8 ms·

The thing that scares me, is that even if I were to operate a company completely legal outside of the United States, as a non-citizen, I would still be required

The thing that scares me, is that even if I were to operate a company completely legal outside of the United States, as a non-citizen, I would still be required to follow US law because they claim they can prosecute anyone. World police?

rayiner 14y ago
The U.S. does not claim it can prosecute anyone. U.S. courts can and do dismiss suits for lack of personal jurisdiction over non-citizens. Like every country,[1] it reserves the right to prosecute people whose activities have effects in the U.S. A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law. [1] It's a basic principle of international law that countries can prosecute activity by non-citizens that has effects domestically. Not every country has the power toe exercise this principle, however.
- pjbrunet 14y ago
  Maybe you're talking some sense here but remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons. If you ask me, he's just some fat kid with a website who likes pretty girls and video games. I support copyrights as much as anyone and have criticized this "Mega" fool but the way he was treated was outrageous. If RIAA wants any sympathy they need to get with the program.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Don't get me wrong, I think the Megaupload prosecution was a waste of scarce federal resources. I don't even think copyright infringement should be a criminal issue (blame Microsoft and the BSA for turning it into one). I'm just commenting on the U.S.'s right to enforce its laws internationally to the extent the activity is targeted at or has major impact on the U.S.
    - belorn 14y ago
      Megaupload disk service had an major impact on the U.S.? How exactly can a company that buy and rents out disk space do a major impact on the fourth-largest country in the world? I could see how such company could be threatening for those currently funding election campaigns, and thus indirectly causing those ruling the U.S. to take notice, but is/should the reaction cause major impact to the U.S.? If it is, then what does that say about a nation ruled by the people for the people?
      - mpyne 14y ago
        So the U.S. can only take action against entities who cause a discernable direct major impact against the U.S. now?
        Selfcommit 14y ago
        Yes. Is that really such a bad thing?
        mpyne 14y ago
        "I'm glad you wrote to your Representative, Ms. Concerned Voter, but I regret to inform you that because the amount of taxpayer fraud you witnessed was less than $5,000,000 that the Department of Justice would be powerless to bring charges even if I referred the case to them. $5,000,000 is a stupendously minor offense in the grand scheme of the budget, and minor offenses no longer warrant charges after the Major Crimes Prioritization Act of 2018."
        rayiner 14y ago
        Of course. That means the U.S. would have no way to protect its citizens against harms from abroad unless they amounted to national harms. Understanding that HN isn't a hive-mind, I still find it deeply ironic that a website full of people saying that the U.S. is overreaching by prosecuting MegaUpload was in a different context calling for the aggressive prosecution of HSBC (a non-U.S. company who broke U.S. laws not on U.S. soil).
  - pjbrunet 14y ago
    @rayiner I can't reply to you directly for whatever reason. Maybe we're not getting the whole story. Reminds me of the McAfee story, some nut building what looks like a meth lab in the jungle, is he nuts or just trying to impress his girlfriend? Why does he have a safe room? Anyway, at least he lived to tell the story! Rad helicopter footage!
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    >remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI. Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? Was the minister held at gunpoint? If you read torrent freak you probably think so.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      > Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotcom_apology/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotc... and http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-prime-minister-apologizes-to-kim-dotcom/ http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-pri... "If they had been more thorough in what they had done, they would have worked out that Mr. Dotcom had a residence class visa, and therefore was protected by the law," "Frankly, I’m pretty appalled by what I’ve seen because these are basic errors." "This is really a matter of mistake and human error, not one of a great conspiracy," "the agency has let itself down very badly."
    - vorg 14y ago
      > That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI The attack against Kim Dotcom cascaded through many intermediaries. Although the NZ police were performing the raid, the FBI were observing and involved in the planning. Their involvement and NZ govt approval were commissioned (deniably, of course) by US politicians such as Joe Biden, ultimately sourcing back to big money in Hollywood. I'm also the subject of that type of cascading attack, sourcing back to someone in Silicon Valley (http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8 http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8).
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  > "A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights" Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Hearsay is when you repeat someone else's testimony that you (supposedly) heard. Instead that person should make their testimony directly, in their own words. The assertion you replied to is a simple assertion, not hearsay. Just look at the income MegaUpload received from each file hosted and correlate to whether it is infringing or not and you can prove or disprove the assertion.
    - vy8vWJlco 14y ago
      It would depend on how rayiner formed that opinion.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        I would argue it depends more on your definition of "big part of". :) He could be accidentally correct, after all, if you happen to agree with his definition.
    - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
      Objection. Bullshit, your Honor. Better?
      - mpyne 14y ago
        I don't think it's too much to ask that if you go and use legal terms as if you're pitching a legal defense, that those terms are actually used correctly. Especially when the objection is about the form of a response and not the actual content. You could certainly argue that rayiner hasn't provided justification with his comment, but unless you've been through MegaUpload's books you saying "BULLSHIT" has just as much (and as little) meaning as what rayiner said.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  > A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law. That is a poor argument. North Korea could decide to assign patent rights to "online shopping" to one of its citizens. This citizen now has an intellectual property right that every ecommerce website is infringing. Every site owner is failing to pay legally required royalties, depriving this citizen of those funds, using millions of copies of his invention without authorization. According to your rule of thumb, all these website operators should be required to follow NK law, so it'd be reasonable for them to land a helicopter in your yard and arrest you for violating it. What actually exists is a web of extradition treaties whereby nations have agreed to voluntarily transfer someone to another nation for prosecution in certain situations. There's almost always an absolute requirement for dual criminality -- that is, that the act is illegal in both nations. That's the test, and the treaties signed by both governments are the source of power, not "domestic effects" and whatever you think makes the US special. The case this article is about is an extradition hearing. To your reply: No, substituting NK for US in your own proposed system does not make a straw man.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Except in this case, the content is created in America by Americans, and the underlying property rights are widely recognized internationally. So yes, if none of those things were true your example might not be a strawman, but as it stands...
    - kkowalczyk 14y ago
      Except that Megaupload was not selling duplicated CDs of albums of US musicians or some other obviously infringing activity. They provided a file hosting service, like Dropbox or Google Drive or Skydrive. Judge Mooner, I'm pretty sure, doesn't own rights to Sinead O'Connor's music and yet DOJ is not currently suing YouTube because of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77DexLMjOU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77DexLMjOU The rules for determining if a file sharing services like YouTube or DropBox or Megaupload violates copyright are not as clear as you seem to imply which is why e.g. Viacom lost it's case against YouTube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo...) It's far from clear that Megaupload violated U.S. law, let alone New Zealand's.
- subsystem 14y ago
  "If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law." So I assume you also think youtube should follow pakistani law and anyone working at youtube should be held accountable if they ever find themself within their borders? How about pretty much anyone exercising free speech on HN from the US, should they face charges in Europe for hate speech or should YC itself?
  - mcintyre1994 14y ago
    Don't forget they claim the right without you stepping on US soil ever. So it's more like if Pakistan abducted someone working at Youtube from anywhere in the world, then took them to Pakistan to be tried against their local law. Ditto for Europe.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The word "effect" has more significance in this context than the weakest possible way you could interpret it. It means something more than simply making something accessible. See: http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Effects_test http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Effects_test
    - subsystem 14y ago
      I'm not necessarily challenging what US law says, but what you think about it.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- shadowmint 14y ago
  If it was that clear cut, the judge wouldn't have anything to worry about. Let's preface our discussion with the assumption that the DOJ lawyers are 1) not totally incompetent, 2) not complete idiots. I think we can all agree on this, right? Now, look at the legal limbo that the MU has been stuck in for absolutely ages now, where their lawyers continue to press for case dismissal and all kinds of other things. Is not that the judge is just flipping them off is it? You think, perhaps, the situation is a little bit more complicated than you give it credit for? Or maybe the guys at the DOJ are actually just complete idiots? really? Come on.
  - beedogs 14y ago
    Have you noticed the cases they've been pursuing lately? The jury's out, I'd say.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  >A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. No, perhaps that's what MU's users were up to, but not MU. What if this case were about banking? Would you also argue that Swiss banks should ignore Swiss banking laws and rat out Americans who lie about their assets to avoid taxes? >If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law. No, it isn't obvious at all, and it implies that we should all behave in ways that do not affect people in other countries lest we be extradited for prosecution in some foreign jurisdiction if we break some foreign law.
jmspring 14y ago
The marionette's had it right, Team America, World Police -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc
- cstross 14y ago
  Ahem: the penultimate apostrophe denotes either a missing vowel, or ownership, in the singular, of the subsequent identified property. You're using "marionettes" as a plural. It doesn't require an apostrophe in that context.
  - jmspring 13y ago
    Yeah, late night typing on the iphone. Not an excuse, but I cringed when I read that the next morning. But, I won't edit due to comment.
stock_toaster 14y ago
> if I were to operate a company completely legal outside of the United States ...and if you were hosting on servers residing inside the United States?
- LekkoscPiwa 14y ago
  and if not? I.e. I host in Canada.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  The US government can take those away, they can go after the company I am purchasing services from, but they shouldn't be allowed to freeze my assets in other countries.
  - stock_toaster 14y ago
    > The US government can take those away, they can go after the company I am purchasing services from, but they shouldn't be allowed to freeze my assets in other countries. If you break the law in a given country that you have a business presence in (and derive income from), and simply deposit your money into a bank in another country, you think there should be no redress at all then? I imagine there are treaties and agreements regarding asset seizure between many countries (UN agreements?), as part of the various "the wars on drugs" and RICO/Racketeering laws. I know very little of international law though, so maybe there are no such agreements/treaties/UN-resolutions, etc. note: I am not speaking of the case in question, I am speaking generally.

rayiner 14y ago

The U.S. does not claim it can prosecute anyone. U.S. courts can and do dismiss suits for lack of personal jurisdiction over non-citizens. Like every country,[1] it reserves the right to prosecute people whose activities have effects in the U.S. A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law. [1] It's a basic principle of international law that countries can prosecute activity by non-citizens that has effects domestically. Not every country has the power toe exercise this principle, however.

pjbrunet 14y ago
Maybe you're talking some sense here but remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons. If you ask me, he's just some fat kid with a website who likes pretty girls and video games. I support copyrights as much as anyone and have criticized this "Mega" fool but the way he was treated was outrageous. If RIAA wants any sympathy they need to get with the program.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I think the Megaupload prosecution was a waste of scarce federal resources. I don't even think copyright infringement should be a criminal issue (blame Microsoft and the BSA for turning it into one). I'm just commenting on the U.S.'s right to enforce its laws internationally to the extent the activity is targeted at or has major impact on the U.S.
  - belorn 14y ago
    Megaupload disk service had an major impact on the U.S.? How exactly can a company that buy and rents out disk space do a major impact on the fourth-largest country in the world? I could see how such company could be threatening for those currently funding election campaigns, and thus indirectly causing those ruling the U.S. to take notice, but is/should the reaction cause major impact to the U.S.? If it is, then what does that say about a nation ruled by the people for the people?
    - mpyne 14y ago
      So the U.S. can only take action against entities who cause a discernable direct major impact against the U.S. now?
      - Selfcommit 14y ago
        Yes. Is that really such a bad thing?
        mpyne 14y ago
        "I'm glad you wrote to your Representative, Ms. Concerned Voter, but I regret to inform you that because the amount of taxpayer fraud you witnessed was less than $5,000,000 that the Department of Justice would be powerless to bring charges even if I referred the case to them. $5,000,000 is a stupendously minor offense in the grand scheme of the budget, and minor offenses no longer warrant charges after the Major Crimes Prioritization Act of 2018."
        rayiner 14y ago
        Of course. That means the U.S. would have no way to protect its citizens against harms from abroad unless they amounted to national harms. Understanding that HN isn't a hive-mind, I still find it deeply ironic that a website full of people saying that the U.S. is overreaching by prosecuting MegaUpload was in a different context calling for the aggressive prosecution of HSBC (a non-U.S. company who broke U.S. laws not on U.S. soil).
- pjbrunet 14y ago
  @rayiner I can't reply to you directly for whatever reason. Maybe we're not getting the whole story. Reminds me of the McAfee story, some nut building what looks like a meth lab in the jungle, is he nuts or just trying to impress his girlfriend? Why does he have a safe room? Anyway, at least he lived to tell the story! Rad helicopter footage!
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  >remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI. Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? Was the minister held at gunpoint? If you read torrent freak you probably think so.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    > Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotcom_apology/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotc... and http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-prime-minister-apologizes-to-kim-dotcom/ http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-pri... "If they had been more thorough in what they had done, they would have worked out that Mr. Dotcom had a residence class visa, and therefore was protected by the law," "Frankly, I’m pretty appalled by what I’ve seen because these are basic errors." "This is really a matter of mistake and human error, not one of a great conspiracy," "the agency has let itself down very badly."
  - vorg 14y ago
    > That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI The attack against Kim Dotcom cascaded through many intermediaries. Although the NZ police were performing the raid, the FBI were observing and involved in the planning. Their involvement and NZ govt approval were commissioned (deniably, of course) by US politicians such as Joe Biden, ultimately sourcing back to big money in Hollywood. I'm also the subject of that type of cascading attack, sourcing back to someone in Silicon Valley (http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8 http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8).
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
> "A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights" Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Hearsay is when you repeat someone else's testimony that you (supposedly) heard. Instead that person should make their testimony directly, in their own words. The assertion you replied to is a simple assertion, not hearsay. Just look at the income MegaUpload received from each file hosted and correlate to whether it is infringing or not and you can prove or disprove the assertion.
  - vy8vWJlco 14y ago
    It would depend on how rayiner formed that opinion.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      I would argue it depends more on your definition of "big part of". :) He could be accidentally correct, after all, if you happen to agree with his definition.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    Objection. Bullshit, your Honor. Better?
    - mpyne 14y ago
      I don't think it's too much to ask that if you go and use legal terms as if you're pitching a legal defense, that those terms are actually used correctly. Especially when the objection is about the form of a response and not the actual content. You could certainly argue that rayiner hasn't provided justification with his comment, but unless you've been through MegaUpload's books you saying "BULLSHIT" has just as much (and as little) meaning as what rayiner said.
dangrossman 14y ago
> A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law. That is a poor argument. North Korea could decide to assign patent rights to "online shopping" to one of its citizens. This citizen now has an intellectual property right that every ecommerce website is infringing. Every site owner is failing to pay legally required royalties, depriving this citizen of those funds, using millions of copies of his invention without authorization. According to your rule of thumb, all these website operators should be required to follow NK law, so it'd be reasonable for them to land a helicopter in your yard and arrest you for violating it. What actually exists is a web of extradition treaties whereby nations have agreed to voluntarily transfer someone to another nation for prosecution in certain situations. There's almost always an absolute requirement for dual criminality -- that is, that the act is illegal in both nations. That's the test, and the treaties signed by both governments are the source of power, not "domestic effects" and whatever you think makes the US special. The case this article is about is an extradition hearing. To your reply: No, substituting NK for US in your own proposed system does not make a straw man.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Except in this case, the content is created in America by Americans, and the underlying property rights are widely recognized internationally. So yes, if none of those things were true your example might not be a strawman, but as it stands...
  - kkowalczyk 14y ago
    Except that Megaupload was not selling duplicated CDs of albums of US musicians or some other obviously infringing activity. They provided a file hosting service, like Dropbox or Google Drive or Skydrive. Judge Mooner, I'm pretty sure, doesn't own rights to Sinead O'Connor's music and yet DOJ is not currently suing YouTube because of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77DexLMjOU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77DexLMjOU The rules for determining if a file sharing services like YouTube or DropBox or Megaupload violates copyright are not as clear as you seem to imply which is why e.g. Viacom lost it's case against YouTube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo...) It's far from clear that Megaupload violated U.S. law, let alone New Zealand's.
subsystem 14y ago
"If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law." So I assume you also think youtube should follow pakistani law and anyone working at youtube should be held accountable if they ever find themself within their borders? How about pretty much anyone exercising free speech on HN from the US, should they face charges in Europe for hate speech or should YC itself?
- mcintyre1994 14y ago
  Don't forget they claim the right without you stepping on US soil ever. So it's more like if Pakistan abducted someone working at Youtube from anywhere in the world, then took them to Pakistan to be tried against their local law. Ditto for Europe.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The word "effect" has more significance in this context than the weakest possible way you could interpret it. It means something more than simply making something accessible. See: http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Effects_test http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Effects_test
  - subsystem 14y ago
    I'm not necessarily challenging what US law says, but what you think about it.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
shadowmint 14y ago
If it was that clear cut, the judge wouldn't have anything to worry about. Let's preface our discussion with the assumption that the DOJ lawyers are 1) not totally incompetent, 2) not complete idiots. I think we can all agree on this, right? Now, look at the legal limbo that the MU has been stuck in for absolutely ages now, where their lawyers continue to press for case dismissal and all kinds of other things. Is not that the judge is just flipping them off is it? You think, perhaps, the situation is a little bit more complicated than you give it credit for? Or maybe the guys at the DOJ are actually just complete idiots? really? Come on.
- beedogs 14y ago
  Have you noticed the cases they've been pursuing lately? The jury's out, I'd say.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
>A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. No, perhaps that's what MU's users were up to, but not MU. What if this case were about banking? Would you also argue that Swiss banks should ignore Swiss banking laws and rat out Americans who lie about their assets to avoid taxes? >If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law. No, it isn't obvious at all, and it implies that we should all behave in ways that do not affect people in other countries lest we be extradited for prosecution in some foreign jurisdiction if we break some foreign law.

jmspring 14y ago

The marionette's had it right, Team America, World Police -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc

cstross 14y ago
Ahem: the penultimate apostrophe denotes either a missing vowel, or ownership, in the singular, of the subsequent identified property. You're using "marionettes" as a plural. It doesn't require an apostrophe in that context.
- jmspring 13y ago
  Yeah, late night typing on the iphone. Not an excuse, but I cringed when I read that the next morning. But, I won't edit due to comment.

stock_toaster 14y ago

> if I were to operate a company completely legal outside of the United States ...and if you were hosting on servers residing inside the United States?

LekkoscPiwa 14y ago
and if not? I.e. I host in Canada.
X-Istence 14y ago
The US government can take those away, they can go after the company I am purchasing services from, but they shouldn't be allowed to freeze my assets in other countries.
- stock_toaster 14y ago
  > The US government can take those away, they can go after the company I am purchasing services from, but they shouldn't be allowed to freeze my assets in other countries. If you break the law in a given country that you have a business presence in (and derive income from), and simply deposit your money into a bank in another country, you think there should be no redress at all then? I imagine there are treaties and agreements regarding asset seizure between many countries (UN agreements?), as part of the various "the wars on drugs" and RICO/Racketeering laws. I know very little of international law though, so maybe there are no such agreements/treaties/UN-resolutions, etc. note: I am not speaking of the case in question, I am speaking generally.