3 ms·

It should be added, and this is important, this sentence is not punished equally because of the country‘s laws, it is because of an international trade agreemen

It should be added, and this is important, this sentence is not punished equally because of the country‘s laws, it is because of an international trade agreement which both Europe and America have agreed to. Specifically Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. A EU court ruled that it is not illegal to provide a mod chip for the Wii because of “how often [the] devices are in fact used in order to allow unauthorised copies … and how often that equipment is used for purposes which do not infringe copyright[.]“ (from the article). The US court meanwhile ignored the question whether they could have legitimate purpose at all and just saw it as “a device to circumvent copyright“. What is interesting here is not that two countries have different laws, it is that an “international“ law is interpreted completely different for an almost identical case by two countries and thus punished completely differently.

wereHamster 9y ago
Isn't there an international court (the one in Den Haag?) that could be used to clarify this difference in interpretation of international law?
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  The International Court of Justice does not have compulsory jurisdiction, cases can only be referred to it by agreement between state parties, whether such agreement is expressed before or after the dispute. I'm unfamiliar with the Berne convention but I think it sets a minimum standard for copyright. States are free to go above the minimum. States are definitely free to decide whether a crime is civil or criminal and how it is to be prosecuted and punished. There're a series of excellent EdX courses on International Law by the Université Catholique de Louvain if you're interested. https://www.edx.org/micromasters/louvainx-international-law https://www.edx.org/micromasters/louvainx-international-law Don't use endonyms like Den Haag or Torino for The Hague or Turin for developed countries. Use the traditional exonyms.
- masklinn 9y ago
  The US withdrew from the ICJ's "compulsory jurisdiction" following Nicaragua v. United States and accept the court's jurisdiction "on a case by case basis" (not to mention enforcement of ICJ rulings are performed by the UN Security Council on which the US have veto rights). The court mostly deals with disputes between states — which is not the case here as a USian was imprisoned by the US following US interpretation of treaty rules — and the US would have to allow its jurisdiction for this case which I wouldn't see happen normally, and even less so under the current jingoistic administration.

wereHamster 9y ago

Isn't there an international court (the one in Den Haag?) that could be used to clarify this difference in interpretation of international law?

barry-cotter 9y ago
The International Court of Justice does not have compulsory jurisdiction, cases can only be referred to it by agreement between state parties, whether such agreement is expressed before or after the dispute. I'm unfamiliar with the Berne convention but I think it sets a minimum standard for copyright. States are free to go above the minimum. States are definitely free to decide whether a crime is civil or criminal and how it is to be prosecuted and punished. There're a series of excellent EdX courses on International Law by the Université Catholique de Louvain if you're interested. https://www.edx.org/micromasters/louvainx-international-law https://www.edx.org/micromasters/louvainx-international-law Don't use endonyms like Den Haag or Torino for The Hague or Turin for developed countries. Use the traditional exonyms.
masklinn 9y ago
The US withdrew from the ICJ's "compulsory jurisdiction" following Nicaragua v. United States and accept the court's jurisdiction "on a case by case basis" (not to mention enforcement of ICJ rulings are performed by the UN Security Council on which the US have veto rights). The court mostly deals with disputes between states — which is not the case here as a USian was imprisoned by the US following US interpretation of treaty rules — and the US would have to allow its jurisdiction for this case which I wouldn't see happen normally, and even less so under the current jingoistic administration.