Antigua could hit U.S. with copyright-free downloads

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would it not be easier simply for the US government to abide by the WTO's ruling on online gambling sites? That appears to be the issue at the root of this problem.

Because the US is above the law

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But it's still punishing the individual for the actions of the government. How would you like it if a foreign country took money from you personally because of some action of your government?

It not an elected government supposed to reflect the needs and wishes of it's citizentry? Did not the people who are going to be negatively effected by such an occurrance also benefit from the very same government with copyright extensions and and force the same said extensions down other governments throats?

See the US/Australia Free trade agreement. The US held it hostage until Australia extended it's copyright length from Life + 50 to Life + 70. Was that fair to Australian citizens? Did not a foreign country take money (items that would have fallen into the public domain and therefore be available for free in that country) from Australian citizens?

Pity StoneTools isn't around any more. I'd like to hear his rationalizations on WTO ruling...

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This hardly seems fair to the individual copyright holders. They are not responsible for the US breaking WTO rules.

Why exactly should they care? It's not as if the US (or other powers, for that matter) ever really cared who is actually being hit by sanctions.
Other countries like e.g. Iran should take a long hard look at this issue. Offering cheap downloads etc. of US intellectual property might be a good way to recoup money held by the US under all sorts of pretexts.

[sufue]

Originally Posted by teh603

Didn't we recently have a Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited seizure of private land for the benefit of corporations?

And per the Supreme Court, corporations are people too, although apparently not when you want to drive in the carpool lane in California:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...oration-papers

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This hardly seems fair to the individual copyright holders. They are not responsible for the US breaking WTO rules.

No, but that's always the case. If some country charges punitive tariffs, who's going to suffer? Certainly not the targeted country as such. What we have here is really a rather enlightened and benevolent approach.

Originally Posted by HarryT

How would you like it if a foreign country took money from you personally because of some action of your government?

It's not really taking money, is it, you're just selling less. I don't see how that's so different from the steel mill owner who suddenly can't sell anything in the US because they've decided to charge 100% or so import dues.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would it not be easier simply for the US government to abide by the WTO's ruling on online gambling sites? That appears to be the issue at the root of this problem.

That's just crazy talk. Not gonna happen.

[Lynx-lynx]

How does someone commence selling (in this case) US videos in a country other than the US?

So, my guess, someone/x number (or company/ies) in Antigua are selling US videos - is that the scenario being presented?

A couple of queries:

What are the usual arrangements for this type of 'concession'?

Wouldn't the US video consignor simply not pass on any more videos if there was a sales breach in Antigua?

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

How does someone commence selling (in this case)
Wouldn't the US video consignor simply not pass on any more videos if there was a sales breach in Antigua?

Buy a DVD in the US. Rip its content. Sell content via download. Done.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Buy a DVD in the US. Rip its content. Sell content via download. Done.

Are these the downloads that the Antiguan Government is talking about though?

Or do they refer to the legal sales?

However, implicit in the Antiguan Government's tactics maybe that it no longer would notice illegal sales?

(Really, perhaps the US should just pay the money it owes and all this could be resolved.)

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Are these the downloads that the Antiguan Government is talking about though?

Details are sketchy, but that's certainly one possible scenario. I don't think they're going to sell & ship actual DVDs.

Or do they refer to the legal sales?

Those sales would be legal, under Antiguan (and international) law. I imagine some government-sponsored warez site. No wonder the US is returning to the negotiation table.

(Really, perhaps the US should just pay the money it owes and all this could be resolved.)

It's not a debt that's easily settled: they'd have to open access to their gambling market again, and that's just not politically feasible, I understand.

[BadBilly]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would it not be easier simply for the US government to abide by the WTO's ruling on online gambling sites? That appears to be the issue at the root of this problem.

I see from your picture that you are not from this planet. Therefore you are not at all familiar with this "United States" and its practices.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because the US is above the law

No, no good buddy.

The US of A is the law.

(We might argue about it internally, but externally is different.)

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

No, no good buddy.

The US of A is the law.

(We might argue about it internally, but externally is different.)

...oops, I stand corrected

[QuantumIguana]

I thought it was pretty funny the article claiming that China might retaliate against the US for violations of the WTO. China is a pretty big violator of the WTO.

"Although the United States convinced the appeals panel that these laws were "necessary" to protect public health and morals, the asserted United States defense on these grounds was ultimately rejected because its laws relating to remote gambling on horse-racing were not applied equally to foreign and domestic online betting companies, and thus the United States could not establish that its laws were non-discriminatory." It appears the problem was with

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/..._e/ds285_e.htm

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

It's not a debt that's easily settled: they'd have to open access to their gambling market again, and that's just not politically feasible, I understand.

It would require a change to state constitutions and some states would potentially lose a lot more than $21 million if they permitted international online gambling.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This hardly seems fair to the individual copyright holders. They are not responsible for the US breaking WTO rules.

Then they should lobby their government to obey international trade treaties instead of ignoring them.