"Pirating" is the act of acquiring a copy of a copyrighted work in a way that is contrary to existing law. "Downloading" Copyrighted works can be done completely legally, the simplest example being to buy a copy of a movie on itunes and transferring it to your phone or tablet. This is a 'third' way of legally downloading content which is sort of like buying property with a tax lien on it, the government (in this case the WTO) has stepped in, set aside the rights of the property owner, and is sanctioning an action to make whole the person or entity who is wronged.
So the WTO sets aside the rights of US Copyright holders and allows Antiqua to sell those works, allowing it to recover damages that the US Government has failed to pay. The government could "pay" the $21M fine and the WTO would rescind this, but if they do that then they show that they are wrong in denying access to the US market for Antiqua gambling interests. If they don't pay it, they are bound by membership in the WTO to abide by its decisions. It is a delicious paradox.
""Pirating" is the act of acquiring a copy of a copyrighted work in a way that is contrary to existing law."
Okay - I'll bite. What does that mean? How does one acquire a copy of a copyrighted work in a way that is contrary to existing law? Or, alternatively, How does one acquire a copy of a copyrighted work in a way that is compliant with existing law? As a "Pro-IP Law" enthusiast, I'm genuinely interested - my layperson's understanding of the law is that it deals with distribution, not downloading.
Its pretty simple actually, the owner of the copy 'right' expressly authorizes the copy being given to you. That is in accordance with the law. So any number of examples, you buy a book at the book store, you buy a DVD, you watch a movie at the theater, all of these actions result in a 'copy' of the work coming into your possession that is sanctioned by the owner of the right.
Any illegal copy is one in which the owner hasn't sanctioned transferring a copy to you.
Copyright law carves out specific exemptions for lending libraries and the First Sale doctrine, part of the unified commercial code (UCC) gives you the right to transfer your copy to a third party as long as no new copies are created (so you no longer have a copy).
Note I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
So the WTO sets aside the rights of US Copyright holders and allows Antiqua to sell those works, allowing it to recover damages that the US Government has failed to pay. The government could "pay" the $21M fine and the WTO would rescind this, but if they do that then they show that they are wrong in denying access to the US market for Antiqua gambling interests. If they don't pay it, they are bound by membership in the WTO to abide by its decisions. It is a delicious paradox.