zlacker

>>ANewbu+(OP)
The UK has been doing this sort of stuff for at least a decade. For example they have the PIPCU which under the guise of copyright threatens 10 years in prison for sites not even in their jurisdiction.

https://torrentfreak.com/uk-police-launch-campaign-to-shut-d...

And with that, they have at the least gotten registrars not located in their jurisdicrion to transfer domains

https://easydns.com/blog/2013/10/08/whatever-happened-to-due...

>>naderm+Df1
The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content.

Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state.

And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to track and sell user data - to which minors cannot consent. Putting on my tinfoil hat you could argue that many of these companies are trying to encourage this misunderstanding intentionally.

>>kimixa+rD1
Megaupload is a weird one. He hosted in it the USA, giving USA jurisidction. Also it's still going through the courts in New Zeland and USA and hasn't been proven hes guilty. And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true.

>>naderm+hF1
> And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true.

It 100% won’t; there is no DMCA safe harbor for criminal conduct, only for a narrow category of civil liability.

>>dragon+PK1
You are misapropriating. Copyright infrigment can become criminal if you willfully violate it. If you then take earnings from the willful infrigment and launder them, it becomes other crimes. But if you follow the DMCA and qualify for safe harbor, what copyright crime have you commited that would go to criminal?

Or to give you another example in backpage the founders where aquitted since the judge could not trace that the money came from a "criminal source" https://www.courthousenews.com/backpage-executives-acquitted...

>>naderm+wO1
> But if you follow the DMCA and qualify for safe harbor

Yes, it is only possible to qualify for the safe harbor, if you haven’t committed criminal infringement.

But, as criminal infringement is not part of the DMCA, following the DMCA has no probative value against accusations of criminal infringement. Criminal infringement means you aren’t qualified for DMCA safe harbor regardless of whether you follow the DMCA, but following the DMCA doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty of criminal infringement.

> Or to give you another example in backpage the founders where aquitted since the judge could not trace that the money came from a "criminal source"

Backpage has no relevance to criminal copyright infringement. About the only connection between this case and that is that Backpage was also a nexus for a lot of misinformation about a (completely different, Section 230 rather than DMCA) safe harbor provision.

>>dragon+QR1
Backpage is on point as well as the overall point is the same, you cant be liable for crimes related to the inital crime if its not actually a crime. Ie if the gains are not ilgotten, you can't be tried for laundering them.

If you follow the DMCA (e.g., honor takedown notices, register an agent if you’re a platform, and act quickly when notified), your exposure to criminal liability is essentially zero.