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

Committing crimes remotely from another country was never a loophole to escape the laws of that country.

When a country requests extradition they’re not claiming jurisdiction over another country. They’re saying that a crime was committed in their country by the person and they’re asking the foreign country for cooperation in prosecuting that person.

The MegaUpload case is not equivalent to what the UK is doing. MegaUpload was operating as a business, taking payments, and exchanging money. Once you start doing explicit paid business in a country you can’t claim you’re not involved with that country.

If a country starts claiming that merely making content accessible globally is a crime in their country, that’s an entirely different issue. Not equivalent to the MegaUpload case.

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

Again, false equivalence. MegaUpload was operating as a business with US customers. They also had some hosting in the United States if I recall correctly.

Once you start doing business in a country and have customers there, you’re involved with their laws.

>>Aurorn+U62
Imgur offers services to UK-based customers, allowing them to view and host images in return for viewing ads. You used to be able to optionally pay for a pro account, though the vast majority of users use the free ad-supported option, and that is now the only option.

Megaupload's business model was pretty much exactly the same - but with "any" file instead of just images.

If the UK version didn't have ads, and UK-focused ads at that, they might have a point - but I don't see any "false equivalence" here.

And playing games about "indirectly" monetizing people (through ads or similar) doesn't mean they aren't /customers/. Otherwise every consumer law would be trivially worked around.