[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] dmca international?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] dmca international?
- From: Jeremy Simmons <jsimmons(at)langc.tohoku.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:27:00 +0900
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
There is a German case where an Australian who was publishing Nazi material
on the internet broke the law in Germany and was arrested when he came to
Germany and I believe found guilty under the laws prohibiting the diffusion
of Nazi propaganda.
The point being is that there had to be a material connection with the
jurisdiction for liability to arise.
However, this does not change the point significantly.
Firstly, this is a criminal jurisdiction (an American is currently being sued
in Australian courts for defamation of an Australian on the internet in
America, an appeal by the American is pending, so it is possible that a court
might be prepared to extend internet jurisdiction to civil cases) so if you
and your employer do not have reason to go to America then there should be no
problem. And remember Russian Programmers are not arrested at the airport,
something had to be done in America before an arrest was made.
Secondly, the Australian was tried under German law not Australian or
American. So again, if there is no specific German law being referred to you
are not going to be liable in Germany on the basis of this argument.
I can't read German, so the usual references to German law are not going to
be helpful to me. But if you have something in English. (PS is the Hoeran,
2002 1月 18 金曜日 02:08、あなたは書きました:
> 'Twas brillig when Tom Lemuria scrobe:
> > one way or the other, this conclusion seems to be derived from
> > international law. it uses pretty much the same argument that the
> > movie mafia lawyers have been throwing around, namely that if it can
> > be downloaded in the US, then US law applies. this line of argument
> > is so outright stupid that I don't even know how to attack it, but if
> > she is right then it's the current reading among lawyers when it
> > comes to international copyright issues.
> Ah. This is beginning to make some sense. If it is the position of German
> Law is that if you can access it in Germany and it's illegal there, you
> must take it down (i.e. Nazi Propaganda) then it must follow that Germany
> must have some policy about the law of the place of access controlling what
> it is legal to be served from Germany.