A lot of countries are happy to sign anything with regard to copyright, as they have no intention to enforce it.

> I'm not sure what benefit any country outside of the USA gets for honoring trade agreements that bind them to enforce US anti-circumvention, US copyright, and US DRM.

Sanctions?

> ircumvention, US copyright, and US DRM. A fortune awaits any country who has the guts to say "you know what, USA, we're going to allow blatantly copying your shit--what are you going to do, tariff us? Oh, wait, you already are!"

What does the target country do if Microsoft and Apple stop sales and support with immediate effect?

That's the effect of sanctions. Overnight their systems are all bricked.

The petrodollar may not be relevant anymore, but almost all governments in the 1st world have to bend the knee for Microsoft.

On one hand, I kinda think they deserve it, having ignored competing systems that are both cheaper and better.

Any government threatening the US can be easily cut off at the knees overnight at the behest of the US government.

> Sanctions?

Go ahead. In every blackmail there's a point where the only way forward is through.

> What does the target country do if Microsoft and Apple stop sales and support with immediate effect?

Apple makes luxury toy electronics. Hardly anyone is going to miss those in the world. And Microsoft support does nothing. It's way easier to fix your Microsoft products by cracking them than it is to go through MS "support". And it's often fixed this way in smaller companies and for private users. Freeing large companies to fix their MS stuff would actually improved the support.

What really locks everything in is the cloud. First step to sovereignty must be escaping US cloud services. Huh, I guess that's why everybody is trying to do what they can to move their stuff off American servers. Everybody is already preparing for post-American internet.

> Apple makes luxury toy electronics. Hardly anyone is going to miss those in the world.

I agree with your point, the world needs to start looking at alternatives to American big tech, especially for sovereign needs. However, this is the one thing that I think will keep countries bowing down to the US and it's increasing international relations insanity: people want their shiny toys. We're OK on the gaming front, now Xbox is basically dead, and PlayStation/Nintendo are Japanese companies. There's already alternatives to Steam on the PC front.

I think the whole take-back-digital-sovereignty will be a much harder sell for the people who love their iPhones. Until we get some open operating system with cloned apple hardware. I don't see that happening anytime soon though because it will take tens or hundreds of billions in investment (not even R&D investment, but pure capital) to pull off. China looks like they might have done it for their native market. They've certainly done it for EVs.

> And Microsoft support does nothing.

By "support" I did not mean "user calls with a problem", I mean, "allowing those windows and office installations to talk to any Microsoft cloud".

It means that Windows bricks itself after not talking to the mothership for a few days/weeks/months.

It means that no new updates are rolled out.

It means that any licensed computer that talks to MS gets a response of "you are not licensed!"

EU fines of up to 100s of millions of USD haven't stopped these companies from operating overseas. It is unlikely that they would exit a trillion dollar market because of some self-imposed security laws. Rather the opposite, the hardware would have to be free of whatever invasive security measure there is if EU wanted it. But they are rather xenophobic, so the incentives align.

The companies would choose to operate in the EU if they could.

The US government is throwing its weight around, appeares to be preparing to illegally annex bits of non-EU land in an EU member state, to sow propaganda to fracture the EU itself, and has already sanctioned EU judges for doing their jobs when their job is against US interests.

Non-zero chance they will not have any choice in this. Gut feeling says we're still a long way short of 50:50, but it's just gut feeling.

>has already sanctioned EU judges for doing their jobs when their job is against US interests.

Wow, this is scary. I assume EU would never punish US companies for doing their jobs when their job is against EU interests?

A judge making a ruling to listen to a case, issuing arrest warrants so those cases can proceed (arrest does not mean proven guilty!), is not supposed to be a valid target.

Great, then when American judges rule that Maduro is a valid arrest target, then no one in the EU can complain.

Sanctioning is now the same as complaining, apparently.

Someone is concerned about the US personally sanctioning EU judges, you make some false equivalence about EU sanctioning US companies, and then again about EU citizens complaining about US judges.

Is this all you do? It's not helping whatever case you have.

The equivalent here would be if that American judge was sanctioned by the EU for issuing the arrest warrant for Maduro. Or would be, if Venezuela was an ally of the EU.

That Maduro was a head of state and still subject to an extraordinary rendition means that now the EU has to worry about EU heads of state being violently extradited to the USA. Not because anyone in the EU cares about Maduro himself, but because the US has signalled by doing this that they don't care about the old rules.

Why are you comparing US companies to EU judges? To me it seems like private business in the US is much more involved in the legislative than the judicative branch.

> EU fines of up to 100s of millions of USD haven't stopped these companies from operating overseas. It is unlikely that they would exit a trillion dollar market because of some self-imposed security laws.

That's not what sanctions mean. When the US imposes sanctions on $COUNTRY, US businesses are not able to do business or any type, including charity, with the target country.

I suppose they would be placed in the same bucket as Russia. Trade sanctions are a no-trade rule. If sufficient numbers do this, it will destabilize an American-led world order, but there is huge first-mover disadvantage. Right now, being part of the global trade market is nice. Everyone would prefer it because it yields results for all.

Anyone who can't sell into the US-aligned world will have a hard time, particularly because the guys you've aligned with are all adversely selected for being a bit free-cannony. Russia has a lot of petroleum, which helps, but if you don't have some such valuable resource, you're in trouble.

Given Trump's own track record for honoring them, zero?

I could be mistaken, but believe that may have been tried before...

(if Lenin had observed copyright and given imperial bondholders a haircut but still made some token payments, would he have been given a seat at the farmers' poker table?)

There is the case where SouthAfrica wanted to introduce pretty much a copy/paste US version of the Fairuse DRM law that already exists in US law and the Multicorps went ballistic , and the USG was threatening sanctions.

Not for the first time either , in the early 2000s SAfrica wanted looser patent enforcment for lifesaving HIV treatments and did get sanctioned.With resolution of the law being droppped and corps getting bought out via USAID/Pefpar payment.

So yeah whatever option that is tried , better be fully baked before the announcement.

If by fortune you mean the said country won’t be able to protect its own IP abroad, then I agree

They get to sell into the US market.