China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

December 23, 2009 -

While it may never become a true open market for foreign media, China is being forced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) to at least take a small step or two in that direction.

In filing an appeal against a WTO ruling earlier this year, China had claimed that routing foreign media through its own distributors was a requirement in order to protect “public morals.” The WTO did not agree and has denied China’s appeal, reports the Wall Street Journal.

China now has one year to comply with the ruling and to open its country to more films, videogames and music, which could obviously be a financial windfall for Western companies eying global expansion. If China does not comply within the specified timeframe, the U.S. could rain down trade sanctions on China equivalent to revenue lost on media not allowed into the country. Such sanctions could total billions of dollars.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk stated:

U.S. companies and workers are at the cutting edge of these industries, and they deserve a full chance to compete under agreed WTO rules. We expect China to respond promptly to these findings and bring its measures into compliance.

China’s Yao Jian, a spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce, responded:

China has conscientiously carried out its obligations under WTO rules in terms of access to the publishing market since its entry into the WTO.

China currently allows only 20 foreign films a year to be released within its borders, a number that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) does not see changing, even in light of the new ruling.

The Journal called the rejection of the appeal, “… one of China’s biggest-ever losses at the WTO.”

Posted in

Comments

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

President Obama has spent more then every other world leader combined, currently China owns the majority of U.S Bonds out there and holds a good deal of U.S debt. If China decides to cash out, it’s over for the United States of America just as the U.S.S.R (Soviet Union) collapsed for over spending.

Then your Liberal savior can finally make his own corrupt like South American Socialist Republic where he is President for life and his word is law.

The United States is not going to start a trade War with China, if it does obviously our Dear Leader is doing it for a reason. You can report me to flag@whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/)

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

Only about half of US bonds are held by foreign countries ("Most of the government’s holdings are massive savings accounts for programs like Social Security and Medicare." - MSNBC), of which 22% is held by China (according to the US Treasury, as of Oct 2009), which means they hold about 11% of US bonds, and 11% is not a majority.  Yes, facts are stubborn things.

Besides, China can't "cash out" until the bond matures, like everyone else.  In the mean time, they can only sell the bond to someone else.

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

the chinese people want to be free FREE they have life size statue of optimus prime THATS PROOF ENOUGH RIGHT

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

Ah, China; the communists who aren't communists.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

Actually China is the only communist country with any real powers left. Vietnam and North Korea are only surviving as communist countries thanks to China's support, and Cuba is all on it own.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

China: The totalitarianism of Stalin-style communism now featuring the corruption of capitalism!  

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

*smears blue paint over his face* *clears throat* *deep breath* FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM ahem Im not even scottish not a great movie but the quote kinda works here haha

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

About time this came back to bite them in the ass.

I wonder if they'll start eyeing Australia next.

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

I wish they would, then I would eventually be able to get all those great Japanese games that hardly ever come out in my own country down under.

Sad thing is, Australia has a healthy reputation of being huge on importing goods that I don't think the WTO would really consider Australia as being a problem.

I think China attracts allot of attention because of how big the country is in it's size of people/population.

Therefore if more people in China are able to buy their products, then it will be a better trade deal.

The moral part of their argument is really weak and if they ever cared about morality, they should look at themselves and how their government treats those who fight for human rights.

But there is one thing wrong with the WTO, they think that people in China are better off like the people living in Beijing. They should look at other areas of China and see that in reality most of the people in China are from poor families who are struggling to live and they may not be able to buy the things from other countries if they are going to be out of their price range.

TBoneTony

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

If one of those 20 films was "Transformers 2" I can see exactly where the WTO is coming from.  

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

Frankly I don;t think ANY culture should be polluted by Bays garbage.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

IIRC those 20 movies are all heavily censored.

Re: China Loses WTO “Morals” Appeal

China currently allows only 20 foreign films a year to be released within its borders

Holy shit, seriously? That's peanuts.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameprice07/28/2015 - 8:03pm
MattsworknameAndrew: Your not wrong andrew, but gamasutra , and others like it , were called to task by the audiance that felt they had turned there backs on them. True or not, in media, you have to know how to reach an audiance, and chosing not to, well, you pay a07/28/2015 - 8:03pm
Andrew EisenAt the end of the day, even when Intel pulled its advertising (albeit, temporarily), Gamasutra showed its journalistic integrity by not removing or editing the opinion piece.07/28/2015 - 8:00pm
Andrew EisenNot liking Gamasutra is fine. The audience is primarily industry folk and it's not a game-focused site so it's probably not targeting you anyway.07/28/2015 - 7:57pm
E. Zachary KnightMAtt, So, an online petition asking Target to stop selling GTAV is "bullying and threatening" but a petition and boycott of Intel to force them to stop advertising on Gamasutra is justified?07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
Andrew EisenTrue or not, what it came across as a bunch of people lashing out at a publication over an opinion piece.07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
MattsworknameTo be honest, I've never liked them, but mostly cause rather then being a game focused site, they felt to political for my taste07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
Andrew EisenAnd in the case of Gamasutra?07/28/2015 - 7:54pm
Mattsworknameour concerns about them were well founded.07/28/2015 - 7:50pm
MattsworknameDepends on who you ask, accountable fto it's audiance, accountablie for lies and half truths, accountible for disengenous statements, everyone had there own reasons for going after them. Although in the case of gawker, recent events seem to indicate that07/28/2015 - 7:50pm
Andrew EisenAccountable for... what, exactly?07/28/2015 - 7:48pm
MattsworknameI think the intent was to force some kind of accountabilty on them. Granted As I said ,i wasn't exactly big on the ideas of attacking advertisers but it's a common and well used tactic. Sadly, theres not many other ways of holding media sites acountable07/28/2015 - 7:47pm
MechaTama31With the goal of...? Getting those media outlets to fire or silence the "scum"? That's shitty.07/28/2015 - 7:44pm
Mattsworknamewarned about the scum there assoicating with. Looking at you GAWKER media07/28/2015 - 7:37pm
MattsworknameI think the only reason it was the first action was alot of people felt it was the only option that might have an actual impact. and to be honest, i don't see how they were exactly wrong. Plus, as recent events showed, soem times adverisers need to be07/28/2015 - 7:37pm
MattsworknameTo be honest, I was always kinda on edge about that, while I did not like that those news outlets had acted in the way theey did, i didn't like that we thought boycotting and advertiser attacks were the only recourse07/28/2015 - 7:36pm
MechaTama31And after AE questioned that same analogy, I described it as extreme hyperbole.07/28/2015 - 7:36pm
E. Zachary KnightMecha, The "bullying and threatening" thing is from an earlier shout by Matt. I asked you tht question because you compared the petition to someone threatening to shoot your child.07/28/2015 - 7:35pm
Andrew EisenBy the way, if anyone can see into alternate timelines, I've got $20 that says Target would have ignored the petition had it been presented at the game's launch instead of over a year later.07/28/2015 - 7:34pm
MechaTama31Write a "Gamers are Alive" article. Make a video highlighting positive things about games. Counter your opponent, don't try to silence them.07/28/2015 - 7:33pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician