Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

theinquirer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 159 posts

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#131

Post by nl »

pyre wrote: post #110
carbonica wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who tell you where you can find drug dealers. ... people who get paid to direct you to the nearest drug dealer, and only to drug dealers, organized by type of drug, quality, and potentially even with a rating system. These sites are more than just innocent passers-by. They aren't the "drug dealer," but they aren't just a dude on the street who bought drugs that one time and might know a guy. Where the line i…

> But where some say "they're identical to Google," > I personally see a very large, obvious distinction. If Google's 'Product Search' links you to a website where you identity is stolen, is Google liable? Should the government 'crack down' on Google?

Contributory copyright violation is a long standing element of copyright case law[1].

The parent poster is right under the current law (despite the downvotes). Google Product Search has numerous non-infringing uses, whereas a site that exists to do nothing more than link to pirated content will have a lot more difficulty in showing they aren't contributing to copyright violation.

The biggest, most recent case involving this was Grokster vs MGM [2]

The court found:

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties[3]

Wikipedia has a good discussion of the ruling:

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses. On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claims "a strong demonstrated need for modifying Sony (or for interpreting Sony's standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of [...] lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony.[3]

The key point is * non infringing uses*. The court needs to be convinced that they exist, and this occurs on a case-by-case basis.

You (and I) may not like this law, but that is how it currently is being interpreted.

IANAL, etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_liability#Contribu...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster#The_history_of_the_cas...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_...

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#132

Post by ynniv »

uxp wrote: post #116
GHFigs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does copyright fall under either immigration or customs? Think bootleg DVDs. According to the linked Guardian article, most of the domains ICE has seized were selling counterfeit physical goods.

Selling and Free[1] are interchangeable, as well as physical and digital, in your statement. Realistically, there isn't much difference between a counterfeit luxury handbag being sold for $20 out of the back of some shady shop and an illegitimate copy of a blockbuster movie being given out for free[1], over the internet or hand to hand. [1] Key point: These domains being seized aren't actually giving away streams or…

Sorry, this comment has entirely too many incorrect or unsupported claims... Don't quit your day job for that legal career yet.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#133

Post by saool »

Silhouette wrote: post #49

England, February 2014: In other news, the Internet Service Providers' Association announced today that no major English ISP now relies on Verisign, the US company formerly responsible for administering major domains such as .com and .net worldwide. This follows a ruling at the European Court last year that Verisign's actions in blocking the domain of German business Musikjetzt GmbH constituted an unlawful restraint…

As if EU politicians weren't letting american IP lobbies bully the sh out of them and just passing laws that mirror american IP laws.

As a Spaniard and thanks to Wikileaks we've had the inside info on how the spanish government dropped their pants and let the american ambassador have a say on our IP enforcing laws so they followed the american lobby agenda. And we were one of the most rebel EU countries, others went down way easier... (Allô la France!)

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#134

Post by die_sekte »

bendmorris wrote: post #121
nitrogen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, various Native American tribes exist as "sovereign nations," able to set many of their own laws that contradict those of the state. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know the limits of their sovereignty, but hypothetically a similar concept could be applied to any property hosting a node of the sovereign Internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unite...

Reservations in the US are a special class of enclave, which means a sovereign nation that physically exists inside another country. Other examples include Lesotho (contained within South Africa) or Vatican City (contained within Italy). What doesn't exist, and what I have a hard time imagining, is this sort of "distributed enclave" that's been suggested - an entity that exists in multiple places, each of which is wi…

Well, there's the SMOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Mal...). Sovereign, but doesn't own any land except for a building in Rome.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#135

Post by gcb »

dsl wrote: post #68
ThaddeusQuay wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only thing the US government has ever given up is control over the registry and DNS management. Under a MoU[1] that facility was handed over to ICANN ..." That's just a bureaucratic illusion. As we can see from recent domain seizures, the feds can take over any of these domains, unilaterally, and without any notice or due process.

Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime. Cars, boats, and houses are regularly seized from suspected drug dealers. None of these people have been deprived of due process. The due process is to go to the courts to challenge it. If you don't like either of these points, you'll need to go to the courts and have the laws changed or thrown…

"I don't even live there"

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#136

Post by Locke1689 »

ynniv wrote: post #130
Locke1689 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok it seems that more than a few people have had similar misconceptions, so I'm going to try to clear this up. The idea that the internet is a p2p network is a pernicious falsehood. The only real way that the Internet is a p2p network is in inter-AS routing. You are not part of the p2p Internet, your neighbor is not part of the p2p Internet, and your company is probably not part of the p2p Internet--you're just leasi…

This is the flaw that most people who argue for wireless mesh networks have. I'm curious what you mean here. I am reasonably sure that mesh networks are actually distributed, at least internally. Are you referring about the Internet gateways that are generally a part of a mesh proposal, or possibly that mesh networks don't scale like centralized networks do? A distributed or unregulated Internet is a pipe dream. I th…

I'm curious what you mean here. I am reasonably sure that mesh networks are actually distributed, at least internally. Are you referring about the Internet gateways that are generally a part of a mesh proposal, or possibly that mesh networks don't scale like centralized networks do?

I'm saying that mesh networks are 1) not connectable on the scale of the Internet and 2) not scalable.

I think that we could create a truly distributed network. It would not be nearly as efficient as the Internet we are accustomed to, and it would not be based on the current Internet Protocol.

No offense but many DS papers have been published in this area and most aren't even positive in the theoretical sense, much less the practical. Crudely, I think it's time to put code where your mouth is ;)

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#137

Post by gcb »

nkassis wrote: post #37
novumordo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Services such as Netflix and Hulu are not available in most countries, and if they are, selection is terrible.

Yeah that's the issue in Canada which has Netflix but the selection is so attrocious it's not even funny. All this because for Netflix it's a pain in the ass to have to negotiate for the same content in all the jurisdictions and that media conglomerates don't trust canadians due to our perceived soft copyright laws. Give me a brake. I saw a report the other day on lower CD sales for local Quebec music. The whole time…

netflix US is also crappy. What makes you think it's better?

Proof: Take a look at their top 100. only 2 you can stream in the US, all the 98 others are via DVD only.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#138

Post by westicle »

anamax wrote: post #101
clistctrl wrote: post #61

I ask this completely seriously. What would it take to declare the domain of the internet as its own sovereign entity? The internet to me has become greater than just a communications network. It is a place where people connect/work/play. DNS is a natural resource, and should be regulated by all that is affected by it.

> What would it take to declare the domain of the internet as its own sovereign entity? An army.

Does that make 4chan a sovereign entity?

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#139

Post by nowarninglabel »

diogenescynic wrote: post #100
wnight wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EDIT: Downvotes are not how you disagree on HN. Well thought out replies are. Well thought out posts get well thought out replies. For one, we're talking about foreigners here and you're saying they aren't deprived of due process - they merely need to come to American courts to get the laws changed. Hello!? Second, you're missing the whole "your TLD is one of ours so you're in our jurisdiction no matter where you a…

Pot calling the kettle black, much? Please stop the anti-American trolling. I've noticed you consistently go from thread to thread spreading anti-American propaganda without citing any facts and insulting others: Africa like how you stood by and watched Rwanda butcher itself, quibbling over using the word 'genocide' to avoid hurting your allies, and own, historical images. Or how WW2 the USA waited out much of the wa…

Seems like you should be the one reading the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#140

Post by muuh-gnu »

adrianN wrote: post #46
Shenglong wrote: post #3

Is this a joke? I thought it might be serious until I read: ICE is not focusing its efforts just on web sites that stream dodgy content but those that link to them Please tell me this is a joke. I don't know whether to laugh or be sad.

AFAIK here in Germany you can get in trouble for linking to illegal content. That includes linking to software like AnyDVD that cracks encryption. I think heise.de, a big German tech-news site, got in trouble over that.

Heise fought 6 years for the right to link to "illegal" Software while reporting about court decisions regarding that software. After countless lost proceedings in lower courts, they finally won at the end of 2010, where the Federal court (the highest instance below the constitutional court) decided in Heise's favor that links are an essential feature of the freedom of online press and thus protected. This sadly does not include linking in general, only news coverage, but it was an epic win for press freedom anyway, since it was de facto illegal for the last 6 years even for the press, due to all the negative decisions by the lower courts.
Post reply on HN