Foreign Torrent Site Operator Can Be Sued in the US, Court Says 61
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Pakistani operator of popular torrent site MKVCage can be held personally liable for contributory copyright infringement in the US. The case in question was filed by the makers of the film Hellboy. US District Court Judge Seabright concludes that the use of US-based services invokes jurisdiction, even though a magistrate judge concluded otherwise.
Re: Oh, no... That Pakistani guy who's in Pakistan (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of interesting. The US says it's had an extradition treaty with Pakistan since the 1930s, but Pakistan says it doesn't.
Do extradition treaties cover civil suits?
Re: Oh, no... That Pakistani guy who's in Pakista (Score:2)
Nope
Re: (Score:2)
Would depend on the treaty, no? I supposed two countries can agree to as much or as little cooperation as they want.
Re: Oh, no... That Pakistani guy who's in Pakistan (Score:4, Informative)
So, well...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems normal, really. Why would they bound by a decision an outside power made for them?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any explicit rule here?
When it comes to a disagreement between sovereign nations the answer is invariably no. Sovereign nations are - in a way - defined as entities that get to choose which laws they do or don't obey. To put it another way, the difference between an individual and a state is that when you ultimately have to ask the question "you and what army?" only the latter is able to give an answer.
Re: (Score:1)
Otherwise, it's the Bush doctrine all over again.
Re: Oh, no... That Pakistani guy who's in Pakista (Score:2)
Pretty big words for a country that was beaten by a bunch of goat herders.
Re: (Score:3)
On that basis, Costa Rica isn't a state but the Jalisco Nueva GeneraciÃn drug cartel is.
Re: (Score:1)
It's kind of interesting. The US says it's had an extradition treaty with Pakistan since the 1930s, but Pakistan says it doesn't.
I would say that they haven't had a treaty since the 1930s considering that they separated from India in 1947.
Sure (Score:2)
But can you collect a judgment? Can you send him to prison? Methinks not.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point: Some lawyers just figured out another way to collect paychecks.
Re: Sure (Score:2)
That's the weirdest conclusion I've read this week. And that's saying something.
Re: (Score:1)
You might want to rethink your spew.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong target. Capitalism exploits opportunity, not Socialism
Yep, socialism is the one that rewards mediocrity.
(and no, universal healthcare isn't socialism, it's common sense)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If he uses an international bank, chances are that yes they can collect.
Good thing (Score:4, Funny)
Bin Laden wasn't hosting any pirated movies. The MPAA would have tracked him down years before.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Really News (Score:4)
Re:Not Really News (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it, the US and UK signed an extradition treaty in 1932, and it applied to Britain-controlled India. Pakistan was split off from the rest of India in 1947, as the British were leaving, and their Supreme Court doesn't think that treaty applies to them. (Or at least, they didn't in 2020 [hindustantimes.com]...)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but since it's a civil case it's not really relevant to this situation.
But, as far as extradition goes, as long as Pakistan doesn't believe they have an extradition treaty there isn't one (maybe we'd extradite people to them but that's pure upside for Pakistan).
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the US and UK signed an extradition treaty in 1932, and it applied to Britain-controlled India. Pakistan was split off from the rest of India in 1947, as the British were leaving, and their Supreme Court doesn't think that treaty applies to them. (Or at least, they didn't in 2020 [hindustantimes.com]...)
Beyond this, they are basically just words on a page. A treaty is only as good as the most recalcitrant signee.
I doubt the Pakistani court would extradite someone over copyright infringement unless the government of Pakistan is given a sweet deal by the US govt. Without any horse trading, the Pakistanis will happily look the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Would they bother with extradition for a civil case? More likely they would just get a default judgement and seize his assets in the US. Question is, does he have any US based assets? Any servers are most likely rented.
Re: (Score:2)
The French don't think he'll receive a fair trials, and that's why they're not complying with the extradition.
The age of consent in France is 15. They are NOT refusing to extradite him because they don't think he'll have a fair trial under the law. They are refusing because they think everyone should be able to have a barely-teenage mistress... where "they" is defined as the old white men in charge of deciding whether Polaniski should be extradited. They not only want to be in charge of permitting old white men to fuck teenagers in France, they want their heroes to be able to fuck teenagers in countries where it's
Re: (Score:2)
Polanski is a sleazy fucker and should certainly stand trial.
Also you're mistaken about something because the charges are about a 13 year old and involve drugging the kid in question. I presume at least one of those is illegal in France.
Either way though most countries won't extradite people for something which isn't a crime in the country and this is entirely reasonable. A notable exception is the UK where you can do things which are legal in the UK, never visit America and still get deported where you won
Re: (Score:2)
An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.
The difference you claim as to 'cement a special relationship' has to do with the US only needing a warrant based on probable cause, while the UK has a higher standard.
Re: (Score:2)
So you say, but I'll cite the case of Richard O'Dwyer. Legal opinion at the time was it wasn't even clear that he had broken a UK law, since there was no precedent.
The problem was the US accused him of crime A which is illegal in the UK. The link But in the UK his actions didn't make him guilty of crime A (there was no precedent). The effect is as I claimed. What he did wasn't even obviously illegal under UK law and yet he faced extradition to the US.
Re: (Score:1)
But I still can't sue a firearms manufacturer for knowingly making and marketing a product which can reasonably be expected to cause serious injury or death when used as intended?
You can sue almost anyone (as long as you pay the filing fee(s)). Winning and collecting damages, on the other hand, is a lot harder.
Re: (Score:1)
You can always try to sue them.
You can sue someone over a ham sandwich.
You chances of actually getting a favorable judgement or collecting is virtually nil.
But you can do it!
Feel free to look like a clueless asshat.
Next sue knife makers.
And auto makers.
Lawnmowers?
Chainsaws?
You can have yourself broke and living on the street in short order.
Re:So let me get this straight . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
But I still can't sue a firearms manufacturer for knowingly making and marketing a product which can reasonably be expected to cause serious injury or death when used as intended?
The Texas abortion law may represent a new loophole that could be used to allow people to sue gun manufacturers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
People who make dangerous laws never think they'll be on the receiving end.
Re: (Score:2)
People who make dangerous laws never think they'll be on the receiving end.
Sure is good to see when they are though.
Haha! - Nelson Muntz
Good luck collecting damages (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, you get a court victory over someone in Spotsylvania.
Now how does that company get money out of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
Re: (Score:2)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2003cv09848/241306/316/
Here's one example, of a case has been kicking around forever.
It's a weird case where there's three sides. The US Govt, the Taliban, and 9/11 victims' families all disagree on who should get the cash and gold in the NY Fed's vaults. A few years ago, a federal judge froze the assets of the Taliban, and as of when this was all happening, the US didn't recognize the Taliban as ruling Afghanistan.
It ended with half goi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In a foreign country.
Maybe in places friendly to the US with some form of reciprocity.
Eastern Europe? The Middle East? Africa? CHINA?
NOT fucking happening.
Re: Good luck collecting damages (Score:2)
You better try the local mob. Otherwise, not a chance. If they ask you to show evidence of your claim, and all you come up with is some foreign paperwork from random courts that have no jurisdiction, you're not going to get very far.
Yes, I'm aware the USA claims jurisdiction over basically the entire world, based on mail messages passing through US servers (yes, they did that). Doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees.
Re: (Score:3)
What the movie company will likely do is argue that their domain name is an asset and try to seize it. They may even be able to seize assets in banks subject to US jurisdiction.
Odd (Score:2, Redundant)
Why would anyone want to pirate the latest Hellboy movie? It was awful.
Re: Odd (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the new hollywood drm. Instead of making new encryption methods and shit, they just make movies that are so bad nobody wants to pirate them.
Wait for an appellate court ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't really mean much. Wait for an appellate ruling. I mean, the plaintiffs got to pick a case to bring and bring to bear a huge substantial legal resources against just some overseas guys and his regular attorney. If they'd lost in the district court that would have been a surprise. OTOH, once a case like this reaches an appellate court and has the potential to make precedent you'll get tons of big players weighing in based on the likely effects such a ruling will have on diplomacy and international legal cooperation.
I suspect that you'll see quite a few amicus briefs by big players (media companies) on this issue since, if this ruling is allowed to stand, other countries will apply similar standards. US publishers don't want to be subject to jurisdiction in the UK or China because they hired a company with offices in those countries to do some work for them (sell ads, do moderation etc..) You might even have the federal government weighing in against this ruling since I doubt they want China or even the UK (with their libel laws) applying this standard.
I mean, bad cases make bad law but I think once this gets to an appeals court interested parties and the court will take the implications in more sympathetic cases seriously.
Re: Wait for an appellate court ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. The worst possible outcome for the USA at this point would be if the defendant did not appeal and let this ruling stand. Then used it in the reverse way to apply Sharia laws to US citizens.
Apparently, they even have an extradition treaty according to the US. This could be fun for the seal team that killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistans soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Same (Score:5, Interesting)
Any US citizen who drinks alcohol can be sued in Pakistan.
Uh... (Score:2)
Money? (Score:2)
Didn't the reboot of Hellboy flop? So, the producers of the film have decided to try to get some of their money back by suing some guy in US court who runs a website in *Pakistan* because he, allegedly, has a torrent file for a copy of their failed movie available for download...
Yeah... Well... Good luck with that.