5 ms·

I wonder if people have forgotten the legal grounds on which the US claimed jurisdiction. I may be misremembering, but I think it was because megaupload.com was

I wonder if people have forgotten the legal grounds on which the US claimed jurisdiction. I may be misremembering, but I think it was because megaupload.com was registered as a .COM, and the .COM top level domain is owned by Verisign, an American company, and therefore the US has jurisdiction over it. I guess one lesson from this is that running out of .COM domain names is not a bad thing, because it reduces the grip the American empire has on the internet.

arresin 2y ago
That tracks with the fact that they use a .nz now.
- floam 2y ago
  As long as he’s calling himself Dotcom, he is explicitly property of Verisign.
janmo 2y ago
His mistake was to host content in the US. "Megaupload is based in Hong Kong, but some of the alleged pirated content was hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va., which gave federal authorities jurisdiction, the indictment said." - Jun 25, 2012 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/internet-file-sharing-giant-megaupload-shut-down-1.1239469 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/internet-file-sharing-giant-...
- next_xibalba 2y ago
  Wouldn't his mistake have been hosting pirated content?
  - junon 2y ago
    Legally speaking, depends on the country.
    - yunohn 2y ago
      Actually curious, in which country is what he did fully legal?
      - recursive 2y ago
        > As of December 2019, Eritrea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, and WTO Observer countries Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan are not a party to any copyright convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_treaties_protecting_rights_related_to_copyright#Treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation...
        mfkp 2y ago
        Good luck finding a stable datacenter to host servers in those countries...
        debatem1 2y ago
        Seems like a business opportunity
        connicpu 2y ago
        Somehow I think it may not be the easiest to make money in the piracy business.
        chgs 2y ago
        The problem isn’t the data centre, it’s the peering with networks in other countries.
      - mfkp 2y ago
        Probably nowhere, as many countries are fine with piracy/copyright violations until you start profiting from it: https://old.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/b6rpzx/here_are_some_of_the_main_countries_where_its/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/b6rpzx/here_are_som...
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    >> hosting pirated content? If you run a service that allows people to upload data, you are hosting pirated content. The DMCA was specifically designed to address this, to create a system whereby those who host data are not on the hook for every violation. The issue is not that you host pirated content but whether you are following all the rules necessary to enjoy safe harbor protection.
    - slg 2y ago
      If you look into the case, this wasn't a situation in which they accidentally hosted pirated content as a byproduct of hosting legitimate content. There are records of internal communication of the business discussing how to encourage piracy on the platform. This wasn't early Youtube turning a blind eye to piracy with plausible deniability. This was a business consciously and intentionally using piracy as a growth strategy.
      - sandworm101 2y ago
        Piracy as a growth strategy was very common at the time. Everyone, including Youtube, was just rushing to stay on top long enough to translate piracy into money sufficient to keep the lawyers away a few days longer. >> Karim left YouTube before Google bought it in 2006. But he kept YouTube e-mail on his personal computer, enabling Viacom to obtain correspondence that Hurley had said he lost, according to court documents. [..] In a July 29, 2005 e-mail, Chen advised Hurley and Karim to "steal it!" in an apparent reference to an unidentified video clip, according to the court documents. After Hurley asked if he wanted to steal movies, Chen replied, "haha ya. Or something." >> Google had its own copyright reservations about YouTube before it struck a deal. Internal documents obtained by Viacom quote Google executives describing YouTube as "a 'rogue enabler' of content theft" and warning the site "is completely sustained by pirated content." https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/youtube-viacom-spat-gets-dirty-1.960393 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/youtube-viacom-spat-gets-dir...
        slg 2y ago
        "Plausible deniability" was the key phrase in my original comment. A one off person abusing the system (before the Google purchase) or Google executives recognizing that "[Youtube] is completely sustained by pirated content." is not the same thing as having corporate policies designed to encourage piracy like Megaupload did.
deaddodo 2y ago
> I may be misremembering, but I think it was because megaupload.com was registered as a .COM, and the .COM top level domain is owned by Verisign, an American company, and therefore the US has jurisdiction over it. You are definitely misremembering and spreading FUD backed by your biases. He was hosting illegal material on servers geolocated inside the US. I'm sure if someone were producing and distributing illegal material (let's use the extreme example: child pornography, for instance) on NZ servers and networks, NZers would want to see them extradited. It has nothing to do with "imperialism".
- aestetix 2y ago
  Was he hosting illegal material, or simply creating a platform where such material could be held? If you post child porn on Facebook, I assume you would get sent to jail, not Mark Zuckerberg. It seems that Kim Dotcom is in a similar position.
  - deaddodo 2y ago
    Facebook wasn't created with the primary intention of hosting illicit material (Kim Dotcom actively made statements along those lines) and doesn't facilitate + protect the hosting of such materials. You can be damn sure that if Facebook refused removal requests for copyrighted videos, that they (and Zuckerberg) would be in hot water. You can try to pettyfog the case and move goalposts all you like, each time one of your points/misunderstandings is debunked, however it's pretty clear what he was doing. And, more importantly to the original point, the laws/extradition would apply similarly to any nations with the same IP laws; "empire" or not.
    - aestetix 2y ago
      I'm not trying to move goalposts, I was simply looking for clarification. A couple points. First, wasn't there a huge issue where the data centers had money problems because the FBI (or some agency) was forcing them to retain all the data, as they didn't actually know for sure what was there? Or am I wrong and they had a list of specific files hosted on specific servers and were able to use that to demonstrate wrongdoing? Just because I say I'm going to hack the Gibson, doesn't mean I actually do it. Second, there is a real jurisdiction issue here. Kim Dotcom is a German citizen based in New Zealand. The servers themselves are (or were) hosted in the US. Did Kim Dotcom himself upload anything to them? I can absolutely see the case for shutting down servers that might contain illegal data. I don't see the case for extraditing someone to the US for allegedly breaking a law that applies neither to his country of origin nor residence. Also, I'm not sure why you're being so angry with me, I'm just looking at the facts. I do have a bias, but I'm not moving any goalposts, just making sure we discuss the actual issues at hand.
pembrook 2y ago
It doesn't really matter because, as the dominant world power and arbiter of the world's currency, the US can invent legal grounds to do pretty much anything to anyone. The US government is so powerful, they are the only country that enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave the country. The US treasury will withhold the ability to transact in US Dollars from any country that does not report the holdings of US-adjacent persons every single year. If you think you're out of reach of a country that treats their own citizens as criminals by default the minute they leave the country, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
- throwadobe 2y ago
  > enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave. That's not quite true. If you _return_ your green card ("abandon it"), you no longer have to pay taxes. This makes sense as a parallel to being a US citizen, who would pay taxes even if they lived abroad. I'm not saying it's right, but we need to be accurate.
  - Aspos 2y ago
    Even those who officially abandoned their green cards are subject to FATCA for life and often struggle to open bank accounts abroad.
    - gamblor956 2y ago
      That's false. FATCA only applies to American taxpayers like U.S. businesses[1], citizens, greencard holders, and other residents [2]. It does not apply to nonresident illegal aliens, former citizens, or nonresident former greencard holders. [1] In this context, including foreign businesses that file a U.S. tax return. [2] Note that for FATCA purposes, if a person is a US taxpayer for any portion of the year, they are subject to FATCA compliance purposes for that tax year no matter how much of that year was actually spent as a US taxpayer. However, if they are not a US taxpayer at the end of the year, they would not be subject to FATCA compliance for the following year.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

arresin 2y ago

That tracks with the fact that they use a .nz now.

floam 2y ago
As long as he’s calling himself Dotcom, he is explicitly property of Verisign.

janmo 2y ago

His mistake was to host content in the US. "Megaupload is based in Hong Kong, but some of the alleged pirated content was hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va., which gave federal authorities jurisdiction, the indictment said." - Jun 25, 2012 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/internet-file-sharing-giant-megaupload-shut-down-1.1239469 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/internet-file-sharing-giant-...

next_xibalba 2y ago
Wouldn't his mistake have been hosting pirated content?
- junon 2y ago
  Legally speaking, depends on the country.
  - yunohn 2y ago
    Actually curious, in which country is what he did fully legal?
    - recursive 2y ago
      > As of December 2019, Eritrea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, and WTO Observer countries Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan are not a party to any copyright convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_treaties_protecting_rights_related_to_copyright#Treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation...
      - mfkp 2y ago
        Good luck finding a stable datacenter to host servers in those countries...
        debatem1 2y ago
        Seems like a business opportunity
        connicpu 2y ago
        Somehow I think it may not be the easiest to make money in the piracy business.
        chgs 2y ago
        The problem isn’t the data centre, it’s the peering with networks in other countries.
    - mfkp 2y ago
      Probably nowhere, as many countries are fine with piracy/copyright violations until you start profiting from it: https://old.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/b6rpzx/here_are_some_of_the_main_countries_where_its/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/b6rpzx/here_are_som...
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> hosting pirated content? If you run a service that allows people to upload data, you are hosting pirated content. The DMCA was specifically designed to address this, to create a system whereby those who host data are not on the hook for every violation. The issue is not that you host pirated content but whether you are following all the rules necessary to enjoy safe harbor protection.
  - slg 2y ago
    If you look into the case, this wasn't a situation in which they accidentally hosted pirated content as a byproduct of hosting legitimate content. There are records of internal communication of the business discussing how to encourage piracy on the platform. This wasn't early Youtube turning a blind eye to piracy with plausible deniability. This was a business consciously and intentionally using piracy as a growth strategy.
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      Piracy as a growth strategy was very common at the time. Everyone, including Youtube, was just rushing to stay on top long enough to translate piracy into money sufficient to keep the lawyers away a few days longer. >> Karim left YouTube before Google bought it in 2006. But he kept YouTube e-mail on his personal computer, enabling Viacom to obtain correspondence that Hurley had said he lost, according to court documents. [..] In a July 29, 2005 e-mail, Chen advised Hurley and Karim to "steal it!" in an apparent reference to an unidentified video clip, according to the court documents. After Hurley asked if he wanted to steal movies, Chen replied, "haha ya. Or something." >> Google had its own copyright reservations about YouTube before it struck a deal. Internal documents obtained by Viacom quote Google executives describing YouTube as "a 'rogue enabler' of content theft" and warning the site "is completely sustained by pirated content." https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/youtube-viacom-spat-gets-dirty-1.960393 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/youtube-viacom-spat-gets-dir...
      - slg 2y ago
        "Plausible deniability" was the key phrase in my original comment. A one off person abusing the system (before the Google purchase) or Google executives recognizing that "[Youtube] is completely sustained by pirated content." is not the same thing as having corporate policies designed to encourage piracy like Megaupload did.

deaddodo 2y ago

> I may be misremembering, but I think it was because megaupload.com was registered as a .COM, and the .COM top level domain is owned by Verisign, an American company, and therefore the US has jurisdiction over it. You are definitely misremembering and spreading FUD backed by your biases. He was hosting illegal material on servers geolocated inside the US. I'm sure if someone were producing and distributing illegal material (let's use the extreme example: child pornography, for instance) on NZ servers and networks, NZers would want to see them extradited. It has nothing to do with "imperialism".

aestetix 2y ago
Was he hosting illegal material, or simply creating a platform where such material could be held? If you post child porn on Facebook, I assume you would get sent to jail, not Mark Zuckerberg. It seems that Kim Dotcom is in a similar position.
- deaddodo 2y ago
  Facebook wasn't created with the primary intention of hosting illicit material (Kim Dotcom actively made statements along those lines) and doesn't facilitate + protect the hosting of such materials. You can be damn sure that if Facebook refused removal requests for copyrighted videos, that they (and Zuckerberg) would be in hot water. You can try to pettyfog the case and move goalposts all you like, each time one of your points/misunderstandings is debunked, however it's pretty clear what he was doing. And, more importantly to the original point, the laws/extradition would apply similarly to any nations with the same IP laws; "empire" or not.
  - aestetix 2y ago
    I'm not trying to move goalposts, I was simply looking for clarification. A couple points. First, wasn't there a huge issue where the data centers had money problems because the FBI (or some agency) was forcing them to retain all the data, as they didn't actually know for sure what was there? Or am I wrong and they had a list of specific files hosted on specific servers and were able to use that to demonstrate wrongdoing? Just because I say I'm going to hack the Gibson, doesn't mean I actually do it. Second, there is a real jurisdiction issue here. Kim Dotcom is a German citizen based in New Zealand. The servers themselves are (or were) hosted in the US. Did Kim Dotcom himself upload anything to them? I can absolutely see the case for shutting down servers that might contain illegal data. I don't see the case for extraditing someone to the US for allegedly breaking a law that applies neither to his country of origin nor residence. Also, I'm not sure why you're being so angry with me, I'm just looking at the facts. I do have a bias, but I'm not moving any goalposts, just making sure we discuss the actual issues at hand.

pembrook 2y ago

It doesn't really matter because, as the dominant world power and arbiter of the world's currency, the US can invent legal grounds to do pretty much anything to anyone. The US government is so powerful, they are the only country that enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave the country. The US treasury will withhold the ability to transact in US Dollars from any country that does not report the holdings of US-adjacent persons every single year. If you think you're out of reach of a country that treats their own citizens as criminals by default the minute they leave the country, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

throwadobe 2y ago
> enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave. That's not quite true. If you _return_ your green card ("abandon it"), you no longer have to pay taxes. This makes sense as a parallel to being a US citizen, who would pay taxes even if they lived abroad. I'm not saying it's right, but we need to be accurate.
- Aspos 2y ago
  Even those who officially abandoned their green cards are subject to FATCA for life and often struggle to open bank accounts abroad.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    That's false. FATCA only applies to American taxpayers like U.S. businesses[1], citizens, greencard holders, and other residents [2]. It does not apply to nonresident illegal aliens, former citizens, or nonresident former greencard holders. [1] In this context, including foreign businesses that file a U.S. tax return. [2] Note that for FATCA purposes, if a person is a US taxpayer for any portion of the year, they are subject to FATCA compliance purposes for that tax year no matter how much of that year was actually spent as a US taxpayer. However, if they are not a US taxpayer at the end of the year, they would not be subject to FATCA compliance for the following year.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]