The concept of jurisdiction is complicated, but often comes down to "do you have the authority to make me care".
Any country in the world can make laws about whatever they'd like with regards to things they have control over. In fact, they can make laws about things they don't have control over, but in practice, you can safely ignore getting sued in Iran unless you plan on visiting Iran.
In this case, things are pretty simple: .com, .net, .org, etc are US domain names, administered by a US company, and the US has the authority to subject you to their jurisdiction (because so much of it happens in the US).
If you would like to use a US domain name, you are subject to US law. If you live outside the US and would not like to be subject to US law, then don't use a US domain name or a US web host.
The United States isn't doing anything special here that every other country in the world isn't also doing. If I buy and use a .fr domain name and host servers in France, I am subject to French and EU jurisdiction.
The United States isn't doing anything special here than every other country in the world isn't also doing.
Yes but one should use "special" advisedly here. As you say, the US has arrogated this authority simply because it can and indeed every state does this at one time or another and in one fashion or other. This shouldn't stand in the way of those who feel that those claims are outrageous trying to stop them.
This doesn't apply only to servers hosted in the US. The US is claiming that because .com domains must ultimately be registered by a US registrar (since they have ultimate control of the DNS) then even if you have no servers in the US, no customers in the US and no links with the US - you are under US jurisdiction.
It's like France having jurisdiction if you use a French word in your product.
No, it's exactly like if I registered a .fr domain name. France has jurisdiction over that domain name, and can shut it down if they'd like.
The US has jurisdiction over the .com domain.
If you have no US customers, no servers in the US and no other links to the US -- you may have your domain shutdown, but that's it.
I very much doubt you would be extradited to the US in that situation as it does not involve the US at all. But the US having extradition abilities with other countries' foreign nationals that it finds to be criminals is a separate issue entirely from their jurisdiction over .com, .net, .org etc.
No. com/net/info have always been US domain names from the beginning. It's a big reason why others were created. When you run a .com, you are running a US domain name.
There are no international domains -- can you imagine how disastrously messy that would be?
Domain names are under the jurisdiction of one country. It just so happens the US domain names are popular, but that certainly doesn't mean you are forced to use them.
"com/net/info have always been US domain names from the beginning" - Citation? And how come there is a ".us" TLD?
It may seem that way from where you sit (USA by any chance?), but I think you'll find the rest of the world sees com/net/org as transcending countries, hence their value.
"The domain COM was installed as one of the first set of top-level domains when the Domain Name System was first implemented for use on the Internet in January 1985. The domain was administered by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), however the department contracted the domain maintenance to SRI International. SRI created DDN-NIC, also known as SRI-NIC, or simply the NIC (Network Information Center),[3] then accessible online with the domain name nic.ddn.mil. Beginning October 1, 1991, an operations contract was awarded to Government Systems Inc. (GSI), which sub-contracted it to Network Solutions Inc. (NSI).[4]"
> And how come there is a ".us" TLD?
Because every country gets a two letter country code TLD.
> It may seem that way from where you sit (USA by any chance?), but I think you'll find the rest of the world sees com/net/org as transcending countries, hence their value.
Just because you see certain TLDs as transcending countries doesn't mean that they actually do.
Besides, having jursdiction over a TLD is necessary to deal with sites that have servers in multiple countries. How else do you handle jurisdiction for a website with multiple servers in multiple countries and that advertises to multiple countries, some of which don't have a server inside that country's border?
It's like France having jurisdiction if you use a French word in your product.
No it is not. This policy will not be beaten back with silly analogies such as this.
If you are interested in this topic and advocating a change in policy I highly recommend that you become familiar with the legal theories underlying establishment of jurisdiction.
The " legal theories underlying establishment of jurisdiction" consists of who has the biggest fleet.
This has been true for about 5000years since the Egyptians got their act together, has continued through the Greek, Roman, Venetian, British and now American empires.
The only thing that is new is the power behind the fleet is now whoever pays for the commander-in-chief's re-election effort.
If you doubt this you should look at UK students being extradited to the US under 'vital anti-terrorism legislation' for running a site giving links to TV shows
You discredit your argument by wording it so outrageously.
The UK student you're talking about ran a 6-figure business, which he admitted publicly on his site was all about directing people to pirated movie content (the "TV" in his domain name is, of course, a red herring).
But, worse, the notion that he was "extradited under vital anti-terrorism legislation" is simply a lie. The "anti-terrorism legislation" this phrase refers to is the entire UK/US reciprocal extradition treaty, which governs absolutely all extradition between the two countries. The changes in that treaty that people are referring to when they invoke "terrorism" were proposed and negotiated before 9/11, and actually remediate an unfairness in evidentiary standards towards the US --- it used to be easier to be extradited from the US than from the UK, and now the same standards are used on both sides.
Moreover, those changes have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The crime which O'Dwyer was charged under was a criminal offense in both the UK and the US, and the evidence implicating O'Dwyer is open-and-shut: O'Dwyer, after having his domain seized by ICE, brought it up again with a fuck-you to the authorities. He admitted to UK prosecutors that he had been taking in 15,000GBP per month (!) running the site.
It's not the US law that is at fault here, but the extradition treaties. It should be the same as being tried in a Pakistani court for being an atheist while you're born and lived your whole life in Holland: you shouldn't care. But because US is a de facto empire...
That's not how extradition works. It depends on the treaty, but most of them stipulate that extraditable crimes must be recognized by both jurisdictions. You obviously can't be extradited to Pakistan for being an atheist.
Because we hear so often about legal proceedings against piracy in the US, I think we have a cognitive bias that suggests piracy is more criminal here than in Europe. That's mostly not the case. For instance: the UK's criminal copyright infringement laws, which date back to the late '80s, are just as stringent as ours.
Then they should be forced to pursue a private prosecution in the UK, where the crimes were committed instead of relying on a technicality that allows them to wrest "jurisdiction".
Taking him in another country by force for what is essentially a civil matter is not ok. The process can take a long while, and all this time I assume he will be in custody - which most likely would not happen if he were to stand trial in his own country.
Plus yeah, we really don't like that he's being prosecuted for that. In all the talk about whether it's illegal or not it's too seldom that it's said "the law is just wrong". It protects too much the copyright holders, and the evidence that this is actually for the common good is getting sketchier and sketchier.
Yes, US law is really like that. Of course, "subject to US law" is a bit of an exaggeration - you subject-ness extends only as far as .com address is concerned, AFAIK. But if the US government thinks you violated US laws, it can seize your .com domain. Unfortunately, taking a domain is much easier than taking physical property, so US government (due to intensive lobbying by copyright mafia) instituted such laws and procedures as to allow it. Next time your local copyright mafia raises its head, remember what they are capable of.
UK law is like that too! People have attempted to have US citizens found civilly liable under the UK's (much stricter) libel laws in exactly the same jurisdictional razzle-dazzle as is being applied here.
That's exactly right. Do we still look down on third-world countries and their lack of democracy? Do we make fun of Chinese censuration? Sadly I've stopped doing that.
You are not subjected to US law. However verisign have complete control over .com namespace, and they are subject to US law and US courts. Verisign will take your .com off you if the US counts tell them to.
The exact same thing happened to Arrington in the UK with regards to a frivolous libel suit he chose not to defend. He couldn't visit the UK or risk being arrested.
National laws differ. We each make our own. If you are found guilty of a US law, either (a) don't do that, or (b) don't come to the US.
This is no different than any other country on the planet, the US is just bigger, so their laws may impact you more than Iran's, but no-one is forcing you to visit or do business in the US or Iran.
It's because that statement is not legally correct. Yes, they can take the domain away, but they can't extradite you and prosecute you, unless you're in one of the countries with mutual extradition treaties. It's not the US that fucked up, it's your country that caved to the US pressure.
With very few exceptions (basically, China, Ukraine and Russia), the countries that don't have mutual extradition with the US are underdeveloped, poor, repressive, unstable, theocratic (the Vatican!), or all of the above.
I'm not sure what kind of pressure you think has to be brought to bear to get two countries to agree to extradite. Extradition treaties are the norm, not the exception. Extradition is not a product of American imperialism.
There's extradition, and then there's extradition of own nationals/citizens. The latter happens but is not the norm and many fairly civilized countries, France or Germany† for example, generally don't do it.
† some exceptions related to the European Arrest Warrant apply
With very few exceptions (basically, China, Ukraine and Russia), the countries that don't have mutual extradition with the US are underdeveloped, poor, repressive, unstable, theocratic
-Russia is plenty repressive.
-China is poor and repressive.
-What about Morocco? Andorra? Slovenia?
-Maybe also Namibia, Botswana, Mongolia, Croatia?
There are some nice exceptions, but not a lot. You're mostly subject to full US jurisdiction everywhere in the world. And if the USA police want to sieze your assets, including your domain names, in New Zealand they're going to do so without any trouble.
For now you can smoke in Amsterdam without going to jail in the USA, but only because the US government doesn't care yet.
I don't understand this. If you buy an American product and use it for business, you're an American? Except without the benefits?
Isn't that like Taiwan (or, well, ROC) filing an extradition request when I use my Asus laptop to pirate Taiwanese movies??
Or like Miele dragging me before the German courts because I vacuum cleaned (loudly) on sunday?
What am I missing? Is US law really this fucked up, or is the article exaggerating?