling within its borders
No. The US is perfectly free to ban gambling. What they are not free to do, is permit gambling when run by companies in the US, but ban it when run by companies outside the US. That is no different from imposing a ban or levy on any other commodity when not produced domestically and places the US in violation of free trade treaties (which have, for the most part, been of significant net benefit to the USA). If another WTO member imposed an import tariff on some US commodity, then the US would complain t
Re: (Score:3)
More likely Grenada 2.0, as soon as the government can gin up some "evidence" of "terrorists" using Antigua as a base of operations.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hiring Kim Dotcom! (Score:5, Interesting)
Want an analogy? American alcohol companies get pissed they're not allowed to sell to Shariah-law nations, so the US decides to just steal their shit until they capitulate. Commodore Perry type shit. That's what this is. It's bad for everybody.
No, the analogy is flawed because US sites do online gambling. The analogy is if the US blocked all Toyotas from being sold because it would help GM make more money faster, while GM was still able to make all they wanted. Toyota/Japan complains it violates a treaty, and the US tells them "yes it does, go fuck yourself" and Japan wins the lawsuit in international court. The US fails to abide by their treaty they signed and ratified, so the international body agrees to waive other terms of the treaty that were binding on Japan.
This isn't about them being wronged, it's about them not respecting the sovereignty of another nation. They cannot dictate our laws, regardless of if those laws are dumb.
So, if the rest of the world doesn't respect US copyrights, but instead writes their own independent laws, we should invade them and kill them for not giving us the profit we feel we are due?
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy is flawed because the US is a patchwork of independent jurisdictions each with their own laws and hangups. You could get by the Feds but still end up encarcerated by some DA from Memphis.
This just goes to show that the US has no monopoly on being narcissistic jerks.
That goes for Antigua and it's fans.
Re: (Score:2)
But the FEDERAL law specifically is in play. In fact, the USA has an internal restriction on the very same type of rules between states.
A better example of this situation would be if the state of Iowa banned gambling, and banned your ATM card from working at casinos in Las Vegas..... And if you did manage to gamble legally in Vegas you were thrown in jail when you got home. Tracking said banking transactions. The only comparable situation where states break the Interstate Commerce Clause are some of the an
Re:Hiring Kim Dotcom! (Score:5, Insightful)
FUCK'S SAKE! I don't AGREE with the anti-internet-gambling laws, I think they're full of shit -- BUT THIS SHIT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Antigua needs to get the fuck over it and move on.
Why? Or, why Antigua? Why doesn't the USA just get over it and follow the law?
Want an analogy? American alcohol companies get pissed they're not allowed to sell to Shariah-law nations, so the US decides to just steal their shit until they capitulate.
Not a good analogy. Neither American nor local companies can sell alcohol in such countries. The beef is that the USA is protecting its local gambling but forbidding international competition, which it has agreed not to do through its membership in the WTO
If I wrote a novel and Antigua started selling it, undercutting me and not compensating me in any way.. yes it would be just about time to grab your guns. This isn't about them being wronged, it's about them not respecting the sovereignty of another nation. They cannot dictate our laws, regardless of if those laws are dumb.
Copyright in stuff you write only extends outside the USA because of agreements with other sovereign nations. If the USA unilaterally breaks those agreements, then it's reasonable for the other parties to reciprocate. And yes, that means YOU got screwed. By your government. Not, actually, by the other nation. Direct your bile accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
America is a nation founded by Puritans. On any issue involving VICE, the situation is probably a lot more nuanced than people like you would be ever willing to admit.
We have dry street corners here.
The fact that some pissants in the Carribean got their panties in a bunch is actually pretty hilarious in that context.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If I had a novel and Antigua started selling it, I would go to my government and ask wtf? Why are you not abiding by the WTO decision? If you aren't going to abide by WTO rulings that don't suit you, wtf are you doing being a member of it??
Disclosure: I am not a fan of the WTO.
Re:Hiring Kim Dotcom! (Score:4)
Reread your history. Antigua ran some pretty big online gambling sites - it was so big 5% of their workforce worked in the industry. Then the US applied pressure to cut off payments to Antigua's online gaming sites.
So Antigua retaliated through the WTO. No, it's not like selling alcohol to Shariah nations because the US isn't preventing that (it's the Shariah nations blocking imports) - it's more like the US cutting off sales of French wine by pressuring the banks to not allow payments to French wineries.
The WTO has continually stated (for over 5 years now) that Antigua is in the right and the US has enacted an unfair trade restriction, and to compensate for the loss of a significant part of the local economy, the WTO authorizes a suspension of $21M of copyright royalties annually until the US withdraws its trade block. The first dollar after that has to be paid to the US.
And don't think the US is very innocent in all this - the US is WELL KNOWN for ignoring the WTO when it doesn't suit them, and for enforcing the WTO rulings when it does. Just this time, one country actually has the balls to enforce the ruling against the US. Most other countries capitulate and even though they're in the right, they agree to whatever the US demands.
And $21M is but a drop in the water for the US entertainment industry (which does things in the billions). Hell, the RIAA/MPAA/etc argue they lose billions every year to piracy. $21M? Rounding error.
The biggest arguments going around is how much $21M is actually worth - does Antigua get to charge a penny? Or less? Or more?
And yes, it's supposed to disrupt the entertainment industry - perhaps by getting them to lobby for removal of whatever trade restriction there is. That's the entire point - the WTO is fed up with the US ignoring its rulings when it doesn't suit them.