<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;wto&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>US Falsely Claiming It 'Won' IP Fight With China</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090127/1515493547.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090127/1515493547.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall a few years ago that in the (<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080606/0218421331.shtml">still ongoing!</a>) fight between Antigua and the US at the World Trade Organization (WTO), that the WTO came out with a ruling where the US declared immediate victory, though the details showed that actually the WTO had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050407/1530229.shtml">sided with Antigua</a>.  The US merely declared victory, and got its (wrong) story out to the press first.
<br /><br />
It appears that's happening again.
<br /><br />
Earlier this week, plenty of attention was paid to a WTO <a href="http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news09_e/362r_e.htm">ruling</a> concerning US disputes with China over a variety of intellectual property issues.  The US Trade Representative quickly <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2009/January/asset_upload_file105_15317.pdf">declared victory</a> (pdf) and that's the story most of the folks in the press went with, claiming that <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ieb36f849687dcd17a8c97f8aa0e21c28" target="_new">this was a US victory</a> where the WTO <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7853016.stm" target="_new">largely supported the US</a>.  Some even called it a <a href="http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-article/19070/wto-favors-u-s-over-china-on-piracy" target="_new">major victory</a>, while others were surprised that China seemingly <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/china-pledges-w.html" target="_new">was fine with the ruling</a>.
<br /><br />
Perhaps that's because if you actually read through the details, you realize, as Michael Geist points out, that <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3645/125/" target="_new">the US actually lost very badly</a>.  There were three issues at stake -- and the only one the US "won" was the most minor of the three.  On the two big issues, concerning China's border measures concerning counterfeit goods and its IP enforcement system within the country, the WTO sided strongly with China, and chastised the US for providing rather bogus "evidence" (often consisting of newspaper articles, rather than actual evidence) in support of its position.  It seems like the only mainstream publication that actually bothered to read the report, rather than the USTR's "day is night" version of the events was Forbes, who notes that the USTR <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/27/china-wto-piracy-markets-equity-0127_markets2.html" target="_new">was being misleading</a> in claiming victory.  Of course, given how the US acted after it lost the Antigua case in the WTO, we can expect the US to appeal the ruling or... just ignore it and continue pretending the WTO actually ruled in its favor.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090127/1515493547.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090127/1515493547.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090127/1515493547.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-lost-badly</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090127/1515493547</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Antigua Says It's Going To Start Ignoring US Copyrights (For Real This Time)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/233958596.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/233958596.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Officials in Antigua are now trying to draw a line in the sand, claiming that if the US doesn't finally agree to allow some forms of online gambling by the end of this month, <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117982630.html?categoryid=19&#038;cs=1&#038;nid=2562" target="_new">it will go ahead with its threats to ignore US copyrights</a> with the approval of the WTO.  As you may recall, back in December, the WTO <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071221/110211.shtml">granted</a> Antigua that right, after a loooooooong series of battles with the US over whether or not the US was violating free trade agreements by banning online gambling.  Of course, every time the WTO sided with Antigua, the US would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070522/181941.shtml">stall</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050407/1530229.shtml">claim the WTO sided with the US</a> (when it clearly did not) and (my personal favorite) claim that even if it had broken trade agreements, it didn't matter any more because the US was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070522/181941.shtml">unilaterally changing its trade agreements</a> so that it was no longer violating them.
<br /><br />
Of course, when Antigua won the final decision in December, allowing the country to ignore US intellectual property rights, the US government and the entertainment industry quickly warned Antigua not to follow through on those plans -- but the US government still won't shift in its position on the matter.  Thus, Antigua is agitating to get this show on the road.  While it first needs to get one last permission slip from the WTO, once that's in place, it can start ignoring the copyright on American movies and music.  Of course, while some are suggesting that it may make sense for <a href="http://valleywag.com/370004/antigua-could-offer-the-pirate-bay-safe-harbor">The Pirate Bay to move to Antigua</a>, that's not accurate.  After all, the WTO has said that Antigua can only violate $21 million worth of intellectual property, and with the way the entertainment industry <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071015/170440.shtml">counts</a> damages, that's like half an album or so.
<br /><br />
In fact, that seems to be exactly the angle that the entertainment industry is taking in this fight.  An MPAA letter warning: "The proposed retaliation would be impossible to manage. The real and resulting economic harm would vastly exceed any amount the (WTO) might approve, even the grossly exaggerated amount ($3.4 billion) for which Antigua seeks approval, plus the economic harm would extend to other WTO members."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/233958596.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/233958596.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/233958596.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no,-really,-really,-really</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080319/233958596</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:33:16 PDT</pubDate>
<title>US Says WTO Won't Let In Russia If Allofmp3 Comes Back To Life</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070829/180423.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070829/180423.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With Allofmp3.com announcing that it <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/28/business/allofmp3.php">plans to reopen the site</a> now that (once again) the site has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070815/192718.shtml">found to be legal under Russian laws</a>, it didn't take long for the RIAA... er... U.S. government to make its unhappiness clear.  A spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative has announced that if Allofmp3.com reopens, then Russia has <a href="http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9768658-7.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20">kissed away its chance to join the WTO</a>.  This isn't all that surprising, given that the U.S. (at the urging of the RIAA) <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060605/0228246.shtml">threatened Russia</a> that it would keep the nation out of the WTO unless it shut down Allofmp3.com.  Of course, it doesn't make much sense either.  This is a private dispute between private entities.  It doesn't seem reasonable for the US gov't to be getting involved.  Secondly, as should now be quite clear, Allofmp3.com is operating legally under Russian laws.  So it hasn't done anything wrong either.  Just because some companies in the US don't like the fact that Allofmp3 has come up with a business model that customers actually like, it doesn't mean that the US gov't should ban Russia from the WTO.  And, of course, this doesn't even begin to get into how ridiculous it is that the business model of a single small company should be the key factor in whether or not an entire country is allowed into the WTO.  In the meantime, given how often the US has been ignoring the WTO over the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/194516.shtml">Antigua online gambling case</a>, perhaps the WTO should simply ignore the US on this one.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070829/180423.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070829/180423.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070829/180423.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>something-seems-wrong-here...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070829/180423</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:44:53 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Antigua Seriously Pushing For WTO Approval To Distribute Free Music And Movies</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/194516.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/194516.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Since 2003, we've been following the saga of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;q=antigua">Antigua's fight against the US</a> in the World Trade Organization.  Basically, Antigua argued that the US's ban on online gambling <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030325/169239.shtml">violated the free trade agreement</a> the two countries had signed -- as it blocked online gambling sites based in Antigua (of which there are a bunch).  Since then, the case has been fun to watch if only for how the US has responded to it.  The WTO <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040324/1149244.shtml">ruled in favor of Antigua</a> at which point the US basically ignored the WTO, despite the WTO occasionally <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050823/1127204.shtml">making angry noises</a>.  Then, there was the time that the US went so far as to declare that the WTO had reversed that original ruling on appeal... but the details showed <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050407/1530229.shtml">that the US was making up that claim</a> and the WTO was still supporting Antigua.  Earlier this year, after the WTO started stomping its feet again, the US responded by saying it was simply (unilaterally) going to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070522/181941.shtml">change its free trade agreement</a> with Antigua, so that online gambling wasn't included.  Obviously, Antigua finds that solution quite troublesome.
<br /><br />
Back in early 2006, however, a few people began buzzing about an idea that Antigua could use to force the US to pay attention: become an WTO-backed ignorer of US copyright law.  Since the US knew it could effectively ignore Antigua over online gambling, the idea was that Antigua should simply say that if the US won't support its free trade agreement, then it would start <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060404/1621238.shtml">ignoring US copyright laws</a>, and would then (with WTO-backing, mind you) allow modern versions of all sorts of copyright-violating services to prosper.  We didn't think that Antigua would seriously go in this direction, but as a new NY Times article makes clear <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ei=5090&#038;en=06f9d1c84a864017&#038;ex=1345521600&#038;partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all">it's exactly what Antigua is now pushing for</a>.  Of course, the real hope is that in doing so, the Big Copyright players will force the US government to back down on the gambling issue.  However, it might be a lot more interesting to see what would happen if Antigua really did become the protected legal home of more modern versions of (the old) Napster, my.mp3.com, the Pirate Bay, Allofmp3.com and others.  Of course, as reader <b>OKVol</b> points out to us, the real irony here is that in potentially ignoring copyright monopolies, Antigua may be getting <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=08&#038;year=2007&#038;base_name=antigua_threatens_the_united_s">closer to real free trade</a> than in living up to the terms of the free trade agreement between the two countries.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/194516.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/194516.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/194516.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-look-at-that...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070823/194516</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>