[pp.int.general] MegaUpload raided, shut down on request of US authorities

[Justus Römeth]

The thing is, no matter whether we think what TPB is doing should be legal
or not, it is legal in Sweden, while it would not be in Germany or the US.

Megaupload conducted business through the internet, just as TBP is offering
services through the internet. What the British boy did was offering
services through the internet. US authorities say that in the case of the
British boy and Megaupload it falls under US jurisdiction, they will likely
go for the TPB people soon, too. None of them gear their service towards
the US market. Why can't they be tried in New Zealand? Why does it have to
be the US? With what right is the US responsible? Is everything we do in
the internet, or at least everything we do via .com, .org and .gov
addresses now subject to US laws? Can we ask Facebook and Google to comply
with German data privacy laws now finally because they operate .de
addresses?

If there is a country that says private filesharing is legal, should it
still extract their citizens, or let their citizens be arrested, for
filesharing and be brought before the courts of another country? That is
what this question is coming down to. Whether we think that megaupload did
legitimate things or not, and comparing that to TPB doesn't matter then, as
US authorities in both cases think it's illegitimate.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Christian Hufgard <pp at christian-hufgard.de
> wrote:

> On 21.01.2012 10:49, Justus Römeth wrote:
> > By that logic the people responsible for the pirate bay should have been
> > arrested a long time ago. It doesn't work like that.
>
> Well, do you know the verdict against them? I think it was wrong,
> because the pirate bay did not pay people for uploading data to their
> servers. The did not delete data if it was not downloaded often enough.
> The did not run an associated streaming portal and and advertisment
> company. The Pirate Bay and MegaUpload are completly different cases.
>
> > (and I think the notion that they fall under American jurisdiction
> because
> > they operated a .com address, which is used here, is laughable, too.)
>
> Well, then why didn't the operate under a .cn-domain if they were that
> chinese?
>
> > They were an international company operating outside of the US, other
> than
> > their .com address and catering to American customers among others they
> did
> > nothing that warrants US authorities to try them in the US, since none of
> > them is a US citizen.
>
> It doesn't matter whose citizen you are if you break a countries law in
> a country. Other companies manage to prevent people from certain
> countries to access their websites.
>
> > Other than that I do agree that they made money off other's people work,
> > and should be pursued legally for that. But I think the laws of their
> > country of residence, or the country the company was in apply, not US
> laws.
>
> So all I need to do is to reside in a country that did not sign the bern
> treaty and I can make money with someone elses work freely without
> having fear of prosecution?
>
> > Otherwise we might as well get rid of countries alltogether and find a
> > global legal code, and a global government.
>
> Maybe that's why more and more laws are made by many countries
> alltogether. ACTA anyone?
>
>
> Christian
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120121/9af1ba77/attachment.html>