Kazaa And Exportation of U.S. Copyright Laws 557
Mr. Vidster writes "Interesting article in the NYTimes about the potential issues the U.S. justice system must face when dealing with Sharman Networks and KaZaA. Apparently Sharman and KaZaA have servers in Denmark, source code in Estonia, and the developers live in the Netherlands. How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?"
As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Funny)
I presume you meant teenganger when you misspelled that. The USA will not stand for these Russian mobsters trying to destroy our way of life. One day you let a teenganger go free and the next day he gets recruited into a terrorist organization. Sorry, but certain things must be done to preserve the American way of life on Earth. If one of those things is to kill this renegade teenganger Johansen then so be it. Down with teengangers!
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:4, Funny)
I presume you meant äppleganger when you misspelled that. What's an äppleganger, you ask? Sometimes, parents (especially of Germanic origin) leave their children home alone in front of the PC, only to come home and find some hideously altered travesty (actually a Fey Changeling) sitting in front of a machine that is no longer recognizable as a PC: gone are the beige overtones and sharp corners, only to be replaced with unacceptably nonconformist colors and sweeping, slanting curves. Such an abomination seeks to corrupt all surrounding mortals with ominous mantras such as "Think Different!" or "Switch!". Even the desktop is oft times different (although Gnome users are not as likely the same foreboding disorientation as others). That, my friends, is an äppleganger.
Our boy Johansen seems to fit the racial profile of the changeling victim, but his computer... I just don't know. Could it be that the Norweigan Police are in cahoots with the sinister Faerie King S'Teef Chobbs and quickly returned the computer, recoginizing it for the instrument of destruction it truly is? Perhaps we have more to fear from these äpplegangers than we truly realize.
Solomon
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Informative)
If we did not attempt to prosecute Jon Johansen, it would look like we did not care about the views of the USA. Rather, we will try him in a Court of Law using Norwegian Law. Most domestic IT law experts expects Johansen to win. It will be trying for the poor kid, but he will go loose and the USA will be moderately satisfied we at least tried.
That being said, I believe the WTO agreements are the papers to look for when researching the scope of Intellectual Property law.
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, war on terrorism is widely seen as internationally divisive from a non-US perspective. We feel that the war has not been carried out according to intentions.
Still, world against the US of A would be in interesting spectacle. You would be severely limited in your options by your access to oil on a medium-term basis.
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you vote for Democrat or Republican, you have no right to complain.
I never vote for either party. I personally vote Libertarian. I have the right to complain when the rest of the shit-wits in the US vote for "The lesser of two evils."
Now, when more people wake up and stop electing EVIL (lesser or not), maybe the rest of the world won't think we're all so evil.
When I voted, I was telling both Bush AND Gore to go fuck themselves. What were YOU telling them?
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:4, Insightful)
16% of the US population is living below the poverty line, that's the highest that number has been since 1970. And you want to vote Libertarian so we can elevate that number?
Nope, as far as the poor are concerned Libertarian and Republican are the same thing.
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Funny)
Greens are Democrats that can't get a trade union job or don't work at all.
Where I live there's almost always some wingnut racist biker running for president. That's who I vote for.
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is certainly merit to that argument, and I won't deny that economically, a Libertarian president could do almost exactly the same damage a Republican will do, except there are major differences that matter to me...
A Libertarian wouldn't take every opportunity to bomb the shit out of other countries...
A Libertarian would oppose things like the DMCA...
A Libertarian would work on laws that punish real evil people without trying to take away every last civil right we have left.
If you don't like the Libertarians, don't don't have to vote for them. But if you can honestly say you LIKE this bullshit "Two Party" system we have, then I think it's safe to assume you don't mind having your rights slowly taken away.
More important than that, if you ever vote for any one candidate you don't like just to "take votes" from someone you like even less, you're just as guilty as the person who doesn't vote at all.
If everybody voted for the candidate they truely felt best represented their views, I highly doubt we'd ever see anyone like Bush in office again.
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty naive. Do you trust politicians to tell the truth about the policies they will implement or support? Just because someone calls themselves "Libertarian", doesn't mean they really are.
Quit redefining "poor"... (Score:4, Funny)
#ifndef __POOR_H__
#define __POOR_H__ 1
#define WEEKS_PER_YEAR 52
#define WORK_HOURS_PER_WEEK 40
#define MINIMUM_WAGE 5.15
#define IS_POOR(yearly_income) \
((yearly_income (MINIMUM_WAGE * \
WORK_HOURS_PER_WEEK * WEEKS_PER_YEAR) ? 1 : 0)
#endif
You want to define certain people as poor? You have three manifest constants to work with. All three of them can only be changed with the approval of standards committees. Knock yourself out.
Notice: Cranking up any of these values to crank up income for the bottom rung is fine... but nothing you do will make them definitionally "poor"... the only thing that can do that is them not working full time.
FWIW: Most wealthy Libertarians, just like most wealthy Democrats or wealthy Republicans, etc., are all for bribing less well-off people to not steal their stuff. The various political parties just disagree as to what form the bribes should take.
-- Terry
Re:Quit redefining "poor"... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Informative)
What follows is a repost of my two-secondprimer on personal jurisdiction on the internet:
American civil procedure provides for jurisdiction over foreign companies that do business in America. The theory is that if you come to America and avail yourself of our markets, resources, society, labor, and laws, you are bound to obey our laws. This does not mean that you can be sued in New York if you offer goods for sale in China and some American happens to buy them while on vacation in Beijing. It does mean, though, that if you knowingly advertise in America, ship goods to America, or provide services to American clients, you can be sued in America for violating American law.
On the Internet, this analysis is a little complicated because websites are accessed internationally, and it is difficult to detect what country people are really browsing from. Still, efforts can be made to exclude certain jurisdictions. For example, Lindows.com [lindows.com] used to have a message [google.com] on their website that refusing to do business in Washington state. This is because they were trying to avoid being dragged into court by MSFT in Washington state.
There is plenty of caselaw on this emerging area of law:
As the cases make clear, there is a sliding scale that stretches from (1) passive website relating to local activities to (2) interactive website offering services to anybody across the land. Elcomsoft sounds a lot more like Zippo than it does the Blue Note jazz club in Missouri. If they are offering their services to Americans and offering downloads to Americans, they have to expect that they might be sued by Americans in America.
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Insightful)
> here. If you avail yourself of the benefits of
> doing business in America, then you are subject
> to the laws of America.
But this isn't quite the case. If I'm running a firm in the UK (for example), then I'm subject to the taxes and business laws of the UK. If I get orders from the US, it's harder - not easier - for me to ship them. Do I then have to be considered subject to US law simply because people from the US choose to use my product?
Or does the fact that I have an Internet presence automatically mean I just want to sell to the US? Ah yes, of course, they're the biggest Internet users so I must have an interest in them if I use the net. (Never mind that there are still more non-Americans using the Net than Americans - they just aren't all in the same country.)
Hey, how about some ISPs set up a ".nonus" domain which has no routers or hosts in the states?
The other problem is it's an aberration from standard law. In every other country, and for every other type of illegal material, there's a simple argument: if you import a product from a country where it's legal, but it's illegal in YOUR country, then customs swipe it and kick YOUR ass. That's reasonably fair.
The precedent followed by this law would imply further things - like, for example, many other countries suing US gun manufacture firms because the guns they make are being exported to countries where they're illegal.
If Americans don't know about their own DMCA and don't know that they can't legally download or use Kazaa, why should Dutch people be punished for giving them the option, when doing so isn't locally illegal for them?
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:4, Insightful)
Enjoying coming to Germany and availing yourself of the German market? Excellent. You've lost your right to compare your product with others in adverts.
Website accessible from Zimbabwe? Sorry, lost your right to critisize the government there. Ditto in Burma and America.
Availing yourself of the japanese market by benefitting from showing them adverts? Congratulations, you can display child-porn there. Unfortunately, you're still doing business in America, France, Germany, Burma, and Zimbabwe, each of which prohibits it. Moreover, you're doing business in Saudi Arabia, where the penalty is beheading. As you yourself say, policemen in your own country have an obligation to enforce the laws of the country where you do business.
Any more? If your banner-ad statistics show that you get paid for chineese web-browsers accessing the adverts, you'd better take the christian literature off the site. And of course, any criticism of the chineese government.
Pretty much the only place you're safe is Russia, because the US police will protect you from Russian law, and Australia, because they're firewalled and can't access the internet.
Welcome to the free market. Aren't American legal ideas great?
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Insightful)
File sharing is not going anywhere folks.. Not with programs out there like Direct Connect, FileShare, Kazaa and need I mention the millions of ftp sites out there?
These arguments are SO old. I download movies and games.... if they are worth keeping, I buy them and if they are garbage I delete them and never bother again. If not for this process I would not bother to buy anything(as I have done for years because frankly I dont like blowing money on a game and or movie and then hating it).
What I also find hilarious about the copyright argument... The RIAA says music sales are down due to d/l's of mp3's and the various other formats of music; however, I guess our current state of the economy would have nothing to do with the decrease in sales? I wonder if they compared other times of poor economy with their sales trends if they would be comparable to the downside trend they have been noticing.
Just a thought.
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if they compared their situation to other times providers of non-esentiall goods were guilty of price fixing. [slashdot.org]
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:3, Informative)
This has nothing to do with US copyright law and everything to do with international copyright law. I do not defend the RIAA, but feel obliged to note that copyright law is extended *both* directions through international treaty. IANAL, but I at least understand that US copyrights are honored elsewhere, and foreign copyrights are honored in the US. At least in theory, and excluding "pirate" countries and countries without at least a modicum of stability.
It's truly obnoxious the way the RIAA chooses to defend its copyrights. But the implication that the US is somehow overstepping its bounds by going after pirates outside its borders is ludicrous. These "foreign" countries have *agreed* to protect the copyrights of US entities, just as the US has agreed to protect theirs. It's the RIAA's heavy handed tactics that are the problem, not their belief that they have the right to protect their copyrighted works.
What's really in question is the legal interpretation of copyrights outside the US with regard to file sharing. To that end, the US can only work within the confines of the legal systems of the countries in question. They may display an excess of testosterone when dealing with the legal systems of these countries, but in the end the say is not that of the US legal system. The DMCA does not apply because it is not recognized internationally.
Re:As far as it wants to. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, he got nabbed when he set foot on US soil. That's different from US law reaching overseas. I don't know if Russia would have extradited him.
Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
it reaches . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
and the RIAA has... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and the RIAA has... (Score:2, Funny)
News reports today (Score:2, Funny)
Re:News reports today (Score:3, Interesting)
Well the idiots in the House have actually passed a bill that requires the President to invade the Netherlands if any US citizen is hauled up in front of the new International court.
One wonders why Bush and Co are so worried about the international court, unless of course they are planning to drop Sarin gas bombs on the Iraq.
How Far? (Score:5, Funny)
US officials claim that the world's safety is in danger, but when asked to provide proof, simply state that they have lots of it, but aren't willing to make it public 'just yet'...
US Reach (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:US Reach (Score:5, Funny)
Copyright violation is civil law, and most countries will not extradite people for that. Thanks, DMCA, for making the world a safe place to live in!
No real power... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No real power... (Score:2)
They don't have to be expidited. The US could just show up and apprehend people. It has happened before, in a sandy, hilly country.
extradite (Score:2)
Telegram (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No real power... (Score:2)
The U.S. military will never engage in ground combat against other white people. We wouldn't know who to shoot. Think about it, in 'Nam you just shoot at the short brown people with the pointy hats. Afghanistan/Iraq aim for the guy in a turban and sandals. Hell, we even had that pilot in Afghanistan who was such a moron all he could think of was "drop bombs on the tracer fire" even though it was Canadians doing training exercises.
Our days of actually fighting wars are over. The next task for our military resources is to unload hundreds of cargo ships stranded off of the west coast. If I were a PMA exec, I would be lauging all the way to the bank because good ol' W. is gonna send in the Nat'l Guard to do for free what I should have to pay a lazy union longshoreman $100,000+ a year to do.
Re:No real power... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean that the Germans weren't white? Wow!
Your argument doesn't hold up. The reason that the USA doesn't go to war with predominately European countries is that they've all been made to realize that it's better to trade with us than go to war with us. Same with a goodly portion of the Orient, Arabic, and African countries.
Our days of actually fighting wars are over.
Yeah, that Iraq stuff is all bluster, we'll never actually go to war with them... and Afghanistan? Just PR; it's been a puppet state since the 70s...
The next task for our military resources is to unload hundreds of cargo ships stranded off of the west coast. If I were a PMA exec, I would be lauging all the way to the bank because good ol' W. is gonna send in the Nat'l Guard to do for free what I should have to pay a lazy union longshoreman $100,000+ a year to do
You're right. The USA should bill an exhorbitant rate for the services of the military to resolve this dispute, and eminent-domain those that can't pay. Redstirbution of wealth from idiots sounds like a good idea.
Reach (Score:2)
To the fullest extent of airline tickets for an FBI team.
As far as... (Score:2)
As far as the money will take it.
Re:As far as... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As far as... (Score:2)
Re:As far as... (Score:2)
Who would argue with a deal like that? 25% of 6 billion is still 1.5 billion to spend on whatever. I think I'll move to Israel and get a $500 dollar check just for being a citizen.. oh wait, the Jewish law is too strict, I can't ever snag that.
How far? (Score:3, Insightful)
This will all take some time. Laws concerning information on the internet varies widely between nations, even preventing the United States from prosecuting or suing harmful virus writers in SouthEast Asia. With enough money and promises however, the United States may very well talk nations like Denmark and Thailand into more restrictive and reasonable laws concerning their cyber-space.
Wait until Sadaam gets A-bomb plans off KaZaa (Score:2, Interesting)
Damn, (Score:5, Interesting)
You say you are a what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You say you are a what? (Score:2)
Re:You say you are a what? (Score:2)
Which brings up an interesting point. Why aren't the RIAA and MPAA going after places like Giganews and UsenetServer and Easynews?
Why aren't they raising a stink about usenet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You say you are a what? (Score:2)
Re:You say you are a what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Free guns argument= irrelevant.
Tools are tools. Don't think that Adobe gets sued because some kid Photoshops pictures of something he's auctioning on Ebay to get a better price. Don't think that Stanley tools get sued if someone gets bludgeoned to death with a Stanley hammer. Tools that can have multiple purposes are usually not privy to scrutiny. Password-cracking programs and network scanners aren't really considered illegal tools either, because they can be used for checking security leaks/holes.
Re:Damn, (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, how do you prosecute someone if you don't know where they are? Eventually (as it sounds like is somewhat the case with KaZaA) someone will write a system like this and then not release their names. Internal version information is enough to keep track of releases and by the time something has been distributed enough to know it's a pest, it's been distributed enough to become a persistant problem.
--trb
Re:Damn, (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, we should implement our own version of "The Great Firewall of China." Except in America, it will "protect" the citizens from illegal IP rather than, say, Falun Gong websites.
Who gets to decide what makes it through the "Freedom Shield" or whatever newspeak you'd like to call it? Ashcroft? He won't even dance with his wife because he thinks dancing is immoral! The Copyright Holders of IP? They won't allow anything; the firewall will scan the page for "Ford" or "Friends" or "Star Wars" and deny access, just like BESS does at my girlfriend's school. The web will become useless. Utterly fucking useless.
Great plan, dipshit.
Remind me: Why is the government spending my money to protect Sony's IP again? Doesn't Sony have their own lawyers?
Re:Damn, (Score:3, Informative)
I've heard it said that almost all the knowledge of the world is available over the Internet, and most of what isn't can be purchased or ordered through the Internet. If so much is available then the regulation of them are pretty insignificant. Examples from my own viewpoint:
- porn: Global consensus seems to be that it's bad for kids, but adults can choose. The regulation problem is finding a global age when the choice is acceptable. 21? 18? 16? 14? Regulation seems to be within a country or within friendly countries.
- kiddie-porn: Global consensus seems to be that taking porn pictures of kids will basically ruin their life, so no real complaints when any country crosses international boundaries. Some nations object until their pockets are properly lined with cash.
- Shipping Drugs, Alchohol & Tobacco: Global consensus seems to vary based on location and national laws. It seems that trade by major groups is acceptable (since they follow laws and are licensed, pay tarrifs, etc) but minor groups are being attacked -- mainly because of tarrifs and not other laws. Regulation seems to be either "friendly companies that pay taxes and basically don't traffic in narcotics" or criminals who bypass the few restrictions in place.
- IP Theft: The only people who really seem to care are the people having their employee's ideas made available. The individuals who assert their IP rights seem to love the extra exposure, and don't mind being sent around the world as long as their name stays attached.
- Music & Movies: You don't see India asserting this kind of laws, even though they produce most of the world's feature-length films. That seems to be a US-Only issue, more specific, an issue only with the mega-corps associated with RIAA and MPAA. So when these groups try to get the US to put P2P on the same moral level as kiddie-porn, there are pretty bad reactions.
So from my view, the only people who want a hand in regulation on the Internet are the governments who are afriad of not getting taxes, and mega-corps who can't sell overpriced goods. There was an interesting piece on PBS some time ago that showed who the megacorps were [pbs.org] -- note that these companies are the major entities in the MPAA and RIAA.frob.
Re:Damn, (Score:2)
Re:Damn, (Score:4, Insightful)
Politics, politics, politics, my friend.
The US can lean on countries using whatever power it has (it does/will do this). Fact is, the politics of the situation are not the savage, horrible thing that people are whining about, it seems like more of a political/diplomatic reality that has always gone on, that people are recently awaking to. (I'm going to go out on a limb here) It is a realization very similar to the US's young people lashing out because they discover that the "one man, one vote" mantra is bullshit -- its really "one man, one vote...but before that comes lots of campaign financing, handshaking, and lobbying". Its nothing new -- its the way its always worked...people just weren't completely aware...
The US will use any means at its disposal for leverage, be it foreign aid, tariffs on imports/exports, military power/placement, embargos, control of shipping channels & oil pipelines, land, as well as its powerful positions in the UN. The US is having a related (UN) problem right now with Russia and China. Russia and China have veto power in the UN Security Council, and if the politics aren't played right, they will certainly veto any UN-endorsed action against Iraq. The US was able to gain the support of Russia by negotiating the control and security of the Russian/Iraqi oil fields. Is it an insidous process? I don't think so...I think that its the way the game is played. It just happens that the US gets to play the game with a really good hand (and its not like that great hand was just given to the Americans for nothing, which is what the rest of the world seems to believe).
Look at any US foreign policy deal in the past two centuries. You will find that there was give and take on all sides, and each country used whatever pressure it could to negotiate whatever deal that was being made.
this far (Score:4, Funny)
Re:this far (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, it's to prevent Saddam from making a cameo appearance in Episode 3.
The long arm of American law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The long arm of American law ... (Score:2)
After all, if you're not willing to judge and punish your own people in a consistent and non-discrimitory fashion, what gives yo the right to make any sort of moral judgement on persons and/or groups in other countries, who don't owe any sort of allegience to your country, flag, or constitution?
Do they have to show up? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they say you're infringing copyright, Sharman, just ignore them.
How far does the arm of US copyright law reach? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How far does the arm of US copyright law reach? (Score:2, Funny)
One can only imagine what's going on there...
Berne Convention (Score:4, Informative)
[wipo.int]
Berne Convention.
Don't knock the US! (Score:4, Funny)
It is unfair to knock the US in this way.
As if Washington would bomb Holland!
The last century has shown that US foreign policy is basically honest about wanting to create a better world.
Sure, sometimes Washington gets it wrong.
But every golden rule has its exceptions.
Remember that Kazaa is an illegal network and as such deserves no shelter.
Remember that appeasement does not work with those determined to destabalise world peace.
This is not just a matter of copyright law.
It is a fundamental battle between Good and Evil,
I think Bush is really cool, standing up to those Axis countries.
Re:Don't knock the US! (Score:2)
System going down in 2 minutes...
Re:Don't knock the US! (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, who else can they get wooden shoes from?
Re:Don't knock the US! (Score:2)
Not such a strange assumption, the US Congress is working on a law to legalise force to repatriate US nationals that stand trial for the new International Court of Justice (in The Netherlands.
So this P2P "problem" would only draw a few more Congress-morons over the line into the camp of Oil Soldier Cheney and his puppet Bush.
Kazaa not illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
Kazaa is software designed to help people spread information, it just happens that the majority of it's use is for piracy.
You can do what is done on Kazaa in any number of well established forms (ftp, instant message, email, United States Postal Service) it just happens that Kazaa is the easiest to use for these ends. Piracy will not go away if Kazaa does, it will just change forms. Do we make all the ways to pirate illegal? Where do you draw the line?
doesn't sound good (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be software like FTP servers, Web servers, Linux, etc.? If it's KaZaA today, it may be any form of non-DRM operating system tomorrow, worldwide.
Re:doesn't sound good (Score:2)
S
Eh? (Score:2)
He's just giving an example of different tools that can expediate copyright violations, Kazaa being a Windows apps doesn't negate the fact that one can use Linux to copy copyrighted material.
Don't you understand simple grammer?
Re:doesn't sound good (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm currently producing an OpenOffice training video to be released in Q1 2003. I plan on giving it away at no charge under some type of free license such as the Open Content License. Because of this, I expect that there will be a lot of demand as people download the digital version from my server. So I'm getting several of my friends to share it via Kazaa and Gnutella. I'll encourage people to download it from those applications and to continue to share it rather than try to get it from my server and the already overburdened T1 it's on.
For me, file-sharing apps are a viable distribution medium for my video.
How far does it reach? (Score:2)
Hahahaha (Score:5, Funny)
Your honour, we looked down the back of the sofa. We think maybe the dog ate it.
the RIAA may learn... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some copyright laws are respected internaltionally, more or less. By this I mean that if a CD pirate is burning copies of commercial CDs and distributing them, the US will ask and work with the sovereign state in which the pirates are operating. The fact that the sovereign state cooperates with the US demonstrates that there is a mutual respect for the given rule, even though the penalties may differ from state to state.
As the KaZaa example demonstrates, pursuing legal action against them will only work if their host states agree with the position of the US governmant. If they don't then there will be little to no assistance.
If the RIAA looks at this, they may realize that their lobbying efforts here have not worked as well in the international arena. They may need to rethink their strategy to one which relies less on using the government as their policman and more about providing a good product to the consumers and equitable share to their artists.
-tpg
grrr (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point, a court somewhere is going to have to determine whether or not manufacturing software that allows the trade of copyrighted materials is legal. If they decide it's illegal, God help them to enforce it. The CDBTPA (or whatever..you know what I mean) is trying really hard to push this through, but it's impossible. As someone's
Let me halt my rant and play devil's advocate for a moment...restricting speech? This is something that is hurting the anti-DRM movement more than it's helping. A neutral person may likely be swayed over to our side until they hear everything referred to as a freedom of speech restriction. Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.
--trb
Re:grrr (Score:3, Informative)
The courts in the Netherlands has said that distributing Kazaa is not illegal. That's where the servers are.
The court in LA could say it's illegal for those servers to do what they're doing. They may decide that they have jurisdiction because they are communicating with Americans. Punishable by the DMCA, whatever.
When the folks from Sharman Networks next fly to the US, federal agents could be waiting for them. It'll be up to Holland to decide if extradition treaties apply.
The jurisdictional problem would be the same if some folks in Holland built a bomb-mailer, and had some Danes set it up for them. The bomb-mailer then sent mail bombs to the US and killed Jack Valenti. The only difference is that those actions are much more clearly illegal. This copyright issue is more vague. It's a matter of degrees.
We can decide if it's illegal. It involves American people on American soil. We can only pressure other countries to extradite. They might want us to extradite their criminals at some point in the future.
Don't get me wrong, I do not feel that Sharman/the developers should get messed with. But this is how international law has always worked, and will always work. Furrinners might get upset that the US can apply more pressure than other countries. I'm curious what they might suggest we do to eliminate that problem. They can't *make* us agree to something that isn't in our best interests, and they shouldn't be able to. That would be a at least as warlike than we've ever been.
Also, you do not make this mistake, but I'd like to bring it up: In my (limited) discussion of US foreign policy with non-US citizens, they'll frequently become angry with me, even when I agree with them. I've been treated like an ignorant cretin by people that were respecting my advice only moments earlier. This came up most often in discussions of the Vietnam War.
I'm anti-war. My dad was a consciencious (sp?) objector, and would have served prison time rather than kill Vietnamese. It seems like in discussions like this, many people are happy to return to nationalism and assume that members of other countries are necesarily idiots. Again, these are people that both knew and liked me.
Iduno. I'm moving to Golden Rule when they build it.
How long before the first Internet-provoked war? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a pretext like this is really enough to get a war off the ground, I wonder how long it will be before a US president makes speeches about how we must use force to break up cells of renegade programmers who are writing modern network protocols which result in programs that are "in confict with the interests of America." Or, maybe we will start bombing servers "suspected of sending illegal data to Freenet."
You don't think this could happen in your lifetime? Ha!
Obligatory NYT note (Score:2)
to get rid of free registration.
It's a free world
Xerox stock plummets after copyright legal cases. (Score:4, Informative)
What if......... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not, indeed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly because no existing government would give up their sovereignty willingly.
And consider that an internet government would be at least as crooked as any other - and who would it answer to when it ran amok with whatever powers it was given?
Re:What if......... (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really think that "VOTING BY 31337 Ha><oRs" is "teh win?"
How about those who actually own the pipes and routers decide?
+5, Interesting? poor /. *sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
This is complete BS. There is no such thing as "cyber-space", at least where laws are concerned. All the wires and routers, all servers and everyone using the Internet (not to be confused with one of its services called WWW) are *very* real - they're located in the real world.
When you surf the 'Net, you aren't going someplace else, you're still sitting in front of your screen. When you watch pr0n, you don't use cyber-tissues. When you host MP3s via your DSL line and are located in a country which considers this breaking *local* copyright law, the jurisdiction won't probably see why the files should reside in some higher sphere, because they're right on your hard disk which can be located quite easily unless you decide to shove it up your ass to hide it away from curious investigators. (You might be disappointed though, that the X-Ray camera won't decide not to show the drive for your cyber-space theory either.)
Seriously, get real. Most of those people whining for "Internet jurisdiction" simply want to break some law or another, mostly copyright. They should rather spend their time using their rights to tell their representatives why the current copyright laws simply won't be able to withstand the possibility to copy anything, anytime. A lot of good thoughts on how a copyright law could feed the artists while making access to digital assets simple and inexpensive already exist. They're even discussed here on a regular basis, and if this isn't enough, Google is your friend (tm).
wired (Score:4, Informative)
American Law (Score:3, Insightful)
CAN'T REACH THEM! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simple. It can't reach them. the long arm of US copyright law can reach as far as its borders. It can't reach even Canada (but please, don't blame Canada for this).
US Government thinks that can do whatever it wants wherever in the world. The more it keep trying to it the more people from friend governments will be more acceptable to become foes.
Note, I'm not talking about friend/foes Governments, but about friends/foes People. Just like is happening at Pakistan, Goverment colaborates, but what about the people of Pakistan? They don't like at all this colaboration...
Think about it. Is it correct to convince Governments by the use of military power?
US destroying any goodwill left in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
I recon myself to be one of those. And yes I do know that not every american is to blame for such arrogant and stupid behaviour, but still, I begin to understand why the USA are so much hated in many parts of the world.
The arrogance and one sidedness (unilateralism) is getting to the point that it is simply unacceptable, also to people who always felt that the US are our allies such as myself.
The US may think they don't need anyones sympathy, that they can 'rule the world' on their own. That laws of others don't apply to the US, but that US laws are somehow more just and apply anywhere in the world (and if not, such countries must be pressured into modifying their laws under threat of trade boycotts etc). I however think this is a big mistake and gets the US into deeper trouble.
I know some 'patriotic' people will qualify this as flamebait, but remember whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not, what I write still in very mild terms (coming from a european with over-average sympathetic feelings towards the US) what more than 90% of europeans are feeling by actions like this.
Criticising other peoples for such 'infidelity' (i.e. being arrogant in the eyes of people with constructive criticism) won't cause such feelings to go away, on the contrary. I don't think it is helpful for the US to loose its last remaining allies in the world.
The neverending wars (Score:4, Insightful)
War on drugs.
War on terrorism.
War on people who break copyright laws.
What next? Instead of waging "war" on everything we don't like, why not try and be alittle more creative.
Since there is no way that the RIAA or MPAA is going to stop people from making copies of their shit, why not embrace the technology?
How many people would pay for music if the recording industry charged $9 a cd if you could download it off the net or $11 if you wanted a hardcopy along with the ability to download.
However they do it, if they just made music available to people in various formats on fast servers, people would buy it. Maybe not the average slashdotter, but the average consumer would.
I am disgusted that the US governement feels it is somehow their responsibility or right to fight these battles for corporate America. Our government is nothing more than an extension of corporate America and has little to do with representing the citizens or protecting freedom.
We can't do anything... (Score:3, Funny)
Ban imports (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, keep exports going out... The world desparately needs the US to survive, but surely the US is beyond needing anything from the outside world? They barely even know one exists!
This way, no one could violate US laws outside of the US. Better yet, the US could bully the UN into passing resolutions that enforce US laws globally!
mindslip
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Offtopic)
"Attention all people of the Solar Federation...We have assumed control, We have assumed control."
Re:To Hell with the US Govt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To Hell with the US Govt (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait..!!! I know why, cause they get paid for every crappy law they make.. and we all know how corrupt and money hungry politicans are!!!!!!
From your post:
No, they attack P2P networks because the lobbyists (RIAA, MPAA, Lars Ulrich) have massive amounts of cash.
So, you say basically the same thing, and yet tell the guy to get off of his ass, stop whining and change the system, or move to a communist or a formerly communist country. IOW, you seem to be willing to accept the status quo of lobbyists buying laws since "that's capitalism - like it, change it or leave it."
Lesse, we have big media companies lobbying for and getting passed laws that are actually bad for consumers. In order to change this, we need to get the word out to as many voters as possible. Since it's "one person, one vote" as is proper, we need to convince lots and lots of people to fight this. OK, let's use TV air time, magazine ads, etc. In short, we need to use the, er, big media companies...
Hmmmmmm - how effective will that be ya think? You think big media will say "Sure, shoot me with my own gun, buddy!"?? Right.
So, what we need are ways to change the law outside of the prevue of those that make - or buy - the law. Hence, Kazaa et. al. are quite happy to allow USAians to choose to step outside the sphere of influence of the US Congress and violate a law of questionalble value to consumers. Seems like Capitalism at it's finest - consumers going to the best price for the best goods, regardless of what the US Congress thinks. As is proper.
Soko
Re:US forces world so suck the ... (Score:3, Funny)
I take it you've never heard of Bush's "U.S. Does whatever it wants" plan? [theonion.com]
All this, and more would be possible, under such a proposal.