5 ms·
> In addition to the damages award, Rakoff entered a permanent worldwide injunction Because apparently U.S. courts and judges can do that. The more this is ign
by Ragnarork 5mo ago
> In addition to the damages award, Rakoff entered a permanent worldwide injunction
Because apparently U.S. courts and judges can do that. The more this is ignored by third-parties outside of the U.S., the better.
I'm not against international cooperation regarding common rules (I'm rather for), but the current context certainly doesn't designate the U.S. as a responsible custodian/enforcer of such rules.
- BiteCode_dev 5mo agoIt's infuriating but practically true. I had a few services that received illegitimate DMCA notices that I ignored. They were either blatantly fraudulent, automated junk or just not applicable to the law of the country where I'm hosting. They escalated to either my hosting or my domain name provider, who then threatened to cut me off for not complying. No discussion with them would work in my favor. I had to comply with this BS. I got cut off several times for completely wrong reasons. They don't care. It's not worth the legal risk for them. I'm not big enough. So in the end, the US CAN indeed do that.
- buccal 5mo ago[flagged]
- ndsipa_pomu 5mo agoReceiving illegitimate DMCA notices is not the same as hosting criminal services.
- subscribed 5mo agoSo if you're fraudulently accused of wrongdoing that makes you a criminal? Nice, nice....
- HDThoreaun 5mo agoIn this case, yes. Ignoring invalid dmca requests is not a legal way to deal with them.
- direwolf20 5mo agoIt's completely legal to ignore a DMCA notice. These notices set up a procedure where you're definitely not liable, but it doesn't mean it's the only way to not be liable. You can also not be liable if you - for example - didn't do anything illegal.
- subscribed 5mo agoWhat od you mean it's not legal? If I don't live in the US and/or didn't do whatever the fraudulent DMCA notice accused me of doing, why do I have to process it? Remember the context.
- Dylan16807 5mo agoMy interpretation was "if they'll serve criminals, they won't care if someone accuses you of a crime". But that doesn't apply to cloudflare hosting so it still comes across as a pointless snipe.
- toyg 5mo agoDid you engage any lawyer/solicitor? Companies don't care about individuals, but they do fear lawyers.
- NegativeK 5mo agoMy experience with lawyers helping me respond to other lawyers is "Stop interacting with that person". Unless I'm spending way more money, I'd expect any company to fire me as a client as fast as legally possible if I threatened them with a lawyer.
- direwolf20 5mo agoAnna's Archive has clearly discovered, by trial and error, which hosts work and which don't. "DMCA ignored hosting" isn't even illegal. Ignoring a liability shield doesn't make you actually liable
- mattmaroon 5mo agoThe US, or any nation state?
- gib444 5mo agoImmediately makes me think of the vitriol here on HN for the UK trying to enforce their age verification law outside their borders. Will the principle stand, or will it reveal that "USA is always right" is a common held belief
- pjc50 5mo agoUSA claiming global jurisdiction over internet copyright matters goes back a long way. The case that "radicalized" me was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd. , which was 25 years ago! The other such case establishing global financial jurisdiction, often cited by cryptocurrency adopters, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg - "Pokerstars". It's wild to read "the U.S. Congress passed UIGEA to extend existing gambling laws into cyberspace. The law made processing payments for online gambling a crime" in the light of how prevalent online gambling is now in the US mainstream, with sports betting, Kalshi, Polymarket and so on.
- reactordev 5mo agoThe laws of the US have always been crafted to protect the interests of the elite, not the industrious.
- mystraline 5mo agoSure has. And even policing protects local monied interests. One case was someone who used their bike as their vehicle put a tracker on it. Was stolen. Tracker dutifully said where it was. Went to police station, they did absolutely shit. They were handed the bike receipt, token receipt, and realtime log. They DGAF. Years ago, worked at Walmart. They illegally edited my hours and thieved $100 and change. Put in police report, was told "CIVIL MATTER". But if you stole $100 from a register, off to jail you go. The laws protect monied interests and the elite, not the masses.
- Aurornis 5mo ago
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- ezst 5mo agoCory Doctorow made a whole CCC speech about this.