The Long Reach Of The Law

Anonymous Coward writes "Think legal jurisdictions mean anything? Apparently not if it involves copying DVDs. Matthew Pavlovich, who isn't a resident of California, has just had an Appellate Court decision go against him in that state -- he is exposed to prosecution. Read all about it..."

What about outside America?

[thebitninja]

Does this mean that I can be done by Californian law for posting DeCSS in New Zealand. What about anyone getting done under Afganistan law for just about anything. Is it just me or is this whole situation with regard to IP, Encryption, Hacking and other such knee jerk reactions by the establishment getting way out of control. I guess it shows how hard the entrenched powerbase will try to hang onto it's eroding power base.

This cannot go on like this indefinately... can it?

Re:What about outside America?

[J'raxis]

Check out stories on the Hague Convention [slashdot.org]. Something horribly similar to what you describe is already in the works. Especially read RMS's essay [gnu.org] linked in the second story [slashdot.org] listed there.

Re:What about outside America?

[thebitninja]

Hey that's amazing. The RMS article really blew me away. Does that mean that if I could buy a small country (or at least their legal system.) I could change the law there to let me say, copyright breathing. And provided that I followed all the laws of that country, I could then sue everyone else in the whole world. I mean the ways to abuse this just seem endless. Could I divorce my wife by saying I divorce you three times, as is possible under islamic law and then force that through over here. I mean where does this stop!

Anyway thanks for the links.

This will continue.

[Starquake]

It is the government's new M.O. Local and state governments are attempting to expand their reach beyond their jurisdiction and into every corner of the world. For example, I just read an article about the mayor of Chicago obtaining a list of registered gun owners in ALL 50 STATES. Now what right does a city mayor have to these records? None. It seems politicians don't care about what's "right" anymore, especially when it involves Gun Owners, Content Pirates, and Drug Smugglers.

Federal issue, not state's

[jmoloug1]

I would hope that a federal judge would exempt this guy from the case if he were to appeal it. This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government. What is legal in one state but illegal in another opens you up to completely unreasonable attempts at applying jurisdiction. Think of an analogy to the physical world, suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit, but a California permit would be more stringent, and that pollution then enters California territorial waters. The State of California has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever, so why do they think they do in this case? Doing so is a violation of the US Constitution.

Re:Federal issue, not state's

[Chacham]

This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.

Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)

Let's read the eleventh amendment [loc.gov] to The Constitution of the United States [loc.gov].

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Also, let's read the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of The Constitution of the United States [loc.gov].

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.

Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.

suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.

A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence [loc.gov], and the ninth and tenth ammendments [loc.gov] make this abundantly clear.

Re:Federal issue, not state's

[jmoloug1]

This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government. Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.) Let's read the eleventh amendment to The Constitution of the United States. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him. You clearly are NAL. The eleventh amendment simply prevents me from suing the state of California in a federal court. I must sue the State of California in a state court. This has nothing to do with a state filing criminal charges against a person who resides outside the state and committed an act outside the state. Further, the alleged violation of a California trade secrets law (which is what he's charged with) does fall under interstate commerce when the alleged action takes place outside the state. suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit. A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence, and the ninth and tenth ammendments make this abundantly clear. No, it's not abuntantly clear. You're right, the states do make it illegal, but then grant permits for small amounts that are considered legal. In any event, what I'm allowed to do in one state cannot be prosecuted by a different state when the action occurs outside its borders. This is simply a question about jurisdiction. Since this is all about DeCSS, a federal case revolving around the DMCA is the appropriate forum, not a state law outside its jurisdiction.

Re:Federal issue, not state's

[Chacham]

You clearly are NAL. The eleventh amendment simply prevents me from suing the state of California in a federal court. I must sue the State of California in a state court.

But which state court? In a non-califonian court, the constitution gives jurisdiction to the US Government, which is not allowed here. So, it would have to be a Californian court. But why would a court allow a foreigner to sue them. Would not that be akin to letting a Freedonian sue the US in US courts?

Further, the alleged violation of a California trade secrets law (which is what he's charged with) does fall under interstate commerce when the alleged action takes place outside the state.

Whoa! So is one state makes a law, the US Goverment has to enforce it outside the state? That does not seem right.

No, it's not abuntantly clear.

Yes, it is. The ninth and tenth amendments give all rights to people (or the state) not given to the government. It would take a state constitution to give all the rights to the state, and I do not believe that it does. Thus, the rights all belong to the people unless made illegal. The Declaration of Independence, refers to inalienable rights. The adjective is extremely important. Noone has rights. Everyone can do what they want, unless it encumbers someone else, in which case laws may be made.