6 ms·

The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways thi

by kimixa 1y ago

The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to track and sell user data - to which minors cannot consent. Putting on my tinfoil hat you could argue that many of these companies are trying to encourage this misunderstanding intentionally.

nadermx 1y ago
Megaupload is a weird one. He hosted in it the USA, giving USA jurisidction. Also it's still going through the courts in New Zeland and USA and hasn't been proven hes guilty. And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true. It 100% won’t; there is no DMCA safe harbor for criminal conduct, only for a narrow category of civil liability.
  - nadermx 1y ago
    You are misapropriating. Copyright infrigment can become criminal if you willfully violate it. If you then take earnings from the willful infrigment and launder them, it becomes other crimes. But if you follow the DMCA and qualify for safe harbor, what copyright crime have you commited that would go to criminal? Or to give you another example in backpage the founders where aquitted since the judge could not trace that the money came from a "criminal source" https://www.courthousenews.com/backpage-executives-acquitted-of-previous-prostitution-money-laundering-convictions/ https://www.courthousenews.com/backpage-executives-acquitted...
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > But if you follow the DMCA and qualify for safe harbor Yes, it is only possible to qualify for the safe harbor, if you haven’t committed criminal infringement. But, as criminal infringement is not part of the DMCA, following the DMCA has no probative value against accusations of criminal infringement. Criminal infringement means you aren’t qualified for DMCA safe harbor regardless of whether you follow the DMCA, but following the DMCA doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty of criminal infringement. > Or to give you another example in backpage the founders where aquitted since the judge could not trace that the money came from a "criminal source" Backpage has no relevance to criminal copyright infringement. About the only connection between this case and that is that Backpage was also a nexus for a lot of misinformation about a (completely different, Section 230 rather than DMCA) safe harbor provision.
      - nadermx 1y ago
        Backpage is on point as well as the overall point is the same, you cant be liable for crimes related to the inital crime if its not actually a crime. Ie if the gains are not ilgotten, you can't be tried for laundering them. If you follow the DMCA (e.g., honor takedown notices, register an agent if you’re a platform, and act quickly when notified), your exposure to criminal liability is essentially zero.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, They didn’t even completely follow the DMCA, though. They had active features to detect duplicate uploads via file hash and link them together via deduplication, but a DMCA takedown request would only remove one link to the file rather than actually remove the content. They claimed a lot of things and tried to ride a wave of internet populism, but their case wasn’t really as controversial as they tried to make it.
  - account42 1y ago
    The DMCA doesn't require you do take down more than requested whether you have the means to easily do so or not. And it doesn't necessarily make sense to do so for services like Megaupload where the URL is a kind of authorization mechanism - one publicly shared URL pointing to copyrighted content might be infringing while one not shared publicly but pointing to identical data might be OK legally.
jobs_throwaway 1y ago
The notion that a 17 year old cannot consent to user tracking is absurd
- fao_ 1y ago
  No, what is absurd is everyone having their data tracked and sold, including minors.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
    And the notion that if you reject all tracking, these scummy companies will not actually track you
    - avianlyric 1y ago
      It would be particularly absurd to think scummy companies wouldn’t track you if the requirement for consent wasn’t enshrined in law, and failure to comply with the law didn’t come with consequences. But would you at that, this is a discussion started by a news article where one of the scummy companies is discovering what those consequences are. So something must be working.
- lokar 1y ago
  Why is it absurd? IMO, the law should establish some parental rights over their children, I don't think this is controversial. You can argue with what the limits of the rights are, how they interact with the rights of the child, and how that changes as the child ages, but the basic ideas is pretty sound. And then given that, it is the role of an elected government to determine all these factors, subject to review of the courts. That all seems to be working here.
- avianlyric 1y ago
  That’s because you’re looking at this ass backwards. The law determines an age at which a person is considered capable of making legally binding agreements, like providing consent. In the UK that’s 18, with some exceptions. It would be absurd for the UK to create a special exception to allow underage youths to consent to user tracking at an age lower than the standard age for legal consent in any other context.
lokar 1y ago
Don't nations have some right to enforce their copyright laws (civil and criminal) outside their own territory, via treaty?
- nadermx 1y ago
  If you’re an author from a Berne country, you get the same rights in every other Berne country as the nationals of that country. Example: If you’re from Mexico and your work is infringed in France, French law protects you like a French author. So you could sue where the infrigment is happening, ie france.
JimDabell 1y ago
> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. There’s been multiple cases where non-US gambling websites have had their domains confiscated by the American government because they have American users, going back about 20 years.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  Doing business in the United States (by having customers there and examining money) will subject you to their laws.
  - wongarsu 1y ago
    And imgur has users in the UK, and is showing them ads and collecting their data (both things of monetary value). Consequently the UK claims they are subject to their laws The arguments are very similar. You could claim that only accepting fiat currency should count, but that would open a massive loophole that would be trivial to exploit
- jojobas 1y ago
  US can only confiscate US domains, right? Claiming jurisdiction is one thing, ensuring cooperation of the host state is another, and requires either kowtowing to the US or similar legislation, even if there is an extradition treaty.
Aurornis 1y ago
> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Committing crimes remotely from another country was never a loophole to escape the laws of that country. When a country requests extradition they’re not claiming jurisdiction over another country. They’re saying that a crime was committed in their country by the person and they’re asking the foreign country for cooperation in prosecuting that person. The MegaUpload case is not equivalent to what the UK is doing. MegaUpload was operating as a business, taking payments, and exchanging money. Once you start doing explicit paid business in a country you can’t claim you’re not involved with that country. If a country starts claiming that merely making content accessible globally is a crime in their country, that’s an entirely different issue. Not equivalent to the MegaUpload case. > Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. Again, false equivalence. MegaUpload was operating as a business with US customers. They also had some hosting in the United States if I recall correctly. Once you start doing business in a country and have customers there, you’re involved with their laws.
- kimixa 1y ago
  Imgur offers services to UK-based customers, allowing them to view and host images in return for viewing ads. You used to be able to optionally pay for a pro account, though the vast majority of users use the free ad-supported option, and that is now the only option. Megaupload's business model was pretty much exactly the same - but with "any" file instead of just images. If the UK version didn't have ads, and UK-focused ads at that, they might have a point - but I don't see any "false equivalence" here. And playing games about "indirectly" monetizing people (through ads or similar) doesn't mean they aren't /customers/. Otherwise every consumer law would be trivially worked around.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    Not showing ads and not collecting data are two completely different things. If I could choose between annoying banner ads and being tracked and followed and linked and spied on, I’d take ads every time. I’ve never paid for a freemium where they just stopped all of their creepy telemetry as soon as I started paying them.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by kimixa 1y ago

nadermx 1y ago

Megaupload is a weird one. He hosted in it the USA, giving USA jurisidction. Also it's still going through the courts in New Zeland and USA and hasn't been proven hes guilty. And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true. It 100% won’t; there is no DMCA safe harbor for criminal conduct, only for a narrow category of civil liability.
- nadermx 1y ago
  You are misapropriating. Copyright infrigment can become criminal if you willfully violate it. If you then take earnings from the willful infrigment and launder them, it becomes other crimes. But if you follow the DMCA and qualify for safe harbor, what copyright crime have you commited that would go to criminal? Or to give you another example in backpage the founders where aquitted since the judge could not trace that the money came from a "criminal source" https://www.courthousenews.com/backpage-executives-acquitted-of-previous-prostitution-money-laundering-convictions/ https://www.courthousenews.com/backpage-executives-acquitted...
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > But if you follow the DMCA and qualify for safe harbor Yes, it is only possible to qualify for the safe harbor, if you haven’t committed criminal infringement. But, as criminal infringement is not part of the DMCA, following the DMCA has no probative value against accusations of criminal infringement. Criminal infringement means you aren’t qualified for DMCA safe harbor regardless of whether you follow the DMCA, but following the DMCA doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty of criminal infringement. > Or to give you another example in backpage the founders where aquitted since the judge could not trace that the money came from a "criminal source" Backpage has no relevance to criminal copyright infringement. About the only connection between this case and that is that Backpage was also a nexus for a lot of misinformation about a (completely different, Section 230 rather than DMCA) safe harbor provision.
    - nadermx 1y ago
      Backpage is on point as well as the overall point is the same, you cant be liable for crimes related to the inital crime if its not actually a crime. Ie if the gains are not ilgotten, you can't be tried for laundering them. If you follow the DMCA (e.g., honor takedown notices, register an agent if you’re a platform, and act quickly when notified), your exposure to criminal liability is essentially zero.
Aurornis 1y ago
> And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, They didn’t even completely follow the DMCA, though. They had active features to detect duplicate uploads via file hash and link them together via deduplication, but a DMCA takedown request would only remove one link to the file rather than actually remove the content. They claimed a lot of things and tried to ride a wave of internet populism, but their case wasn’t really as controversial as they tried to make it.
- account42 1y ago
  The DMCA doesn't require you do take down more than requested whether you have the means to easily do so or not. And it doesn't necessarily make sense to do so for services like Megaupload where the URL is a kind of authorization mechanism - one publicly shared URL pointing to copyrighted content might be infringing while one not shared publicly but pointing to identical data might be OK legally.

jobs_throwaway 1y ago

The notion that a 17 year old cannot consent to user tracking is absurd

fao_ 1y ago
No, what is absurd is everyone having their data tracked and sold, including minors.
- hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
  And the notion that if you reject all tracking, these scummy companies will not actually track you
  - avianlyric 1y ago
    It would be particularly absurd to think scummy companies wouldn’t track you if the requirement for consent wasn’t enshrined in law, and failure to comply with the law didn’t come with consequences. But would you at that, this is a discussion started by a news article where one of the scummy companies is discovering what those consequences are. So something must be working.
lokar 1y ago
Why is it absurd? IMO, the law should establish some parental rights over their children, I don't think this is controversial. You can argue with what the limits of the rights are, how they interact with the rights of the child, and how that changes as the child ages, but the basic ideas is pretty sound. And then given that, it is the role of an elected government to determine all these factors, subject to review of the courts. That all seems to be working here.
avianlyric 1y ago
That’s because you’re looking at this ass backwards. The law determines an age at which a person is considered capable of making legally binding agreements, like providing consent. In the UK that’s 18, with some exceptions. It would be absurd for the UK to create a special exception to allow underage youths to consent to user tracking at an age lower than the standard age for legal consent in any other context.

lokar 1y ago

Don't nations have some right to enforce their copyright laws (civil and criminal) outside their own territory, via treaty?

nadermx 1y ago
If you’re an author from a Berne country, you get the same rights in every other Berne country as the nationals of that country. Example: If you’re from Mexico and your work is infringed in France, French law protects you like a French author. So you could sue where the infrigment is happening, ie france.

JimDabell 1y ago

> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. There’s been multiple cases where non-US gambling websites have had their domains confiscated by the American government because they have American users, going back about 20 years.

Aurornis 1y ago
Doing business in the United States (by having customers there and examining money) will subject you to their laws.
- wongarsu 1y ago
  And imgur has users in the UK, and is showing them ads and collecting their data (both things of monetary value). Consequently the UK claims they are subject to their laws The arguments are very similar. You could claim that only accepting fiat currency should count, but that would open a massive loophole that would be trivial to exploit
jojobas 1y ago
US can only confiscate US domains, right? Claiming jurisdiction is one thing, ensuring cooperation of the host state is another, and requires either kowtowing to the US or similar legislation, even if there is an extradition treaty.

Aurornis 1y ago

> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Committing crimes remotely from another country was never a loophole to escape the laws of that country. When a country requests extradition they’re not claiming jurisdiction over another country. They’re saying that a crime was committed in their country by the person and they’re asking the foreign country for cooperation in prosecuting that person. The MegaUpload case is not equivalent to what the UK is doing. MegaUpload was operating as a business, taking payments, and exchanging money. Once you start doing explicit paid business in a country you can’t claim you’re not involved with that country. If a country starts claiming that merely making content accessible globally is a crime in their country, that’s an entirely different issue. Not equivalent to the MegaUpload case. > Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. Again, false equivalence. MegaUpload was operating as a business with US customers. They also had some hosting in the United States if I recall correctly. Once you start doing business in a country and have customers there, you’re involved with their laws.

kimixa 1y ago
Imgur offers services to UK-based customers, allowing them to view and host images in return for viewing ads. You used to be able to optionally pay for a pro account, though the vast majority of users use the free ad-supported option, and that is now the only option. Megaupload's business model was pretty much exactly the same - but with "any" file instead of just images. If the UK version didn't have ads, and UK-focused ads at that, they might have a point - but I don't see any "false equivalence" here. And playing games about "indirectly" monetizing people (through ads or similar) doesn't mean they aren't /customers/. Otherwise every consumer law would be trivially worked around.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  Not showing ads and not collecting data are two completely different things. If I could choose between annoying banner ads and being tracked and followed and linked and spied on, I’d take ads every time. I’ve never paid for a freemium where they just stopped all of their creepy telemetry as soon as I started paying them.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]