×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US, UK Targeting Piracy Websites Outside Their Borders

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the let's-call-them-corsair-sites-instead dept.

Piracy 214

nk497 writes "The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is going after piracy websites even if they aren't hosted in the U.S., by targeting those with .net and .com domain names, which are managed by U.S. company Verisign. Meanwhile, a lawyer suggests even that [kind of connection] isn't needed to take a site to court in the UK, saying as long as the content is directed at UK users, that's connection enough to ensure jurisdiction."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

214 comments

Since US wants to play it this way (4, Interesting)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 2 years ago | (#36653800)

I suggest that other countries start doing it too. Break any French law, face extradition. Break any Chinese law, face extradition. Break any North Korean law, face extradition. It doesn't matter that you have nothing to do with them. If US is doing it, why not others?

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36653880)

Because the US has more guns.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654068)

Nope. But the US has shown willingness to use the guns it has. Now explain to me again how this makes the US the "good guys" again.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (4, Funny)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654146)

We wear cowboy hats?

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (4, Insightful)

das3cr (780388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654252)

White ones !

And our belt buckles say Good Guys right on em.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654230)

What are you saying 'nope' to?

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654294)

The US having the most guns. Nope. The US might have the biggest military budget. It might have expensive toys. However it does not have "the most guns". Russia has 21 million conscripts under arms at any time. North Korea has 9 million troops. South Korea has 8 million. India and China each have about 5 million troops. The US has about 3 million. While you might argue that the US soldier is better equipped, yada yada yada, but what it comes down to is that an American soldier costs much, much more than any other soldier. Actual effectiveness against a real, similar sized army has yet to be tested, and honestly I wouldn't want to live long enough to see that. Be assured that Russia or China aren't pushovers like Iraq and Afghanistan, even if you consider their troops to be "inferior". Lots of little ants can kill and carry surprisingly big critters.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654366)

There are estimated to be over 200 million guns in the U.S. [answers.com] Not counting military and police. America is armed to the teeth.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654414)

And how does this affect foreign policy (what was originally being discussed) again? When you're trying to wriggle out of the frying pan don't forget that if you wriggle hard enough you end up in an entirely different context, ie the fire. Wait, I get it. Now you're just trolling.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654566)

Nope. You tried to be smart about the U.S. not having more guns and it turns out you meant active troops. Oh we're talking about foreign policy? How many Russian and Chinese troops are deployed in combat around the world currently? Wait, what were you saying 'nope' to again?

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654722)

Your comment about the number of the guns in the US was in the wrong context and your response didn't exonerate you. Sorry. I suggest you bow out gracefully.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654812)

Nice doubles bro, but check out my triples

patrick_bateman.jpg

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654986)

The original post was that the U.S. could do it because it has more guns. The response was a pedantic nope that the U.S. does not have more guns it just uses its guns. The original post was a might is right sarcastic statement. The reply was pedantic and wrong.

In context the U.S. has more might with any measure. If we are going to go redefine what the context is that's fine. If we are talking about active standing troops the US is not #1, but that's not what was originally said. If we're talking about number of tanks I don't think the U.S. has the most, but as far as I know they are the best at firing on the move. If we're talking about 'guns', the U.S. has an abundance and may be #1. If we're talking about number of citizens the U.S. is not #1.

The U.S. spends 46% of the world's military budget. This does not take into account Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. is expanding it's unmanned firepower and is the largest exporter of arms (9 or last 10 years). I have supported the original post, 'Because the U.S. has more guns'.

So while 200 million domestic guns have nothing to do with foreign policy. How does 9 million North Korean troops sitting in N Korea prove N Korea has more guns than the U.S.? The U.S. is not invincible but it does have 'more guns'.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36655116)

How does 9 million North Korean troops sitting in N Korea prove N Korea has more guns than the U.S.?

We're not going to invade NK with 200 million guns.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654624)

The US might have the biggest military budget. but some of that money also goes to giving people a "free" education, and getting things build for tax dollars
in other countries that's another budget, but that sounds too much like socialism so in the US it is much easier to make it part of the defense budget ;)

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654826)

Military power isn't worth shit in this age. What the US has, is the biggest economic power of all. If they say, this country is a bad customer, then their import taxes will skyrocket, they'll have problems getting loans, their credit rating going to shit etc. That's the true power of the USA. And they use it every single day, they don't have to ruin everything to get a country to do what they want, just a few things, "hey you know that IMF loan you were expecting? chances are it's not going to happen if you don't do what we say.". It goes the other way around, using the carrot, not just the stick, but it doesn't sound as dramatic.
They do have an army and the strongest one, because it's NECESSARY, M.A.D. still exists.
Can you blame them? Not really, that's the benefit of being the most powerful nation.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654834)

The US can deliver lethal force remotely more effectively than any other country can deliver their foot soldiers to our soil.

Disagree? Predators, Reapers, Global Hawks, and that's just the unmanned variety. Rule the air and you rule (most) of the ground.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654350)

Nope. But the US has shown willingness to use the guns it has. Now explain to me again how this makes the US the "good guys" again.

The villain you see in Bond films stroking a white cat and saying "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" doesn't really exist in real life. Not on a personal level, not on a national or international level. Everyone thinks they're the good guy, everyone thinks they're doing the right thing.

Hell, Osama bin Laden seemed pretty convinced that what he stood for was right. At the risk of invoking Godwin, as far as anyone can tell Hitler honestly thought that attempting to rid the world of the Jews was the right thing to do. And I bet you Kim Jong Il thinks he's doing a pretty damn good job of keeping his country well looked after.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654422)

Everyone thinks they're the good guy, everyone thinks they're doing the right thing.

No! They are factually the bad guys. My morals are factually correct and not subjective in the least.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654548)

Given that he did not belong to the uber-race that he was promoting as the ideal, it seems pretty likely that he did in fact think he was doing the right thing.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (2)

barq (1194291) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654702)

The villain you see in Bond films stroking a white cat and saying "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" doesn't really exist in real life. Not on a personal level, not on a national or international level. Everyone thinks they're the good guy, everyone thinks they're doing the right thing.

Hell, Osama bin Laden seemed pretty convinced that what he stood for was right. At the risk of invoking Godwin, as far as anyone can tell Hitler honestly thought that attempting to rid the world of the Jews was the right thing to do. And I bet you Kim Jong Il thinks he's doing a pretty damn good job of keeping his country well looked after.

It is the 'Banality of Evil' argument. Hannah Arendt popularised the term after watching Eichmann in court. The question of how apparently ordinary people can do extraordinarily evil things was a central issue for social psychology after WWII (e.g. Stanley Milgram's 'electric shock' obedience experiments). The headlines focused on the surprisingly high levels of obedience, but the more interesting story is in the accounts given by participants afterwards. In short, the majority of people rationalise their actions in terms of good intentions. Bond style evil villains who wake up in the morning and plot overtly evil schemes are mostly fictional.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

jjeffries (17675) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654432)

You there! Call us "the good guys" or we'll shoot you with our many guns! Choose!

I thought so.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (3, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#36653916)

It doesn't matter that you have nothing to do with them.

Except that .com, .net, .org and .edu all fall squarely within the domain of the U.S. as far as regulation goes, as per the blurb.

The other point made in the blurb is if you are targeting a particular nation's citizens, that you may also be subject to that nation's regulations.

Does that mean Amazon should be held liable for any naughty things entering Indonesia, for example? No, because although they'll ship things there, they're not targeting them. If they were to start offering their site in Indonesian and clearly marketed things to Indonesians, then perhaps they would.

This is really not much different from a bunch of Russians setting up a poker site on the Seychelles and then advertising specifically to Americans, require bets be made in U.S. Dollars, etc. You've probably already read on the crackdown operations on those.

Whether it is just is another matter entirely.

So while your comment is on the mark somewhere down the slippery slope, it's not particularly relevant as in fact people do have something to with 'them'.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654242)

"Meanwhile, a lawyer suggests even that [kind of connection] isn't needed to take a site to court in the UK, saying as long as the content is directed at UK users, that's connection enough to ensure jurisdiction"

No your honor. Clearly, we were targeting American's because our website only uses American spelling and grammar. And you're all wankers.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654336)

If they where .com.us and so on, that would make sense. As it is, USA have at best a "historical" claim on the jurisdiction of .com and the rest.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654444)

If they where .com.us and so on, that would make sense. As it is, USA have at best a "historical" claim on the jurisdiction of .com and the rest.

No, at best the following is true: .com registry holder: VeriSign .net registry holder: VeriSign .org registry holder: Public Interest Registry (operated by: Afilias) .edu registry holder: Educause (operated by: VeriSign)

VeriSign headquarters: 21355 Ridgetop Circle, Dulles, Virginia, USA

Afilias US office: Afilias USA, Inc., Building 3, Suite 105, 300 Welsh Road, Horsham, PA 19044, USA

Now, Afilias is headquartered in Ireland, so they could always choose to bugger out of the U.S., although I'm not sure what that would do with regard to being the operator for the .org registry.

But for .com and .net, the U.S. very much has jurisdiction over the main registry and by extension the data registered with them.

See also the recent newsbits about the U.S. having the jurisdiction to request data on Microsoft's cloud services servers parked in Europe and (largely) being marketed to Europeans.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (2)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654730)

But for .com and .net, the U.S. very much has jurisdiction over the main registry and by extension the data registered with them.

The data registered with them is an address which is not necessarily in the US. By all means delete the pointer of any site you don't agree with, but how does holding a pointer to an address give you rights over a citizen of another country?

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (3, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654446)

Except that .com, .net, .org and .edu all fall squarely within the domain of the U.S. as far as regulation goes, as per the blurb.

Which is precisely why other countries have pushed for ICANN to not be under US regulation because it's absurd that .com, .net, .org, and .edu should be US regulated or more generally that it's under US authority to create/destroy new TLDs.

The other point made in the blurb is if you are targeting a particular nation's citizens, that you may also be subject to that nation's regulations.

Even if one were to believe that premise, what does that have to do with the situation? The fact that a lot of .com, .net, etc domains belong to US (or European) companies has a lot to do with where the Internet/Web first grew substantially. That doesn't mean .com, .net, etc inherently target Americans or Europeans. Similarly, a lot of the initial web sites were in English, not only because of heavy US involvement in the web's start but because English is a widely used second language and hence the closest to a globally inter-operable language.

Beyond that, I'd say it's pretty bloody obvious that plenty of pirates don't necessarily target a specifically nationality. Plenty of people in the world want to watch US made shows, play US made games, etc. Similarly, there's plenty of people in the US who want to watch shows from other countries (subbed or dubbed, if necessary), play games from other countries (translated, if necessary), etc. But, again, as English is very much a global inter-operable language, there's plenty of non-native English speakers who have become accustom to watching, playing, etc copyrighted works in English precisely because they're never translated into their native language.

In short, I'd probably feel a good bit different if this wasn't ICE seemingly just blacklisting domains as their own discretion, without oversight. Such a situation means ICE doesn't have to even bother proving in any way that any targeting happened, unless the domain happens to not be under their control; then they have to actually obtain cooperation from another government. And this situation just further highlights the point that .com, .net, etc should not be under ICE/US control.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654514)

The reason why the fall into the domain of the US is that historically we were the least likely to pull this sort of crap. But, I don't think it'll last long if we continue abusing that privilege.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654778)

The reason why the fall into the domain of the US is that historically we were the least likely to pull this sort of crap. But, I don't think it'll last long if we continue abusing that privilege.

Which universe's history was that in? Show me any country that historically and currently wouldn't pull any dirty tricks they thought they could get away with to further the interests of those in power.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654680)

no they fall within Verisign's area of regulation. One thing this guarantees for me is that I will never use Verisign again. If they are a part of the US govt , it should be stated on the TOS. But as a company I will vote with my dollars.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654854)

One would think that physically shipping products to people would count more as targeting than localizing their site would. I don't know this work in all countries, but imfairly certain that offering heroin by mail to Madrid would be legally more actionable than localizing heroin.com in to Spanish.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36653918)

Other countries don't need to threaten extradition. They can just declare a "fatwa" against you, let "unrelated parties" kill you and then deny all responsibility all while claiming the credit.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654796)

I think Switzerland would find it quite hard to declare a fatwa. It would have to go to referendum, and if it passed it would probably just mandate that somebody sit down and have a firm word with you. (Then they'd freeze your assets.)

then any US corp needs face US labor law for China (2, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654180)

then any US corp needs face US labor law for China work.

So apple you better look out as the I-stuff factory does not comply.

Re:then any US corp needs face US labor law for Ch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654818)

Yehs big evil apple is responsible for all of this. Go fuck yourself you stupid cocksucking fangirl.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654188)

Perhaps you should make a better parallel? In this case, the offenders have US domain names. The US supposedly controls US domain names. Seems right, seems like China should probably control the .cn top level domain. If a US entity had a .cn domain and used the site to break the law in China it seems only fair that China would pull the plug on it. Same thing if it was a .fr domain - France should control that. But the .com., .net, and .org TLD's are under control of the US so the US should indeed be able to remove offenders from this namespace.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654300)

Perhaps you should make a better parallel? In this case, the offenders have US domain names.

.com is not a US domain name. .us is a US domain name.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (3, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654342)

The thing is, for that to happen, a citizen's leaders (what we like to mistakenly call 'representatives') have to sell them out to the foreign powers concerned.

Tony Blair and the Labour Party were the ones who entered into the agreement to ship British citizens over to the USA on the merest of pretexts, without any UK judicial oversight.

Without a political leader willing to sell you and your countrymen out - or commit an act of treason against the people of his or her country, if you like - you're relatively safe.

Re:Since US wants to play it this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654592)

By that logic everyone working at Facebook would face extradition; breaking EU privacy laws is illegal....
Hell yeah off with Zuckerberg's head! finally!

Typical western ideology (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36653808)

"...as long as the content is directed at UK users, that's connection enough to ensure jurisdiction."

Typical western ideology, which advocates that the entire world belongs to them.

Re:Typical western ideology (2)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 2 years ago | (#36653994)

And why the internet is going to rapidly degrade into region specific websites where those areas with larger/richer populations will see excellent services and those with smaller/poorer populations will be severely under served.

Anonymity and freedom is what made the internet great; laws, fears, and corporations are what is destroying it.

Re:Typical western ideology (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654110)

And why the internet is going to rapidly degrade

I prefer the term "evolve", into something new and wonderful and decentralized that completely sidesteps political grandstanding. Politicians are always a few years behind. It really only takes one person to come up with a suitable interface, and within a week everything is different. Look at how fast twitter became a common site - not that there's anything great about twitter, but that is the speed at which new technology is adapted into our modern lives. Give enough people a need (avoid censorship) and they will have a reason to a) invent or b) adopt a new technology that steps around it. We're all connected now. You can't simply disconnect us.

Re:Typical western ideology (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36655038)

<sarcasm>Yeah, why can't the whole world be as peaceful and tolerant as the people who issued death sentences against the Danish cartoonists or Salman Rushdie?</sarcasm>

Don't quote me on this... (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#36653848)

But I'm pretty sure most states in the US have the same targeting rule. That's how the assert jurisdiction over sites like Craigslist, Yahoo Local, and others. Of course, proving that the site is geographically targeted at one place or another is going to be tenuous with something like this.

Re:Don't quote me on this... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36653868)

Local prosecutors have been successfully pulling this very sort of crap since the BBS days. It is really nothing new.

Re:Don't quote me on this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36653926)

To be fair, as a general idea, digital media and law are in a really gray field right now. Imo, it's because the digital media in question doesn't conform to the standard of borders that currently exist. Media made can be directed in a way that makes the origin, or location of server, seem unimportant to some. With that said, again imo, this move is overstepping bounds, and violates a principal of privacy that we have as a precedent at least in American law. (IANAL, obviously.)

This, sadly, is a step towards 'global law' that should have been handed to an authority other than the US/UK gov'ts. Why does Interpol even exist when - when deemed needed - individual countries can make redundant structures?

Re:Don't quote me on this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654004)

These types of questions are what suggest that either the internet will fragment, all nations will agree to a rather broad set of law standards, or some sort of distasteful monitoring is inevitable..

Say, country A has decided not to legally recognize copyright at all. Country B has copy right law. Say I am a citizen of country A. If I access a website hosted in country A that hosts or points to media copyrighted in country B, am I doing anything illegal? If so, who's obligation is it to enforce this? Should country A demand that its ISP's block content based on other countries' laws? To what extent? What if one of those 'other countries' has extraordinarily strict laws and punishments? So, the media may be 'owned' by a foreign entity, but country A does not recognize that ownership at all. Should country A still be beholden to country B's laws of ownership? May country B rightfully hold country A liable (take a hostile position over this issue) or is this a 'legitimate' difference in cultural / legal position?

What if I am a citizen of country B and access that server in country A? Obviously, by my laws, I am infringing copyright. Who is then responsible for enforcement? Should the ISP's of country B be required to monitor my connection? Should they implement a blacklist? Should the government set up a monitoring border? Should country B 'attack' (legally or diplomatically) country A?

Re:Don't quote me on this... (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654236)

The .com, .net, and .edu addresses are managed by a US based entity, and part of the contract of purchasing such a domain is that you obey the laws and regulations stipulated by the United States. If you wish to do things on your website that are illegal in the US, you can either block all traffic from addresses allocated to US ISPs, or you can purchase a domain for your specific ccTLD, which is not governed by US law.

Re:Don't quote me on this... (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654470)

It depends upon how you interpret copyright, mostly depending on whether you see copyright as a pragmatic tool or as an author's natural right. In the US, it's an agreement in which the public cedes a bit of liberty regarding copying to authors in hopes that giving authors this power results in more works being authored, putting the US deep within the 'pragmatic tool' group. Absent a voluntary international agreement for recognizing copyright of other countries, the citizens of another country have not taken part of that deal, so they have no obligations to not copy works of US authors.

Where a lot of the concern lies IMO is that much of the agreements that have been signed regarding copyright have strings attached, which makes calling them 'voluntary' questionable. If we see free trade as the norm, and restricted trade as a punishment, then Western nations are implicitly and sometimes explicitly threatening punishment for not doing something they have no obligation to do. That is imperialism/bullying/etc., and cannot be just.

Sad ... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36653924)

It really is sad to see US and UK companies playing this territorial-creep card ... oh well, maybe when their citizens start getting called for extradition to other countries they'll either explicitly acknowledge the double standard, or live with it and start making their citizens subject to laws from random places.

Mostly, I find it sad that copyright is the thing that these countries are most interested in protecting ... who needs liberty and democracy when we need to be sure nobody is ripping off some lame boy band that Sony has decided needs to be protected by the full brunt of the us DoJ.

And, I guess the UK only require that they "feel" they have jurisdiction ... that's a brilliant legal standard. Nice to know you can be extradited with a lower standard of proof for doing something which is entirely legal within your own country. The kid in question linked to stuff, and didn't even host it from what I read.

This is truly sad, and it means American laws have been totally taken over by corporate interests.

Re:Sad ... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36653998)

I hardly care about enforcing against piracy, but id like to point out that natonalism is very last-generation and will die with our parents. Communication, globalization, and information access has dissolved the imaginary walls we earthlings once put up. One world democratic order is a good and welcome thing; and once we cooexist it will be comical to learn of the trivial differences people once had.

Re:Sad ... (2)

fmoliveira (979051) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654118)

You talk shit like this because you live in the so caled developed world. For us others these walls will continue to be very real. They only weaken when it is for the benefit of the powerful.

Re:Sad ... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654528)

I'm talking about reality, and your third world existence *will* integrate either at first by duress or desire, it will. Its not shit talk, its simply reality. I could write pages of facts to show you the trend, or you can look to your participation on slashdot, use of english, and your digital relationships as blatant tells of our future. Borders will dissolve, uncomfortably.

Re:Sad ... (4, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654170)

I hardly care about enforcing against piracy, but id like to point out that natonalism is very last-generation and will die with our parents.

I'm not so sure. That same fervor that drives religion, politics and sports fanaticism is what drives nationalism. I think this (misplaced) feeling of pride about what someone else is doing or saying or playing so long as he a) goes to the right church, b) plays for the right team, c) belongs to the right party or d) lives in our neighborhood is hard wired into our minds. Just like dogs have a mechanism that makes them prefer to live in organized packs, we humans love to form little tribes, clans or cliques. Yes the country may become less important, values may shift, but at the end of the day if you're not from [insert your town here] then you're a damned foreigner. It takes a lot of intelligence to become aware of this instinct and override it. Most people just aren't that smart.

Re:Sad ... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654298)

It takes a lot of intelligence to become aware of this instinct and override it.

It does? I feel nothing about any of the things that you listed. Are you sure it actually takes that much intelligence, or do "most" people just not try?

Re:Sad ... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654400)

I hardly care about enforcing against piracy, but id like to point out that natonalism is very last-generation and will die with our parents.

I believe you have that backwards. Internationalism was our parents' thing with wonderful organisations like the EU and UN supposed to eliminate nationalism; now the younger generations are seeing the problems 'globalisation' brings and the EU is on the verge of collapse as Germans don't want to pay higher taxes so Greeks can retire early and spend the rest of their lives drinking at a beach-side cafe.

Re:Sad ... (2)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654484)

Your analysis is very short sighted or naive. You do realize that we will globalize more, not less, than our parents... those so-called lessons you think people learned are miniscule in comparison to common ground and respect that has been found with international communications and social relationships. I think your cave is limiting your perspective...

Re:Sad ... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654576)

You do realize that we will globalize more, not less, than our parents..

No you won't.

The Age of Big Things is over. Western governments are mostly bankrupt. The EU and UN are jokes. I won't be at all surprised to see the US break into a number of individual states or small groupings of states over the next few decades.

That doesn't mean that you won't have Facebook friends in Wherethehellamiistan or buy ebooks from China, but it does mean that you won't be getting told what to do by bureaucrats thousands of miles away who have nothing in common with you. The future is local, not global.

And as we move off this planet into space, the laws of physics alone make centralisation impossible.

Re:Sad ... (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654076)

here is a hint, do not use a us domain

its like living at 123 elm street and killing some one then bitching that its not illegal to murder in your own country, thats fine go the fuck back and murder all you like, and similarly go get your blah.co.ch and pirate all day long without fear of the US interfering with your operations

Re:Sad ... (1)

jalspach (688329) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654210)

I am waiting for the first law that has the tag "copyright Sony 2011 all rights reserved" it is probably not far off.

Extradition to other countries won't happen. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654212)

It's mostly here in the US were corporations have corrupted the rule of law to the point where their interests come first. And unlike most other countries, we have laws now that have turned Civil cases into criminal cases.

If you or I had a copyright infringement case, we'd have to sue - it wouldn't be a criminal case. We'd have to find the person, sue in their courts, and cross our fingers if we can actually get any damages.

Someone infringes on Disney's (or any other large corporation) copyright, they can have the people with the badges and guns go after them.

Reductionist? Over simplification? I'm just an ordinary citizen and that's that way I see it.

We are not a Republic. We are not free. Today on July 4th our Independence Day, I'm going to treat it as any other day and feel the sadness for all of those young people who have died or been maimed fighting for the US corporate interests.

Re:Sad ... (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654466)

> "It really is sad to see US and UK companies playing this territorial-creep card ... oh well, maybe when their citizens start getting called for extradition to other countries they'll either explicitly acknowledge the double standard, or live with it and start making their citizens subject to laws from random places."

Most of the time, when someone does some action, it only affects the local people. For example, if some country wants to legalize drugs, then it's the local population who is most affected. On the other hand, since the internet is international, there is no "here" or "there". So, on the internet, if one country legalizes drugs, it's the equivalent of people in that country being allowed to legally ship drugs *everywhere* in the entire world. I don't agree with extradition in this case, but the problem still exists that things on the internet are international in a way that other crimes are not. That issue is not going away, and it will continue to cause problems going into the future.

> "Mostly, I find it sad that copyright is the thing that these countries are most interested in protecting ... who needs liberty and democracy when we need to be sure nobody is ripping off some lame boy band that Sony has decided needs to be protected by the full brunt of the us DoJ."

Where did you get the notion that "copyright is the thing that these countries are most interested in protecting". You sound like a person who got a parking ticket, and you complain that the police aren't out solving murders and concluding that "I guess parking violations are the thing that these countries are most interested in cracking down on".

> "And, I guess the UK only require that they "feel" they have jurisdiction ... that's a brilliant legal standard."

Regarding the "jurisdiction" issue (and ignoring this particular case - since I feel the UK generally has reasonably decent laws to deal with it themselves), I don't think it's always unreasonable for the US or UK to do something, although extradition is probably going too far. Given the international nature of the internet, and assuming that the local legal system is a lame duck, then it might be reasonable for the US to intervene, but I'd lean more towards putting pressure on the local government. For example, when the russian website AllOfMp3 was up and running, they were selling music for a few pennies a song. It was obvious that they were pocketing all the money for themselves, but it was legal in Russia because of a loophole in Russian law. I never bought anything from the site because I could see they were just for-profit pirates, which is a really crappy thing to do. So, AllOfMp3 was (1) Legal in Russia, and (2) On the internet, so it was available to internationally to everyone, without respect for national borders. Do you think what AllOfMp3 was doing was completely fine simply because they were hosted in Russia and legal under Russian law, or do you, like me, think what they were doing was screwing over people and the international nature of the internet means it's perfectly okay for the US to put pressure on Russia to close the loophole?

Also, if I remember correctly, the US has gone after international computer crackers. (Again, another symptom of the internet being an international space.) What the crackers are doing might be entirely legal in their own country, but I can completely understand why the US might go after someone located in another country. Out of curiosity, are you going to argue that the US has no jurisdiction and it should just go sit on its hands and continue to let crackers wreak havok?

> "This is truly sad, and it means American laws have been totally taken over by corporate interests."

You seems to think protection of copyright is entirely equivalent to "corporate interests". But, then, I suppose you could also claim that laws against shoplifting are also "protection of corporate interests" - while that's technically true, it sounds far more ominous.

Re:Sad ... (1)

the_leander (759904) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654980)

It really is sad to see US and UK companies playing this territorial-creep card ... oh well, maybe when their citizens start getting called for extradition to other countries they'll either explicitly acknowledge the double standard, or live with it and start making their citizens subject to laws from random places.

What do you mean "maybe"? It's already happening now [bbc.co.uk].

To be fair (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654020)

To be fair, every place on the internet is accessible from everywhere. In that sense, there is no "here" or "there". Out of curiosity, what if the US and the UK were targeting websites that were spreading computer viruses, or websites that were used as command-and-control points for viruses? Should it make a difference whether or not those websites were hosted inside the US/UK?

Re:To be fair (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654802)

Out of curiosity, what if the US and the UK were targeting websites that were spreading computer viruses, or websites that were used as command-and-control points for viruses?

It would still be bad. Governments should not be filtering Internet communications, nor should they be enforcing their laws in other countries.

TIME FOR THE DEATH PENALTY !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654050)

Let's let Italian Killer Knox and Baby Casey's Killer off, but let's KILL DEM PIRATES !! That'll teach 'em to mess with US !!

What the hell! (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654172)

Why in the world is the The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency going after piracy websites, how in the world does something on the internet fall into their jurisdiction? I'd like to know in who's mind their job has anything to do with Piracy websites located outside the USA. Anyone?

Re:What the hell! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654200)

Bribes,.

Re:What the hell! (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654322)

The Party of Disney is in the White House, and even moderate Republicans like Obama tend to be welded at the lips to the Great Media Sphincter.

What's horrible is the above should be a troll, but it's true.

The Department of Mission Creep (excuse me, "Homeland Security") is also wasting resources in pursuit of IP violations. All well and good until someone loses a Trade Center.

Re:What the hell! (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654810)

Why in the world is the The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency going after piracy websites, how in the world does something on the internet fall into their jurisdiction

The shrort answer is that crimes that cross our international borders tend to fall under the jurisdiction of those responsible for protecting our borders.

Cyber Crimes Center:

C3 brings the full range of ICE computer and forensic assets together in a single location to combat such Internet-related crimes as:

Possession, manufacture and distribution of images of child abuse.
International money laundering and illegal cyber-banking.
Illegal arms trafficking and illegal export of strategic/controlled commodities.
Drug trafficking (including prohibited pharmaceuticals).
General Smuggling (including the trafficking in stolen art and antiquities; violations of the Endangered Species Act etc.)
Intellectual property rights violations (including music and software).
Immigration violations; identity and benefit fraud

US Immigration & Customs Endforcement: Ctber Crimes [wikipedia.org]

If Anyone Can Assert Juristiction Over It (5, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654218)

Then anyone can. So do you want your internet held to the same free speech standards that you'd find in China or, let's say, Libya? Do you want some Muslim cleric sentencing US or UK site-owners to death by stoning because of their depictions of women? Do you want China issuing arrest warrants on some guy in Minnesota because he was talking about Tibet? Do you want some totalitarian United States regime arresting Soviets and... Oh wait we already did that. Well anyway, that's where this is leading us.

He who has the gold (2)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654224)

... makes the rules. America is set up purely so that the strong can prey on the weak. It's as American as guns and apple pie.

How better to demonstrate that (on the 4th of July), by showing that powerful moneyed corporate interests can reach out and grab you from the other side of the world, even on the flimsiest of pretexts, merely because their outdated and broken business models are threatened.

It's breathtaking how short-termist and self-interested this thinking is. Of course, Russia, China and Iran won't be allowed to extradite Westerners who 'injure' them in imaginary ways -- only US Big Media can, because they bribe and lobby US lawmakers and have good access to the Obama administration.

Re:He who has the gold (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36655114)

Of course, Russia, China and Iran won't be allowed to extradite Westerners who 'injure' them in imaginary ways -- only US Big Media can,

Well, that's a relief!

I still prefer Disney's lawyers to Putin.

Death to DNS (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654256)

All they're really going to do is hasten the death of the centralised DNS system. Which isn't a bad thing.

Shame it's taken a bunch of law-breaking pirates to really demonstrate the flaws of such a system.

Re:Death to DNS (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654992)

Expect torrent/gray area DNS to move towards things like distributed hash tables, most likely signed asymmetric keys. Torrent clients and sites are already using DHT for magnet links and finding other clients. It's not rocket science to keep moving down the OSI stack.

Your point? (2)

Random2 (1412773) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654312)

For those who don't know what the Berne Convention is, it's a treaty where the signatories treat the copyright of one country as if it is copyrighted in theirs. Most of the countries in the world have signed this convention.

So, regardless of what one may thing of pirating, the US and UK are well within their rights by doing this. So are many other countries, which either do not or are not making headlines.

I thought this was Slashdot, not Slanderdot?

Re:Your point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654594)

Not only that , but the U.S. was late to the party on this one. So I agree with you, Slashdotters seem to morphing into poll takers and facebook "likers" I doubt few have posted here could adequately explain the basic copyright law of their own country, much less that of another. But like the frogs leg, all that is needed to invoke an involuntary response is the "battery" of buzzwords like copyright and the regurgitation of dogma spew forth.

Re:Your point? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654708)

well, the arguing would then be about where the crime took place, if it's indian site and pakistan user, wouldn't it be up to the pakistan and indian auhorities to do the investigation and court proceedings? and is uk willing to make the court happenings and take the stand that the crimes happened on UK territory? if that would be a sure fire way to get into a warm meal in the uk I bet a lot of people would start doing hard core copyright infringing.

Let's Hasten the Decentralization of DNS (4, Interesting)

jeek (37349) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654320)

Let's get this idea out so that it gets implemented and leads to the decentralization of the DNS process...

How about the U.S. starts seizing domains everywhere at the request of a U.S.-led cabal that has, as a condition of entry, the requirement that members agree to a U.S.-centric policy on copyright infringement?

After the inevitable collapse of the current centralized DNS process, a couple of browser plugins and people will go on doing what they were already doing.

Re:Let's Hasten the Decentralization of DNS (1)

dufachi (973647) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654806)

Let's get this idea out so that it gets implemented and leads to the decentralization of the DNS process...

How about the U.S. starts seizing domains everywhere at the request of a U.S.-led cabal that has, as a condition of entry, the requirement that members agree to a U.S.-centric policy on copyright infringement?

After the inevitable collapse of the current centralized DNS process, a couple of browser plugins and people will go on doing what they were already doing.

Only then, possessing or offering said plugin will be a Class A Felony punishable by 20 years in prison.

Corporate America (2, Insightful)

Giantmoth (2262718) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654374)

Doesn't the Immigrations and Customs department have better things to do than the bidding of corporate lobbyists?

Lawyers and politician make it up as they go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654390)

What is or is not jurisdiction depends on the whim of the lawyer or politician making the call. If it isn't in their jurisdiction then the politicians make a law to say that it is. If there is no law then the lawyer interprets an existing law differently to embrace whatever it is they want.

That's Ok for them. If you try to do the same thing you will be in trouble. Why? Because they will invent a law or interpret one which already exists to show that you can't.

I heard a lawyer the other day explaining what makes international law (he was discussing the UK's military action in Libya.) I was amazed to hear him say that international law is, in part, derived from how countries act. In other words, if a big enough country does it it becomes international law.

Lawyers and politicians are the scum of the earth not for what they do but for how they attempt to justify it. Dogs, crooks, liars and hypocrites the lot of em.

Government, Incorporated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654408)

Anyone who is surprised that the US might engage in
behavior which might not be legal with respect to copyright enforcement
needs to refresh his or her understanding of the way the world operates.

This is not about what is "legal" or what is "right", it is about
money and power.

Remember all this the next time you consider sending more money
to the RIAA. Me, I will never buy music again, ever. and if that means
I have to only listen to the 130GB of music I already have that's just fine with me.

Not targeted at UK citizens (5, Insightful)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#36654588)

First page of piracy site: are you a citizen of the UK? Yes/No. If you click "yes", you will not get access. Wink wink...

Not getting it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36655056)

I just woke up, so forgive me if you're being sarcastic/going somewhere else - but since I've seen things, man, on the Internet, this point needs reinforcing:

Disclaimer nonsense such as this has no legal standing. Doesn't matter if you're posting some 24-hour nonsense on your emulator ROM site; doesn't matter if you're whining that law enforcement can't connect to your FTP of warez. Doesn't matter if you don't want UK citizens in your site, snatching your mp3s.

You're committing copyright infringement, and your disclaimers will not save you.

Take them to court? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36654712)

Lets see, you take the foreign website to court, they don't show up, they lose, they could care less and still keep operating and you can't stop them! Makes good sense to me! Most countries that didn't sign on to things like the DCMA could care less about piracy! It's a losing battle!

Re:Take them to court? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36655054)

"could care less"

So... they do care, then?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...