… the British government is ditching the words “War on Terror.”
Move to Defend: The Case against the Constitutional Amendments Seeking to Overturn Citizens United
Latest Study
Move to Defend: The Case against the Constitutional Amendments Seeking to Overturn Citizens United
Featured Event
April 25
Featuring Frederick W. Smith, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, FedEx Corporation; Andrew Morriss, D. Paul Jones Jr. & Charlene A. Jones Chairholder in Law and Professor of Business, University of Alabama; and James L. Smith, Cary M. Maguire Chair in Oil and Gas Management, Southern Methodist University; moderated by Jerry Taylor, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.
Featured Publication
In the latest issue of Regulation magazine, M. Todd Henderson reviews last year’s brouhaha over health insurance and birth control. According to Henderson, lost in the firestorm about religion and feminism were larger lessons about health care policy and regulation. Also in this issue, Cato scholar Richard L. Gordon argues that new federal efforts to cut emissions are the result of longstanding legal and judicial mandates, not a sudden Obama administration push.
Latest Multimedia
May 2, 2013
May 2, 2013
Latest Commentary
Latest Blog Post
Featured Book
More Bang for Your Buck
The Cato Institute tops a new measure of think tank performance in the United States, according to a recent report. Cato bested all other U.S. think tanks in the main category of “Aggregate Profile per Dollar Spent.” “I’m grateful to the Center for Global Development for showing that Cato gives its sponsors something I wish government gave more of to taxpayers: bang for the buck,” said Cato CEO John Allison.
… the British government is ditching the words “War on Terror.”
Don’t miss Sallie James’s excellent write-up of the ongoing WTO dispute over the American gambling ban. Hollywood is being caught in the crossfire in the dispute, as one of the remedies the WTO is considering for the US’s non-compliance with WTO rulings is allowing other countries to ignore American companies’ copyrights.
As I point out over at Techdirt, I’m not sure it makes sense to paint Hollywood as an innocent victim here. After all, Hollywood has been pushing for decades to link trade policy and copyright law, going so far as to push for provisions in recent trade deals micro-managing other countries’ copyright policies and requiring them to enact laws like the DMCA as a condition of access to American markets. Free traders rightly object when special interests try to use free trade agreements to compel countries to enact their preferred labor and environmental policies. We should be equally incensed when Hollywood lobbies try to use trade agreements to compel countries to enact their preferred copyright policies. So there’s a certain amount of poetic justice in the fact that after decades of pushing to link trade and copyright issues, Hollywood has found its copyrights in the crosshairs of a trade dispute.
James also makes the excellent point that retaliatory tariffs are an insane way to impose damages on the losing country in a WTO dispute because tariffs hurt consumers in the “winning” country at the same time it hurts producers in the “losing” country. This is another reason we shouldn’t be too upset about copyright-based penalties for the losing party in trade disputes. If damages are imposed by targeting copyright law, consumers in the winning country will actually be made better off by lower prices for the copyrighted products in question. So while it would be best if Congress repealed its idiotic gambling ban, I’m not going too upset if Hollywood’s attempts to link copyright law to trade policy come back to bite them.

This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.