Antigua's WTO Case Getting Some Coverage

[whangarei]

From the Roll Call article :

[ QUOTE ]
RIAA spokeswoman Liz Kennedy e-mailed a statement saying her group opposes such a form of sanctions.

“If Antigua were to ‘withdraw’ its TRIPS commitments, it would simultaneously be violating other aspects of its international obligations — including under the Berne Convention,” she said, referring to the 19th century international convention on copyright law. “Moreover, it would presumably be permitting conduct that would violate its own internal domestic legislation, including its criminal law. Does it make sense for a country to expressly allow criminal conduct? We believe that it most certainly does not.”

[/ QUOTE ]

So the RIAA spokeswoman is basically saying there are other obligations besides the WTO that would prevent Antigua from selling cheap CDs/movies. Is this a valid point?

[TheEngineer]

Thanks Jay, as always.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
From the Roll Call article :

[ QUOTE ]
RIAA spokeswoman Liz Kennedy e-mailed a statement saying her group opposes such a form of sanctions.

“If Antigua were to ‘withdraw’ its TRIPS commitments, it would simultaneously be violating other aspects of its international obligations — including under the Berne Convention,” she said, referring to the 19th century international convention on copyright law. “Moreover, it would presumably be permitting conduct that would violate its own internal domestic legislation, including its criminal law. Does it make sense for a country to expressly allow criminal conduct? We believe that it most certainly does not.”

[/ QUOTE ]

So the RIAA spokeswoman is basically saying there are other obligations besides the WTO that would prevent Antigua from selling cheap CDs/movies. Is this a valid point?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not really a valid point. If Antigua gets permission from the WTO to ignore US copyrights, that would be the controlling ruling, not a 19th century treaty. Note that she "presumes" Antigua has a law against copyright infringement (it probably does but if this spokesperson were doing anything more than grandstanding she would have looked it up). It aint that hard for Antigua to change its law if it gets the WTO go ahead.

Skallagrim

[MayorHerb]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that the U.S. would probably pay any amount in damages before requiring Utah to allow Internet sports betting, both because the sports' lobbies are strong and because of the simple matter of sovereignty.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an issue you don't hear enough about any more. State sovereignty WITHIN the U.S.

[Jay Cohen]

Just happy to be here guys.

States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that the U.S. would probably pay any amount in damages before requiring Utah to allow Internet sports betting, both because the sports' lobbies are strong and because of the simple matter of sovereignty.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an issue you don't hear enough about any more. State sovereignty WITHIN the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the structure of gaming laws in this country you'll be hearing a lot more about it. At least as far as poker is concerned. Even with a favorable WTO ruling and quick Hill action the fight will then revert to a State by State battle.

A "Civil War"? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just happy to be here guys.

States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay,

You are doing an excellent job representing sports bettors in America. I especially appreciate your forward-thinking attitudes in engaging this community. Too bad not all sports bettors are as engaged.

Given the strength of the NFL lobby, do you really see a situation where the U.S. legalizes Internet sports betting? Or, is it more likely that they will legalize some but draw the line at sports betting, telling the WTO to take it or leave it?

[Jay Cohen]

I can't speculate where it is going. But if they tell them take it or leave it, they may have to face sanctions.

I really don't feel I am representing sports bettors. I like to think I am speaking out for Antigua's win which is comprehensive.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't speculate where it is going. But if they tell them take it or leave it, they may have to face sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'm encouraged by the fact that affected parties are starting to make noise. Just to be clear, I'm with you in that I hope it's all explicitly legalized. We should be allowed to spend our money as we wish.

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't feel I am representing sports bettors. I like to think I am speaking out for Antigua's win which is comprehensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did mean it as a compliment. While you may not represent sports bettors exclusively, you're the best voice for that segment of Internet gaming, IMO.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Just happy to be here guys.

States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with your overall analysis, this country is almost unique in terms of political structure in the world. This battle of Federal control vs States rights will continue to be pushed as more and more World agreements are reached.

Some feel that history has long decided this issue and in this day and age most State's rights are dead. They could be right given most legislative action since the 60's. But there is brewing IMO a growing feeling the the Federal Gov't has over reached in an attempt to totally homonigize the country.

Gambling has in this country, as well as a number of issues like law and insurance, been controled soley at the State level, all to some degree all bubble up in this dispute.

IMO this is in part the reason behind the arguement that the US never intended for the GATT and subsequent argreements to over ride individual State laws and rights.

Republicans tend more than Democrats to cling to this historical distinction. Given the current state of the republican party, it could well loose this long standing fight right here. It has happened in the past when the Dems controled all branches of the government, from FDR to LBJ.

Because of the state of weakness in the party and the little thought most Amercians actually give to the implications it is quite likely a battle that is over because it can't be fought politically.


D$D