SOPA talk, yo.

[Panonadin]

Can someone spoiler the above link. Blocked from work, seems interesting.

Edit: Thank you Game_boy & Ghostbear.

[Game_boy]

Can someone spoiler the above link. Blocked from work, seems interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

[Ghostbear]

Can someone spoiler the above link. Blocked from work, seems interesting.

Edit: Thank you Game_boy

Sure:

Spoiler:

MegaUpload, one of the largest file-sharing sites on the Internet, has been shut down by federal prosecutors in Virginia. The site’s founder Kim Dotcom and three others were arrested by the police in New Zealand at the request of US authorities. MegaVideo, the streaming site belonging to same company, and a total of 18 domains connected to the Mega company were seized and datacenters in three countries raided.

Just a few weeks ago, MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom told TorrentFreak that his Mega ventures have nothing to worry about, as they operate within the rules of the law.

“Mega has nothing to fear. Our business is legitimate and protected by the DMCA and similar laws around the world. We work with the best lawyers and play by the rules. We take our legal obligations seriously. Mega’s war chest is full and we have strong supporters backing us,” Dotcom said.

But behind the scenes powerful forces were at work, plotting the forceful demise of MegaUpload, one of the world’s biggest websites.

An indictment unsealed today by the Department of Justice claims MegaUpload has caused the entertainment industries more than $500 million in lost revenue and generated $175 million “in criminal proceeds.”

Two corporations – Megaupload Limited and Vestor Limited – were indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 5th, 2012, and charged with “engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.”

Today, the authorities executed in excess of 20 search warrants in the United States and eight other countries and seized approximately $50 million in assets. A total of 18 Mega-related domains were seized and data centers in the Netherlands, Canada and Washington were raided.

A source has just informed TorrentFreak that the FBI are currently detaining everyone at the ISP Cogent Communications’ headquarters in Washington DC, in connection with a Mega-related search warrant.

In addition to MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom, another six alleged members of the Mega “conspiracy” were charged in the indictment:

• Finn Batato, 38, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the chief marketing officer;
• Julius Bencko, 35, a citizen and resident of Slovakia, who is the graphic designer;
• Sven Echternach, 39, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the head of business development;
• Mathias Ortmann, 40, a citizen of Germany and resident of both Germany and Hong Kong, who is the chief technical officer, co-founder and director;
• Andrus Nomm, 32, a citizen of Estonia and resident of both Turkey and Estonia, who is a software programmer and head of the development software division;
• Bram van der Kolk, aka Bramos, 29, a Dutch citizen and resident of both the Netherlands and New Zealand, who oversees programming and the underlying network structure for the Mega websites.

Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann and van der Kolk were arrested today in Auckland, New Zealand, by authorities there. Bencko, Echternach and Nomm are still at large.

According to the Department of Justice, the individuals named above face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit racketeering, five years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, 20 years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering and five years in prison on each of the substantive charges of criminal copyright infringement.

Why do other nations sign extradition treaties with the US? These stories are really making me wonder. I guess that's probably at least partially a result of our big military (segue to that other thread!) but really, it doesn't look like they actually get anything out of it.

[Panonadin]

I know, I know, big bad government.

But what if they are knowingly profiting off of piracy? I understand they have a very legit business front end, I even use them from time to time. But who is to say the FBI/ABC/DEF don't have logs, emails, or phone calls of them "conspiring" to do illegal things in order to profit?

Of course I see the instant knee jerk Gee Willikers YOU PRO GOVERNMENT PANONADIN response, but I'm looking for a few decent answers in the mix as well.

EDIT: Laughing about "Gee Willikers".

[Griffin]

They might, I don't really know the details. However, actually extraditing any of them remains pretty damn flimsy - if they didn't break the laws in the US, if they did something in the country where they resided that was legal in the country where they did it, I'm not so sure the US should have the right to throw them in jail for 20 years. Most of these folks are foreign nationals, after all.

I should stress I don't know the details, though - they may have committed crimes in the US. It just seems a bit unlikely.

[Ghostbear]

I know, I know, big bad government.

But what if they are knowingly profiting off of piracy? I understand they have a very legit business front end, I even use them from time to time. But who is to say the FBI/ABC/DEF don't have logs, emails, or phone calls of them "conspiring" to do illegal things in order to profit?

Of course I see the instant knee jerk Gee Willikers YOU PRO GOVERNMENT PANONADIN response, but I'm looking for a few decent answers in the mix as well.

EDIT: Laughing about "Gee Willikers".

As Griffin said, the issue here is that they are being arrested outside of the US and shipped to the US for breaking US laws, despite not being US citizens or residing in the US or breaking the laws of where they do reside. Extradition makes sense for some cases- if someone breaks a law in one country and then flees to the other, for instance- but here it's just being used to make the laws of the US become the laws of everywhere. That's monumentally stupid, and I hate it- even as a US citizen.

[Game_boy]

But what if they are knowingly profiting off of piracy?

They take down infringing content on request, which should qualify them for safe harbour provisions like any service provider (a court already ruled Youtube does).

[Chen]

Why do other nations sign extradition treaties with the US? These stories are really making me wonder. I guess that's probably at least partially a result of our big military (segue to that other thread!) but really, it doesn't look like they actually get anything out of it.

It lets them remove "criminals" from their country and have the US front the bill for prosecuting and incarcerating them? And then they can hide behind "well we had a treaty with them so we had to do it". The US looks like the bad guys, the country in question looks like they're suffering because the big USA "tricked" them into a treaty. Seems like at least a somewhat good reason to do it.

[Panonadin]

What, would you implement in place of said policy?

In the whole "everything is digital" world we live in. Crimes can be commited from afar that affect people/companies in the United States. I hate to simplify it but it seems as though you are saying they shouldn't face punishment as long as they never left their home country or that we should leave the punishment up to their own government.

Would that sum it up?

[Griffin]

If we want to prosecute, we should have to to prosecute the people involved in the illegal activity that we actually have jurisdiction over (for example, the people who actually uploaded and downloaded the pirated content).

[Panonadin]

But what if they are knowingly profiting off of piracy?

They take down infringing content on request, which should qualify them for safe harbour provisions like any service provider (a court already ruled Youtube does).

So we are operating off the assumtion that they were not given the chance to take down said content.

I'm not an employee at "MEGA" but to a certain extent these websites play the fool and cash the checks. If 90% of the "pirate world" know that you can go to Mega Upload to get stolen (see: copied) things. Then Mega Upload knows it too. At what point would you say they have to take steps to avoid this situation on thier own?

[aoeu]

Any service of this kind will be used for piracy.

[LaserGuy]

What, would you implement in place of said policy?

In the whole "everything is digital" world we live in. Crimes can be commited from afar that affect people/companies in the United States. I hate to simplify it but it seems as though you are saying they shouldn't face punishment as long as they never left their home country or that we should leave the punishment up to their own government.

I think the latter point is the correct one. If you are living in New Zealand, you should have to follow the laws of New Zealand, not those of the United States. Consider a reversed example: should companies in the United States have to follow environmental regulations of the European Union? Pollution from factories in the United States could certainly affect European citizens.

[Griffin]

And the law places the responsibility for finding and removing pirated content on the backs of the copyright holder. What they were doing should have been legal, as long as they responded to DMCA requests. If they didn't, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish though.

This charge seems to claim they didn't, but the technical details of the claim lead me to believe the charges won't hold, honestly. Or at least that they shouldn't, if it is as they describe.

[Ghostbear]

Why do other nations sign extradition treaties with the US? These stories are really making me wonder. I guess that's probably at least partially a result of our big military (segue to that other thread!) but really, it doesn't look like they actually get anything out of it.

It lets them remove "criminals" from their country and have the US front the bill for prosecuting and incarcerating them? And then they can hide behind "well we had a treaty with them so we had to do it". The US looks like the bad guys, the country in question looks like they're suffering because the big USA "tricked" them into a treaty. Seems like at least a somewhat good reason to do it.

Yeah, but.. that sounds like something with little to no practical benefits to the host nation.

In the whole "everything is digital" world we live in. Crimes can be commited from afar that affect people/companies in the United States. I hate to simplify it but it seems as though you are saying they shouldn't face punishment as long as they never left their home country or that we should leave the punishment up to their own government.

Would that sum it up?

And what is wrong with them not facing punishment for not breaking the laws of where they reside, visit, and / or have citizenship of? Should I be arrested for all of the Iranian or North Korean or Russian or Chinese laws I'm probably breaking?

[maybeagnostic]

What, would you implement in place of said policy?

In the whole "everything is digital" world we live in. Crimes can be commited from afar that affect people/companies in the United States. I hate to simplify it but it seems as though you are saying they shouldn't face punishment as long as they never left their home country or that we should leave the punishment up to their own government.

Would that sum it up?

So person A happened to be outside US jurisdiction and did something that isn't illegal in the place where he performed the action. What crime was committed?

P.S. I also find it entertaining that you imply 'being prosecuted under local law instead of US law' is unacceptable.

[Game_boy]

I'm not an employee at "MEGA" but to a certain extent these websites play the fool and cash the checks. If 90% of the "pirate world" know that you can go to Mega Upload to get stolen (see: copied) things. Then Mega Upload knows it too. At what point would you say they have to take steps to avoid this situation on thier own?

The alternative is to require sites to vet uploads, and equivalently require ISPs to vet traffic, against some database of all known copyrighted material. But then they have to make value judgements about fair use, and about what goes on that database. Both of which are unfair burdens on the service provider.

It should be for the copyright owner to find and flag the infringing content (really not hard, casual pirates don't go deeper than 4 pages of Google results and neither should media company employees) and for the uploader to dispute the claim adversarially to prove fair use or whatever. Youtube "knows" that most of their content is copyrighted TV show clips as well, but if they started removing content on their own there would be a lot of false positive takedowns.

As usual, the effect of taking down the site will be minimal. There are plenty of alternative hosting sites, and I'd say everything illegal on Megaupload that people would want is also accessible right now via torrents or other file upload sites. But for people using it to share their legal content, that might be the only place it was up.

[Panonadin]

Yeah, but.. that sounds like something with little to no practical benefits to the host nation.

One argument could be that the host nation is protecting it's interests/citizens. That's operating on the assumption that the offender would continue to commit crimes due to the fact that the other nation wouldn't prosecute the offender.

And what is wrong with them not facing punishment for not breaking the laws of where they reside, visit, and / or have citizenship of? Should I be arrested for all of the Iranian or North Korean or Russian or Chinese laws I'm probably breaking?

Simply no.

If it is say illegal for you to vote as a woman in Iran and you vote as a woman in America. No way should you be in trouble because it is illegal in Iran. You didn't affect Iran in any way. However what I meant and apparently didn't explain clearly is that if you live in Country X and you break a law in Country Y and that law is both illegal in Country X AND Y, then IMHO you should face prosecution. I don't know where I stand on if thats persued by Country X or Y but by someone.

Further, to touch back on the MEGA situation. If you know that 10% of your content is illegal/infringing and you seemingly take no steps to prevent it you are somewhat responsible for that infrigement. At least that is my opinion.

[Griffin]

They took steps to prevent it - in fact, they removed it whenever and wherever it was found.

The legal issue is, I think, because the FBI suspects they were actually uploading infringing content as company policies to their own server. Whether or not that is true is something else, but the law is very clear that removing copyrighted material when requested is another action.

[Heisenberg]

I'm not an employee at "MEGA" but to a certain extent these websites play the fool and cash the checks. If 90% of the "pirate world" know that you can go to Mega Upload to get stolen (see: copied) things. Then Mega Upload knows it too. At what point would you say they have to take steps to avoid this situation on thier own?

At what point does a tool which is used for legitimate purposes deserve to be outlawed because it can be used for illegal acts? As an example, if pirates use CollegeHumor.com for piracy, then it's shut down, so pirates use Megaupload.com for piracy, then it's shut down, so pirates use Youtube.com for piracy, is it Youtube's fault that their site is being used as a tool for piracy? For a tangential example: if a rash of golf club murders occur, is the golf club maker liable? Do we rant and rave about how "Callaway is profiting from murder!!!"?

If the tool has a legitimate purpose, I don't see any reason why the tool-maker should be required to police its customers to ensure they aren't using the tool illegally.

[Ghostbear]

One argument could be that the host nation is protecting it's interests/citizens. That's operating on the assumption that the offender would continue to commit crimes due to the fact that the other nation wouldn't prosecute the offender.

The whole point is that they aren't committing crimes! If they can't be bothered to make something illegal themselves, then they probably aren't too concerned with people doing it- either they feel it should be legal, or that it should be illegal but they couldn't plausibly police the crime, or that it might not be good for them but doesn't cause enough harm to care about. Regardless, it's not a crime, so how is it in their interest to ship people off for not breaking their laws?

And what is wrong with them not facing punishment for not breaking the laws of where they reside, visit, and / or have citizenship of? Should I be arrested for all of the Iranian or North Korean or Russian or Chinese laws I'm probably breaking?

Simply no.

If it is say illegal for you to vote as a woman in Iran and you vote as a woman in America. No way should you be in trouble because it is illegal in Iran. You didn't affect Iran in any way. However what I meant and apparently didn't explain clearly is that if you live in Country X and you break a law in Country Y and that law is both illegal in Country X AND Y, then IMHO you should face prosecution. I don't know where I stand on if thats persued by Country X or Y but by someone.

Right, but it wasn't illegal in their own country. That's the whole point. As for affecting the other nations, I'm pretty sure if I tried I could break their laws in a manner that affects them- probably something along the lines of illegal distribution of information (Tienanmen Square? Forbidden reading materials? There's probably lots of options, and I'm sure there's something illegal in there)- without setting foot in, or even near, those countries. Should I face persecution from them if I did that?

Further, to touch back on the MEGA situation. If you know that 10% of your content is illegal/infringing and you seemingly take no steps to prevent it you are somewhat responsible for that infrigement. At least that is my opinion.

I'd wager that more than 10% of the content passed through bittorent is illegal- should they be responsible for that? The web site was just a tool- they followed the law in taking down it's illegal uses as they were required to. What more would you ask of them? Should anything with too high of an illegal use rate be made illegal itself?

[maybeagnostic]

If it is say illegal for you to vote as a woman in Iran and you vote as a woman in America. No way should you be in trouble because it is illegal in Iran. You didn't affect Iran in any way. However what I meant and apparently didn't explain clearly is that if you live in Country X and you break a law in Country Y and that law is both illegal in Country X AND Y, then IMHO you should face prosecution. I don't know where I stand on if thats persued by Country X or Y but by someone.

Your example is very confusing. If you break a law in Y then you get prosecuted in Y. If you break a Y law as a citizen of X while being in X then you don't get prosecuted by anyone. Not sure how a law can be illegal but assuming you meant whatever you did is illegal in X & Y... well, you are a citizen of X and committed the crime in X, why would you be prosecuted in Y?

As a recent real world example there is this case. American citizen kills a British citizen in Italy. Crime happened in Italy so it broke Italian law and that's the place where the trial is supposed to happen.

[Belial]

However what I meant and apparently didn't explain clearly is that if you live in Country X and you break a law in Country Y and that law is both illegal in Country X AND Y, then IMHO you should face prosecution. I don't know where I stand on if thats persued by Country X or Y but by someone.

So in a situation that bears no resemblance to the situation that occurred in the actual real world where we live, this action is in your opinion justified, therefore it is also justified in this situation to which it bears no resemblance? Awesome. Can you be my lawyer?

[Panonadin]

I'm not an employee at "MEGA" but to a certain extent these websites play the fool and cash the checks. If 90% of the "pirate world" know that you can go to Mega Upload to get stolen (see: copied) things. Then Mega Upload knows it too. At what point would you say they have to take steps to avoid this situation on thier own?

At what point does a tool which is used for legitimate purposes deserve to be outlawed because it can be used for illegal acts? As an example, if pirates use CollegeHumor.com for piracy, then it's shut down, so pirates use Megaupload.com for piracy, then it's shut down, so pirates use Youtube.com for piracy, is it Youtube's fault that their site is being used as a tool for piracy? For a tangential example: if a rash of golf club murders occur, is the golf club maker liable? Do we rant and rave about how "Callaway is profiting from murder!!!"?

If the tool has a legitimate purpose, I don't see any reason why the tool-maker should be required to police its customers to ensure they aren't using the tool illegally.

In what world does this seem like a valid opposition to my statement. When pirates use those other examples for piracy and those other sites know about it fully and do nothing then, yes they should face SOME SORT of punishment. What type of punishment is up in the air, shut downs, fines, suspensions, etc.

The golf club analogy is so far out there I'm not even going to respond to it other than to point that out. I can't even take it seriously.

[Griffin]

Here's a better analogy:

It is illegal, in China, to post critiques of the communist party.

If someone in America posts those critiques, on the internet, where a chinese person could read them, should we extradite them to China for prosecution? Should China be allowed to stop the entire world from using their site?

(Because that analogy is pretty much identical)

[LaserGuy]

If it is say illegal for you to vote as a woman in Iran and you vote as a woman in America. No way should you be in trouble because it is illegal in Iran. You didn't affect Iran in any way. However what I meant and apparently didn't explain clearly is that if you live in Country X and you break a law in Country Y and that law is both illegal in Country X AND Y, then IMHO you should face prosecution. I don't know where I stand on if thats persued by Country X or Y but by someone.

Well sure, if you break the laws in your own country, then you should be charged under those laws. The question is, what if uploading/downloading copyrighted content is not illegal in some country? Should the US be able to extradite people there to face charges in the US? I'll use an example I gave earlier to illustrate the point: Here in Canada, copyrights expire after death + 50 years. In the United States, it's death + 70. So, as of this moment, the works of Ernest Hemingway are public domain in Canada, but still under copyright in the United States. If I were to upload the complete works of Ernest Hemingway onto my Canadian server, do you feel it is right that American companies can arrest/extradite me for copyright infringement?

The golf club analogy is so far out there I'm not even going to respond to it other than to point that out. I can't even take it seriously.

Easier example: should gun makers be responsible for gun-related crimes?

[Panonadin]

If it is say illegal for you to vote as a woman in Iran and you vote as a woman in America. No way should you be in trouble because it is illegal in Iran. You didn't affect Iran in any way. However what I meant and apparently didn't explain clearly is that if you live in Country X and you break a law in Country Y and that law is both illegal in Country X AND Y, then IMHO you should face prosecution. I don't know where I stand on if thats persued by Country X or Y but by someone.

Your example is very confusing. If you break a law in Y then you get prosecuted in Y. If you break a Y law as a citizen of X while being in X then you don't get prosecuted by anyone. Not sure how a law can be illegal but assuming you meant whatever you did is illegal in X & Y... well, you are a citizen of X and committed the crime in X, why would you be persecuted in Y?

As a recent real world example there is this case. American citizen kills a British citizen in Italy. Crime happened in Italy so it broke Italian law and that's the place where the trial is supposed to happen.

Why? Because this isn't a physical crime like murder or what ever other crap everyone is throwing in to make a point.

If piracy is illegal in France and you live in France but you steal content from the US and host it in the US and piracy is also illegal in the US is France going to hunt you down? As far as I know, no, they aren't.

That is why Country X IE: the US would be the ones to prosecute you.

[Game_boy]

When pirates use those other examples for piracy and those other sites know about it fully and do nothing then, yes they should face SOME SORT of punishment.

They don't know about it fully. They know about it in general, but if THEY were to pick a specific file out they couldn't tell whether it was fair use or infringement. That is for the DMCA process to decide, which has to be initiated by the copyright holder.

If you believe it IS on the site to decide whether a file is infringing, for everything uploaded to them, we can debate that.

[dragonmustang]

Sorry, but back to the Mega thing...

The DoJ did this takedown without SOPA or PIPA.... To me, this seems to indicate they don't think they even need those bills in order to enforce piracy. Why again is Congress trying to get these through?

[Panonadin]

Well sure, if you break the laws in your own country, then you should be charged under those laws. The question is, what if uploading/downloading copyrighted content is not illegal in some country? Should the US be able to extradite people there to face charges in the US? I'll use an example I gave earlier to illustrate the point: Here in Canada, copyrights expire after death + 50 years. In the United States, it's death + 70. So, as of this moment, the works of Ernest Hemingway are public domain in Canada, but still under copyright in the United States. If I were to upload the complete works of Ernest Hemingway onto my Canadian server, do you feel it is right that American companies can arrest/extradite me for copyright infringement?

No. According to the article I read and forgive my very short memory but the infrining content was found on US servers based on US soil and I'm sure (assuming here) a lot of the content was US owned.

In your example, that stuff is free to use in your country and you hosted it in your country.

[Panonadin]

Sorry, but back to the Mega thing...

The DoJ did this takedown without SOPA or PIPA.... To me, this seems to indicate they don't think they even need those bills in order to enforce piracy.

In the midst of holding all of the other back and forths. I want to comment on how stupid this is. If they don't even need bills and laws to back up their actions then honestly what the fuck.

[Griffin]

The bills were to allow the media companies to do this sort of thing on their own without getting the fbi involved and bothering with expensive stuff like investigations.

And again:
It is illegal, in China, to post critiques of the communist party.

If someone in America posts those critiques, on the internet, where a chinese person could read them, should we extradite them to China for prosecution? Should China be allowed to stop the entire world from using their site? What if it ended up on a Chinese server? Say, a person was using the social networking site based in china, and said they disliked the Communist party to the chinese friends they hang out with there. Should we extradite them?

[Ghostbear]

Sorry, but back to the Mega thing...

The DoJ did this takedown without SOPA or PIPA.... To me, this seems to indicate they don't think they even need those bills in order to enforce piracy. Why again is Congress trying to get these through?

Well, SOPA/PIPA would let the copyright holders request this directly, instead of having to move through the DoJ. It'd remove a whole lot of red tape for them.

@Panonadin Any chance for a reply to my post?

[maybeagnostic]

If piracy is illegal in France and you live in France but you steal content from the US and host it in the US and piracy is also illegal in the US is France going to hunt you down? As far as I know, no, they aren't.

Hosting something in the US means (as I understand it) that I own something in the US that I am using to break US laws. I have no grasp of the intricacies (or basics for that matter) of international law so I don't know if you'd get extradited from France for that but it does make it a crime committed in the US.

If, however, I were a French citizen living in Belgium who obtained a DVD in the Netherlands and shared it with people on my Russian website hosted on Chinese servers... well, some subset of these countries have some jurisdiction over my actions that I don't quite understand. In this situation the US has no jurisdiction over my actions and I couldn't have broken any laws because I was in no sense 'in' the US. Basically 'the internet' is not a place and it definitely isn't under US jurisdiction.

[Griffin]

The US, on the other hand, says otherwise. They built the internet, they control the DNS, so the net belongs to THEM.

[Heisenberg]

The golf club analogy is so far out there I'm not even going to respond to it other than to point that out. I can't even take it seriously.

I'll simplify. If you sell me a tool, any tool, is it up to you to make sure I don't break the law with it?

What if you just let me borrow it? Are you personally responsible for everything I do with your tool?

[Panonadin]

One argument could be that the host nation is protecting it's interests/citizens. That's operating on the assumption that the offender would continue to commit crimes due to the fact that the other nation wouldn't prosecute the offender.

The whole point is that they aren't committing crimes! If they can't be bothered to make something illegal themselves, then they probably aren't too concerned with people doing it- either they feel it should be legal, or that it should be illegal but they couldn't plausibly police the crime, or that it might not be good for them but doesn't cause enough harm to care about. Regardless, it's not a crime, so how is it in their interest to ship people off for not breaking their laws?

I wasn't making an argument for my statement, I was simply saying that is one way it could be argued. I agree with you on your point here. Extending your laws outside of your own jurisdiction is beyond being ok.

I'd wager that more than 10% of the content passed through bittorent is illegal- should they be responsible for that? The web site was just a tool- they followed the law in taking down it's illegal uses as they were required to. What more would you ask of them? Should anything with too high of an illegal use rate be made illegal itself?

That's where I think we are splitting off. I am not/was not aware of any evidence that they took any steps to remove infrining content.

[Panonadin]

If piracy is illegal in France and you live in France but you steal content from the US and host it in the US and piracy is also illegal in the US is France going to hunt you down? As far as I know, no, they aren't.

Hosting something in the US means (as I understand it) that I own something in the US that I am using to break US laws. I have no grasp of the intricacies (or basics for that matter) of international law so I don't know if you'd get extradited from France for that but it does make it a crime committed in the US.

If, however, I were a French citizen living in Belgium who obtained a DVD in the Netherlands and shared it with people on my Russian website hosted on Chinese servers... well, some subset of these countries have some jurisdiction over my actions that I don't quite understand. In this situation the US has no jurisdiction over my actions and I couldn't have broken any laws because I was in no sense 'in' the US. Basically 'the internet' is not a place and it definitely isn't under US jurisdiction.

But they did host it in the US and the content (again assuming but at least some of it) did belong to the "US" or companies based in the US.

[Griffin]

Panodin,

It is illegal, in China, to post critiques of the communist party.

If someone in America posts those critiques, on the internet, where a chinese person could read them, should we extradite them to China for prosecution? Should China be allowed to stop the entire world from using their site? What if it ended up on a Chinese server? Say, a person was using the social networking site based in china, and said they disliked the Communist party to the chinese friends they hang out with there. Should we extradite them?

[Ghostbear]

I agree with you on your point here. Extending your laws outside of your own jurisdiction is beyond ok.

And that's what's happening here, which is why people disagree with it.

That's where I think we are splitting off. I am not/was not aware of any evidence that they took any steps to remove infrining content.

They complied with DMCA take down requests- the other thread on this has brought to light that their implementation for such was flawed, but if so, they should have been instructed that their compliance was insufficient and told to fix it. Not unilaterally taken off the net.

But they did host it in the US and the content (again assuming but at least some of it) did belong to the "US" or companies based in the US.

I think here there's another conversational split- taking down the servers (after due process!) located within the US that broke US laws is acceptable. Extraditing a foreign national to the US for breaking US laws when that person was not in the US or a US citizen, is not.