What is Digg?79 Comments
- djbon2112, on 03/26/2008, -1/+30Please; I think IP laws need to be WEAKENED, not strengthened even more. Enough gold-digging by huge companies. ***** off, RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc.
- wpyh, on 03/26/2008, -11/+38Well, any country would do that -- not just the US. Everyone would protect and defend their rights and ignore others' rights. It may sound hypocritical, but that's a fact.
Makes me wonder whether other US policies are also similar in spirit to this... makes me think of Guantanamo Bay... makes me think of Tiananmen Incident... - TheZorch, on 03/26/2008, -15/+35That is because the US government thinks its own ***** don't stink. Its the same old "because we're America" arrogance ***** which has so many other nations pissed off at us. Our leaders need to remember something, we are only ONE country, we do not rule the world, we do not dictate global policy, we are just ONE nation among many and we need to live by certain International Rules and Laws. Brushing them off like this is only to lead to further problems for the US in the future. This whole ***** mentality that we're invicible because we're "America" will destroy us one day.
- YojimboJango, on 03/26/2008, -4/+16Um after reading the article I can kind of understand why we wouldn't want to pass the Irish law. Downloading music is one thing, but having to pay distribution fees because your radio is being played too loud at work is down right stupid.
I fully agree with the Havana rulings. I'm pretty sure the embargo against Cuba isn't going to change anything but make people there miserable. It's something that should've ended when people got over the cold war. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/26/2008, -3/+12Just because your country ignores other peoples rights, doesn't mean other countries do it too.
- brufleth, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7I agree on Cuba. The embargo isn't doing anything helpful and is doing a lot of harm. Cuba has a lot to offer the US and the US could offer a lot to Cuba. Time to bury the hatchet.
I also agree that after reading the article the examples given are otherwise pretty stupid. China has multi million dollar industries based off the wholesale copying of copyrighted work. The EU gives Airbus huge loans they only have to pay back if a program make money, etc. Those are issues that are worth WTO intervention. - djbon2112, on 03/26/2008, -1/+7To clarify, I think that protecting ones property (including IP), is perfectly respectable, but these huge corporations also need to remember that we consumers have rights too, called Fair Use (remember that, RIAA?). Should an artist make money because his song is on the radio? Of course! Should a mechanic be sued or fined because said radio was heard by his customers, or should a person be sued for ripping their CD collection to their computer? ***** no.
- Yond, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6I agree with you. IP laws are becoming incentives not to use the particular creation. They are way too strong. Greed cancels out the possible uses of innovation.
- brbubba, on 03/26/2008, -3/+8The notion that restaurants have to compensate artists for music being played in their establishment is absurd. Next thing you know they will start charging individuals everytime they have some friends over for a party.
- Blanchflower, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7I think the main point here isn't so much the voluntary blindness when it comes to your own backyard (because that's not just countries and governments, that's all of us), but the so-called moral high ground. If one country is insisting other countries be held to very high standards, but fails to apply those standards to itself, it loses credibility. As wpyh said in a comment above, this is exactly the same mentality as the one behind Gitmo. You can't invade other countries to get rid of torturing dictators if you're going to run torture prisons yourself. Same applies to copyright infringement. This is what happens when a country is run by corporate lobbyists.
- jezsik, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5There are plenty of governments in the world that recognize that cooperation is the best way to proceed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
- jsmith39, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5In all fairness regarding the 'Irish Music' violation is pretty stupid/weak. If a business that does not sell music is playing music 'in the background' than either a) the musicians are being compensated by the radio broadcasters or b) they should be happy someone is playing their CD's where others can hear it/may wish to buy it.
Granted is a business is ginning up business by sponsoring an event regarding a new release without permission/compensation there is a valid claim but background music? Please... be happy someone is listening to the song. - bsurette, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5I like berets. French girls look cute in them.
- GorillaP1mp, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5What kind of ground do we have to stand on if we refuse to comply with WTO rulings against us?
- gak001, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE SUFFERING FROM VOICE IMMODULATION TOO. WE CAN'T CONTROL THE PITCH OR THE VOLUME OF OUR VOICES. IT'S ALSO KNOWN AS VAN HORTON'S SYNDROME.
- EarlOfLade, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5The point is nobody cares what you think. International laws and treaties are there for a purpose and by selectively picking and choosing, it becomes a disaster to handle.
And when USA use one law to attack China and other countries and then when it is turned around and the same law is used against USA, it's not important and ignored, sends signals that there is one law for USA and one law for everyone else. I don't know how you would like to be arrested for shop-lifting for just to find out that the law prescribes death penalty for you, but only fines for a different group of people. I'm sure you would have no problems with such a law, would you? - Kurlumbenus, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5It's not as if Americans ever have a problem with their government. It's just that they never do anything to fix it.
- YojimboJango, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Did you happen to read the article?
I'm assuming no. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5I didn't say that there weren't others.
- init100, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3"These issues are so minor and I'm actually glad they aren't sucking up tons of public servant time and money."
Well, I would wish for the Swedish authorities to give that reply to the RIAA and the MPAA the next time they complain about The Pirate Bay. Not that I care about TPB, but I do care about reciprocity. - esc27, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4This is the most disagreeable Ars Technica article I've ever read. It seems to abandon their usual pro-internet/technology view point just unnecessarily bash the U.S.
The "Irish Music" dispute is ridiculous. We should be proud that what happened in that European car shop does NOT happen in the U.S. and seek to change the law in Europe.
The Havanna dispute is all wrapped up in the chaos that is the U.S.'s relationship with Cuba (not strictly an IP Thing)
And the gambling issues come from our conflicting laws on allowing gambling in certain physical locations (reservations for example) but not everywhere. The Havana and gambling issues come from conflicts with other, non-IP policies.
Now, if the U.S. claims against foreign countries are as easily dismissible, that would be worth mentioning. - Apocrypha, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Case in point. The softwood lumber dispute with Canada. Countless NAFTA and WTO rulings found that Canada wasn't doing anything wrong. In fact, I believe it was found a couple times the US was doing _wrong_. Well, that just wouldn't do for the US Gov't. They completely ignored all rulings from both NAFTA (I think there may have even been more Americans than Canadians on at least one of the panels too) and the WTO basically saying they didn't matter. But then there is a single WTO ruling that was sort of favourable to the US and they were acting as if they were vindicated. Now all of a sudden the WTO makes a ruling and it matters somehow where the many others did not. The American gov't is like a pack of spoiled little babies who think they're owed everything without question.
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/wto_cha ...
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-9-3/31898.html - o0joshua0o, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Other industries should get in on this "Irish Music" scam. For example, clothing companies could start charging people royalties when they see others wearing their clothes. Car companies could start charging people royalties for seeing their cars. Individuals could start charging people royalties for seeing their faces or hearing their voices. Pretty soon, everyone will constantly be paying royalties of some kind to each other.
- scm21st, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3Screw the WTO, I hope this helps render it powerless. I don't agree with the hypocrisy here, but I like seeing the WTO damaged. If you believe in liberty and personal freedom you should be for decentralization of power whenever possible.
- addiktion, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2The UN is there to pretend like our countries are buddy buddy. The truth seems to be that no one really cares about what the other country demands of another country. They are going to do what they are going to do. Eventually it may amount to a nice little WWIII but we've seen that one coming for years now. Thanks Bush!
- brufleth, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2"information gathered from signals" means what?
The counter argument is that Boeing receives many military contracts from the US government and generally states where they operate give them favorable business conditions (through lenient taxes and what not) in return for them employing thousands of workers.
As someone in the industry I don't really see how the two issues even compare. Boeing gets government contracts...so they do work and get paid for it. Airbus receives loans which effectively limits the risk of a new program (see the A380). Given the cost of brining a new product to market the business advantages given to Airbus through what amounts to government subsidies amounts to unfair trade. The result is programs which are turning out to be rather big bombs, like the A380, which just waste a lot of tax payer money. - johnnick, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Oh, you mean like the NFL's claim that showing the Super Bowl on a screen larger than 55" constitutes a public performance (and, therefore, copyright infringement)? See http://techdirt.com/articles/20070201/140812.shtml ...
- Apocrypha, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Hamas isn'y the only Democratically elected party or person the US has had deposed or tried to. Hugo Chavez comes to mind. The Haitian President a few years ago also does. I'm sure there are lots more.
- Cyclops0T8, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2The issue is that stronger countries can't be forced to follow international laws. If you take a country that doesn't have a strong economy or military, it is easy to ensure that they follow international laws. Threats of boycott, military action, etc are sufficient, since those countries can't afford to take those risks. When you have a country like the United States, who is going to make them follow any international law? What is anyone possibly going to do about the States not following the WTO rulings? Pass another one every few years?
- Apocrypha, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Please do give some examples of other Countries not following WTO rulings against them and if they were ever followed or not.
- HappyScrappy, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1And what am I supposed to get excited about here?
Look at the WTO rulings over Europe's bans on US food exports and the under way rulings about subsidization of Airbus.
What does Europe do when they lose WTO cases? Same as the US.
No one likes to lose. - Kurlumbenus, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I'm an american, and the government I was born under is far from perfect. If Haiti or Uganda came to my apartment and asks me for help, I probably would. Until then, they can have fun with the world as it is and gain from the experiences.
Better yet, ***** Haiti and Uganda. hatian and ugandan people are fine, but ALL nations ***** suck. - wattersm, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1A site with a majority of US visitors is biased?!! That's unpossible.
- OmegaWolf, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Does the no public exhibition thing include restaurants showing the Super Bowl on their TVs? I've seen many restaurants showing hockey playoffs and such on their TVs. Is this technically illegal? Is it also illegal for shopping malls to play music in the background?
- EdwrdDiggrhands, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1The point is that we can't condemn other countries for selectively abiding by WTO IP rulings when we do the same thing. I have no problem with the US refusing to back down on these examples, because they're just flat-out stupid rulings. But if WTO is capable of making stupid rulings in these cases, then it's capable of the same in other circumstances, and we can no longer condemn other countries for also refusing to fall unilaterally in line.
- Kurlumbenus, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Your need for self-fullfillment through a messiah complex? The world isn't your responsability, and it doesn't need you to save it.
- DestroyFascism, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Imagine if it was China that had invented the internet....(Got Ammo?)
- DestroyFascism, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Actually they can ask for fees for a party if they want to...Same with Buskers
- init100, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2"The EU gives Airbus huge loans they only have to pay back if a program make money, etc. Those are issues that are worth WTO intervention."
While the US channels information gathered from signals intelligence to Boeing so that they can win a bidding contest against Airbus. If government loans to Airbus is unfair, then so is this. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Nobody said anything about the WTO.
- brufleth, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Yes, I would agree that the NFL is a bit crazy about their rights sometimes.
- Diggalicious3, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1You're right, its not, although if someone asked for our help, we probably should. With crap like terrible living conditions in Haiti, or Uganda. But I'm guessing you're government is perfect, otherwise you wouldn't be whining so much about mine.
- Aitese, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure about the US...but here in the UK bars and restaurants have to have a special license and subscription to show the sports...you can tell by a little beer glass shaped symbol on the bottom right hand corner of the screen. On a regular set top box the symbol is just round.
- Aitese, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I think the car garage example is way wrong as the main business of fixing cars does not involve music.
I think the law was supposed to reflect situations where it was safe to assume some form of profit was being generated from the public broadcasting of someones music, for example a nightclub or even more apt, Irish folk music in an Irish themed bar. In both those cases the atmosphere would be pretty flat without music. - VinnieDaMac, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I'm sure other countries are the same way, however, the U.S. actually has the power to change some of the rulings.
- themick171, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1The present US administration seems to regard the world as their servants. Not so. We are not lackeys. This is exactly what riles europeans up and makes them think all USA citizens (not americans, USA is part of north america, NOT America) are gun-tooting, bible bashing megalomaniacs like Karl Rove or Cheney- which is obviously untrue.
- pagno, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1How in the ***** does "blaring" my radio constitute a "public performance"? If anything, its free publicity. Leave it to corporate ***** to bring the doldrums of corporate worklife to the masses. Idiots.
- HappyScrappy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1"EU suffers defeat in banana wars"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7335070.stm
Every country does this. The anti-American spin on this article is ridiculous. - gabgabcortez, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1I think the point being made is that everybody should follow agreed rules.
Double standards causes irritants in any relationship.
The US is again a bully since nobody can force it, yet it braggs that they are most fair by forcing smaller countries to rigidly follow the rules, ie. agricultural subsidies!!! - barius, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Not that I'm necessarily arguing with your main point, but using Hamas as an example is pretty weak. The U.S. can never officially recognize Hamas so long as they continue to deny Isreal the right to exist. This is a treaty obligation the U.S. has to Isreal because they are allies. The fact that the U.S. is upholding it's obligations cannot be held against them.
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is