Tagged: jurisdiction Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • joly 5:22 am on 02/26/2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: GJIC, IJurisdiction, , jurisdiction, , , ,   

    WEBCAST MON pm + WED am: Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference in Ottawa, Canada #OttawaGIJC @IJurisdiction w/@KathrynCBrown @VGCerf @RMack @anriette #shapetomorrow 

    YouTubeThis week, Monday-Wednesday February 26-28 2018, the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network and the Government of Canada host the 2nd Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference in Ottawa, Canada. Representatives from a wide range of stakeholder groups will address one of the great global governance challenges of today: how to manage the coexistence of national laws on the internet and, at the same time, work toward the development of policy standards and operational solutions to fight abuses, protect human rights, and enable the global digital economy. Speakers: Kathy Brown, President & CEO, Internet Society, Vint Cerf, Co-Founder, Internet Society, Nii Quaynor, Internet Hall of Fame, Rebecca MacKinnon, Director of Ranking Digital Rights, New America Foundation, Anriette Esterhuysen, Director of Policy and Strategy, Association for Progressive Communications; Joseph Cannataci, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, plus senior representatives of many countries and corporations. Plenary sessions will be webcast live via YouTube. Ottawa is on EST, same as NYC (UTC-5).

    What: Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference
    Where: Ottawa, Canada
    When: Monday-Wednesday February 26-28 2018
    Program: https://conference.internetjurisdiction.net/program/
    Webcast: https://www.youtube.com/user/InternetJurisdiction/live (Mon pm + Wed am) (No captions)
    Twitter: #OttawaGIJC http://bit.ly/ottawaGIJC

  • joly 1:33 pm on 08/19/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , jurisdiction,   

    @FordhamCLIP releases #Internet #jurisdiction study 

    Fordham CLIPThe Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy (CLIP) has issued a report “Internet Jurisdiction: A Survey of Legal Scholarship Published in English and United States Case Law” examining the case law and legal literature analyzing jurisdiction for claims arising out of Internet activity in the United States. The report finds that despite definitive case law, the practice of U.S. courts “lacks uniformity”.

    The report concludes:

    With respect to U.S. case law,the research indicates that issues surrounding Internet jurisdiction gravitate toward the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit more so than other federal circuits. Further, the research demonstrates that, contrary to the body of academic literature, U.S. courts predominantly adjudicate matters of personal jurisdiction in Internet cases rather than other subsets of jurisdiction, and that Internet jurisdiction issues trend toward intellectual property and defamation cases. With regard to how Internet jurisdictional matters are settled within U.S. jurisprudence, the research results indicate that the Zippo and Calder tests remain the dominant ones applied, but that these tests are not mutually-exclusive. Although Zippo is most often applied in matters of specific jurisdiction, there exists a varied and, at times, blurred framework which incorporates the Zippo sliding scale and Calder’s effects test, as well as traditional standards for personal jurisdiction. Therefore, although the landscape for Internet jurisdiction matters has clear, predominant legal standards and tests, on the whole, when and how these are applied by U.S. courts lacks uniformity.

    A companion study, “Internet Jurisdiction: A Survey of German Scholarship and Cases” was issued simultaneously. It reports that, although various trends can be identified within German and EU case law, no consensus on the treatment of international jurisdiction can be ascertained.

    From its conclusion:

    Within the discussion of the courts’ power over litigants, three trends can be identified in the opinions. First, this report shows that one view regards the mere accessibility of a website as a determinative factor that establishes jurisdiction everywhere in the world. This concept is often called “flying jurisdiction.” A second view adds the element of “intention” and would require intentional accessibility. Finally, the report shows that the third view treats the German Federal Supreme Court’s New York Times decision as introducing a new test wherein the website needs to have an objective domestic connection. Articles discussing this case focus on three main issues. First, articles describe the test as too vague and too imprecise to achieve legal certainty, however they note that the court at least made clear that mere accessibility is insufficient. Second, some articles raise the question of whether that test can and should have a broader application beyond the scope of personality rights cases, e.g. in intellectual property rights infringement cases. Lastly, a few articles find it unfortunate that the eDate decision of the European Court of Justice failed to establish equal treatment of § 32 ZPO and Article 5(3) of the European Regulation 44/2001, and missed the chance to create uniformity in Europe and Germany.

  • joly 8:18 pm on 07/06/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , England, , , jurisdiction,   

    ICE seeking extraditions of foreign website owners #copyright #netfreedom 

    Peter Walker of UK newspaper The Guardian reports that United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) is looking to extradite owners of websites it believes are breaking US copyrights – even if their servers are not based in America or are legal in their own countries. The rationale is that the use of generic top level domain names like .com and .net, administered by Verisign in the US, provides “nexus” thus giving them jurisdiction. At issue is the case of tvshack.net – a linking site run by British student Richard O’Dwyer. The domain already was seized by ICE. O’Dwyer now faces extradition. Walker quotes ICE Assistant director Erik Barnett:

    “Without wishing to get into the particulars of any case, the general goal of law enforcement is to arrest and prosecute individuals who are committing crimes. That is our goal, our mission. The idea is to try to prosecute.”

    On linking:

    “I’ll give you an analogy. A lot of drug dealing is done by proxy – you rarely give the money to the same person that you get the dope from. I think the question is, are any of these people less culpable?”

    In England there are calls to amend the extradition agreement with the US so that a UK judge can decide jurisdiction on individual cases..

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc