4 ms·

That's because it had servers in the U.S. SOPA is aimed at companies that keep their ops outside the U.S.

bproper 15y ago
I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand. Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested. So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all these folks? MegaUpload was cited a number of times during the Judiciary Committee Hearing. But they mispoke more often than not.
- lomegor 15y ago
  Yes, if they have operations in the US they can be prosecuted, I believe. What's even worse for Megaupload in this case is that they had started legal proceedings themselves in the US. If they can use the US law, they have to abide them.
  - Iv 15y ago
    So if my operations based in another country infringe US laws, they can get me and bring me there to be judged ? What do we call that when North Korea does that again ? Kidnapping. If every website suddenly has to obey the laws of every country, it will be an interesting time.
    - cbs 15y ago
      Please, lets be reasonable here. You're drawing a gigantic false equivalency between the extradition process based on international agreements, and the North Koreans black-bagging someone. If every website suddenly has to obey the laws of every country The DMCA was the US implementation of two international treaties.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        " You're drawing a gigantic false equivalency between the extradition process based on international agreements, and the North Koreans black-bagging someone." I'm sure those kidnapped will be glad to hear this.
    - commandar 15y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition Not really a new or particularly controversial legal construct. The host country can refuse to extradite if they disagree with the charges.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  "So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all these folks?" If there are extradition agreements, sure.
- tzs 15y ago
  > I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand. Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested. If the allegations in the indictment are true, then MegaUpload was likely violating the law in those countries to. Contrary to widespread belief, the US is not the only country with copyright laws that criminalize commercial piracy.
- iamandrus 15y ago
  The US had jurisdiction since MU rented about 500 (?) servers in Virginia. If all of their servers were outside the US, they couldn't have done much about it.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    I don't think that's true. If we are talking about SOPA here, it wouldn't matter where the servers were. They were using a US based TLD MegaUpload.com and therefore their domain could be "erased". If they didn't have a domain address, then they could look at where the servers were. Meaning: If they were MegaUpload.ch, they would have needed to SOPA to take the domain down. But they still would not have been able to seize the servers and arrest the operators. tl;dr: Relating this to SOPA is a bit of a stretch.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - iamandrus 15y ago
      This isn't as related to SOPA as it is the DMCA. There is speculation that MU did not comply with the DMCA, which they had to do since they had American servers. If they can prove that it complied with takedown requests and that its service was not intended for illegal uses, they could have a case. EDIT: Fixed wording.
andyakb 15y ago
This isnt entirely true. In the case of megaupload, I am pretty sure I read they had servers seized in the Netherlands and most [all?] of the arrests were done in foreign countries. Further, I know it was definitely not the case with the online pokersites [PokerStars, FullTilt, and UltimateBet/Absolute] being shut down in April. AFAIK, ICANN is based in the US and oversees .com [among other] address. Because of this, with a court order, the US gov't can seize a domain name, with or without SOPA and they have already done this with online poker sites that have no physical presence in the United States. Megaupload is in the same spot as those sites; they violated US law, a case was filed against them, and the US gov't seized their domain, servers, etc. Due process was followed. It is a little far-reaching the the US can so easily seize .com domains, and that is why you now will see very few online poker sites that serve the US use a .com [instead they use .eu or .ag, primarily]. If a company break US laws, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are. Whether or not they should be able to do that so easily is another question.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  """If a company break US laws, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are.""" Do you really mean that as broadly as it's written? Shouldn't it be "If a company break US laws on US soil, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are." while the Internet has made the world smaller, nations are still sovereign and should be treated as such. Frankly, I'm really tired of my government feeling like it has to police the world.
  - andyakb 15y ago
    I dont mean it 100% literally and dont really write my posts to be semantically perfect and IANAL, so I hope they arent interpreted to be anything more than they are. The hard part is defining "on US soil," because with the internet companies have a much further reach than just their home base. For the poker sites, they do not [and did not] have a physical presence in the US, but still involve US citizens in their business and it was argued that US banks were involved in money laundering and other crimes that took place "on US soil." So it is pretty similar to the megaupload case; if you dance around the word of the law and profit from US customers, the US gov't will likely pursue you if you are a big enough target

I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand. Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested. So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all these folks? MegaUpload was cited a number of times during the Judiciary Committee Hearing. But they mispoke more often than not.

lomegor 15y ago
Yes, if they have operations in the US they can be prosecuted, I believe. What's even worse for Megaupload in this case is that they had started legal proceedings themselves in the US. If they can use the US law, they have to abide them.
- Iv 15y ago
  So if my operations based in another country infringe US laws, they can get me and bring me there to be judged ? What do we call that when North Korea does that again ? Kidnapping. If every website suddenly has to obey the laws of every country, it will be an interesting time.
  - cbs 15y ago
    Please, lets be reasonable here. You're drawing a gigantic false equivalency between the extradition process based on international agreements, and the North Koreans black-bagging someone. If every website suddenly has to obey the laws of every country The DMCA was the US implementation of two international treaties.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      " You're drawing a gigantic false equivalency between the extradition process based on international agreements, and the North Koreans black-bagging someone." I'm sure those kidnapped will be glad to hear this.
  - commandar 15y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition Not really a new or particularly controversial legal construct. The host country can refuse to extradite if they disagree with the charges.
jonhendry 15y ago
"So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all these folks?" If there are extradition agreements, sure.
tzs 15y ago
> I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand. Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested. If the allegations in the indictment are true, then MegaUpload was likely violating the law in those countries to. Contrary to widespread belief, the US is not the only country with copyright laws that criminalize commercial piracy.
iamandrus 15y ago
The US had jurisdiction since MU rented about 500 (?) servers in Virginia. If all of their servers were outside the US, they couldn't have done much about it.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  I don't think that's true. If we are talking about SOPA here, it wouldn't matter where the servers were. They were using a US based TLD MegaUpload.com and therefore their domain could be "erased". If they didn't have a domain address, then they could look at where the servers were. Meaning: If they were MegaUpload.ch, they would have needed to SOPA to take the domain down. But they still would not have been able to seize the servers and arrest the operators. tl;dr: Relating this to SOPA is a bit of a stretch.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - iamandrus 15y ago
    This isn't as related to SOPA as it is the DMCA. There is speculation that MU did not comply with the DMCA, which they had to do since they had American servers. If they can prove that it complied with takedown requests and that its service was not intended for illegal uses, they could have a case. EDIT: Fixed wording.

andyakb 15y ago

This isnt entirely true. In the case of megaupload, I am pretty sure I read they had servers seized in the Netherlands and most [all?] of the arrests were done in foreign countries. Further, I know it was definitely not the case with the online pokersites [PokerStars, FullTilt, and UltimateBet/Absolute] being shut down in April. AFAIK, ICANN is based in the US and oversees .com [among other] address. Because of this, with a court order, the US gov't can seize a domain name, with or without SOPA and they have already done this with online poker sites that have no physical presence in the United States. Megaupload is in the same spot as those sites; they violated US law, a case was filed against them, and the US gov't seized their domain, servers, etc. Due process was followed. It is a little far-reaching the the US can so easily seize .com domains, and that is why you now will see very few online poker sites that serve the US use a .com [instead they use .eu or .ag, primarily]. If a company break US laws, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are. Whether or not they should be able to do that so easily is another question.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
"""If a company break US laws, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are.""" Do you really mean that as broadly as it's written? Shouldn't it be "If a company break US laws on US soil, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are." while the Internet has made the world smaller, nations are still sovereign and should be treated as such. Frankly, I'm really tired of my government feeling like it has to police the world.
- andyakb 15y ago
  I dont mean it 100% literally and dont really write my posts to be semantically perfect and IANAL, so I hope they arent interpreted to be anything more than they are. The hard part is defining "on US soil," because with the internet companies have a much further reach than just their home base. For the poker sites, they do not [and did not] have a physical presence in the US, but still involve US citizens in their business and it was argued that US banks were involved in money laundering and other crimes that took place "on US soil." So it is pretty similar to the megaupload case; if you dance around the word of the law and profit from US customers, the US gov't will likely pursue you if you are a big enough target