6 ms·

I'm heating up my popcorn kernels in a large pot of oil as we speak, things are about to get very entertaining. If Antigua start a piracy website selling US cop

I'm heating up my popcorn kernels in a large pot of oil as we speak, things are about to get very entertaining. If Antigua start a piracy website selling US copyrighted material, won't the US just ban access to the site and other countries (definitely the UK and Australia) will follow suit? Potentially resulting in free-speech and Internet rights advocacy groups (and the likes of anonymous) kicking up a massive storm of trouble? It's obvious the bans on Internet gambling is due to the fact it's hard to regulate and it's even harder to tax and when it comes down to it, it's all about money. The US only has themselves to blame, this isn't about protecting people from addictions because lets face it if you want to gamble legally you can go to a casino and if you want drugs you can walk down to the corner and if you want booze you can go to a bottle shop or bar. What's the difference between Internet gambling and going to a casino? The government can tax non-Internet based casinos... If it gets that far and something isn't worked out prior, this will be an interesting test of Obama's merits as a president and where he stands on things like unrestricted and free Internet access. Given the US's harsh words against China's censorship over the years, it would be pretty ironic if the US were to block such a site.

1337biz 14y ago
Great point. Even so I don't expect them to really go through with it, it is great to see small countries at least trying to stand up for themselves.
- No1 14y ago
  I don't really expect it to happen either; sounds more like a power play to get the US to finally cough up some restitution for the claimed billions in losses that Antiguan economy has suffered. If it does play out though, things will get very interesting.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Standing up for themselves against what?
  - mentat 14y ago
    Against the US who abides by WTO when it pleases them and disregards it when it doesn't.
defrost 14y ago
> definitely the UK and Australia Why would Australia, the country, follow suit? While it's true a few misguided Family First types have proposed mandatory filtering laws for Australia such laws are not in place and have repeatedly suffered setbacks. The other side of that coin is Australia has had one of its major ISPs defend all the way to the Supreme Court the right not to monitor the torrenting behaviour of its users. It's a robust and engaged debate here in Australia and the country hasn't followed the American industry lead on tracking piracy.
- Maxious 14y ago
  >While it's true a few misguided Family First types have proposed mandatory filtering laws for Australia such laws are not in place I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/14/iinet-internode-implement-conroys-new-filter/ http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/14/iinet-internode-implement... This is for obscene content but it appears that there is at present no legal barrier to the government just issuing further Section 313 orders that would block websites that breach other laws.
  - defrost 14y ago
    It's a robust debate and a complicated one, to be sure. That's the state of play as a few months back, iiNet has agreed to filter the interpol list of serious child porn sites and that's: - not the same as the initial black hole, black list initially proposed - something I have far less of an issue with, particularly if a significant proportion and cross section of the population has access to the list (still being ironed out) - the story's still not played out (and hopefully remains in play, forever, as a point of active debate for Australian society). Thanks for posting the link, I was aware of that and deliberately simplifying above. Coming back to the banning of Antigua from within Australia should the US do so, I can see that being proposed and raised up the mast here, I don't see it being pushed out and actually floated quite so easily.
    - pyre 14y ago
      | interpol list of serious child porn sites If they are so serious why are they allowed to operate? Are there really jurisdictions that allow them to operate with impunity? Or are these sites really in legal grey zones[1]? [1] e.g. Country A says that you must be 21+ to appear in porn, but Country B says that you only need to be 18+.
mrb 14y ago
won't the US just ban access to the site? Currently, the US has no ability to do this, they have no country-wide firewall like China. At best, they can revoke/hijack the domain name, since ICANN is pretty much under US influence, but the site would remain accessible by IP address, and it is likely that tens/hundreds of alternative domain names would be set up by the site supporters. Or, the US could hijack the IP space with BGP black holing/null routing, but this would be seen as an extremely offensive act. It would be the first time a western country does this AFAIK.
- bo1024 14y ago
  Or simply ask the major ISPs to block it. They are already opting into 6 strikes and throttling certain types of traffic (e.g. torrents). It wouldn't surprise me at all if they "voluntarily" (or really, voluntarily) blocked such sites.
  - DigitalSea 14y ago
    This is the exact kind of blocking I was thinking of. Merely blocking the domain would be enough to prevent access from basic users but maybe not knowledgeable pirates, similar to what has happened with The Pirate Bay in the UK and ISP's blocking access to it.
    - sp332 14y ago
      But blocking that domain in the UK did nothing to slow bittorrent traffic, according to several sources. http://torrentfreak.com/censoring-the-pirate-bay-is-futile-isps-reveal-120711/ http://torrentfreak.com/censoring-the-pirate-bay-is-futile-i...
      - DigitalSea 14y ago
        Yeah, it was circumvented Pretty quickly. You can't outsmart a pirate. It's a good example of a government trying to restrict what it's citizens can do however, even if it failed the government tried to block access in the first place.
uvdiv 14y ago
It's obvious the bans on Internet gambling is due to the fact it's hard to regulate and it's even harder to tax... Or billion-dollar mafia-run casinos know which politicians to bribe.
howardr 14y ago
This is how the WTO is able to enforce its regulations. Because the WTO can't actually forced a country to pay another for unfair trade practices (the WTO doesn't have an army), the WTO is allowed to permit winning plaintiffs to break agreements or enact retaliatory tarrifs to recoup losses[1] It comes down to comparative advantage[2]: Countries are better off by opening up free trade and thus have an incentive to keep things relatively open. The WTO acts as intermediary to prevent an arms race of tariffs and retaliatory actions that end up hurting countries in the long run. It seems ironic because the WTO is letting another country enact a retaliatory tariff but for the most part the WTO is one of the more effective global institutions at enforcing its principal. There is a lot more nuance but I hope this helps explain this a little more. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_trade#Ricardian_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_trade#Ricardian_m...

1337biz 14y ago

Great point. Even so I don't expect them to really go through with it, it is great to see small countries at least trying to stand up for themselves.

No1 14y ago
I don't really expect it to happen either; sounds more like a power play to get the US to finally cough up some restitution for the claimed billions in losses that Antiguan economy has suffered. If it does play out though, things will get very interesting.
rayiner 14y ago
Standing up for themselves against what?
- mentat 14y ago
  Against the US who abides by WTO when it pleases them and disregards it when it doesn't.

defrost 14y ago

> definitely the UK and Australia Why would Australia, the country, follow suit? While it's true a few misguided Family First types have proposed mandatory filtering laws for Australia such laws are not in place and have repeatedly suffered setbacks. The other side of that coin is Australia has had one of its major ISPs defend all the way to the Supreme Court the right not to monitor the torrenting behaviour of its users. It's a robust and engaged debate here in Australia and the country hasn't followed the American industry lead on tracking piracy.

Maxious 14y ago
>While it's true a few misguided Family First types have proposed mandatory filtering laws for Australia such laws are not in place I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/14/iinet-internode-implement-conroys-new-filter/ http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/14/iinet-internode-implement... This is for obscene content but it appears that there is at present no legal barrier to the government just issuing further Section 313 orders that would block websites that breach other laws.
- defrost 14y ago
  It's a robust debate and a complicated one, to be sure. That's the state of play as a few months back, iiNet has agreed to filter the interpol list of serious child porn sites and that's: - not the same as the initial black hole, black list initially proposed - something I have far less of an issue with, particularly if a significant proportion and cross section of the population has access to the list (still being ironed out) - the story's still not played out (and hopefully remains in play, forever, as a point of active debate for Australian society). Thanks for posting the link, I was aware of that and deliberately simplifying above. Coming back to the banning of Antigua from within Australia should the US do so, I can see that being proposed and raised up the mast here, I don't see it being pushed out and actually floated quite so easily.
  - pyre 14y ago
    | interpol list of serious child porn sites If they are so serious why are they allowed to operate? Are there really jurisdictions that allow them to operate with impunity? Or are these sites really in legal grey zones[1]? [1] e.g. Country A says that you must be 21+ to appear in porn, but Country B says that you only need to be 18+.

mrb 14y ago

won't the US just ban access to the site? Currently, the US has no ability to do this, they have no country-wide firewall like China. At best, they can revoke/hijack the domain name, since ICANN is pretty much under US influence, but the site would remain accessible by IP address, and it is likely that tens/hundreds of alternative domain names would be set up by the site supporters. Or, the US could hijack the IP space with BGP black holing/null routing, but this would be seen as an extremely offensive act. It would be the first time a western country does this AFAIK.

bo1024 14y ago
Or simply ask the major ISPs to block it. They are already opting into 6 strikes and throttling certain types of traffic (e.g. torrents). It wouldn't surprise me at all if they "voluntarily" (or really, voluntarily) blocked such sites.
- DigitalSea 14y ago
  This is the exact kind of blocking I was thinking of. Merely blocking the domain would be enough to prevent access from basic users but maybe not knowledgeable pirates, similar to what has happened with The Pirate Bay in the UK and ISP's blocking access to it.
  - sp332 14y ago
    But blocking that domain in the UK did nothing to slow bittorrent traffic, according to several sources. http://torrentfreak.com/censoring-the-pirate-bay-is-futile-isps-reveal-120711/ http://torrentfreak.com/censoring-the-pirate-bay-is-futile-i...
    - DigitalSea 14y ago
      Yeah, it was circumvented Pretty quickly. You can't outsmart a pirate. It's a good example of a government trying to restrict what it's citizens can do however, even if it failed the government tried to block access in the first place.

uvdiv 14y ago

It's obvious the bans on Internet gambling is due to the fact it's hard to regulate and it's even harder to tax... Or billion-dollar mafia-run casinos know which politicians to bribe.

howardr 14y ago

This is how the WTO is able to enforce its regulations. Because the WTO can't actually forced a country to pay another for unfair trade practices (the WTO doesn't have an army), the WTO is allowed to permit winning plaintiffs to break agreements or enact retaliatory tarrifs to recoup losses[1] It comes down to comparative advantage[2]: Countries are better off by opening up free trade and thus have an incentive to keep things relatively open. The WTO acts as intermediary to prevent an arms race of tariffs and retaliatory actions that end up hurting countries in the long run. It seems ironic because the WTO is letting another country enact a retaliatory tariff but for the most part the WTO is one of the more effective global institutions at enforcing its principal. There is a lot more nuance but I hope this helps explain this a little more. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_trade#Ricardian_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_trade#Ricardian_m...