[free-sklyarov] FAQ request f/a non-list memeber

[Seth David Schoen]

Please subscribe if you're going to write to the list and want to see
replies!

A Very Defiant Duckling Named Ender writes:

> 	I'm looking for a FAQ on issues raised by this action.
> 
> 	In particular, the legality of arresting a foriegn national
> (assumed foreign national: he lives/works and has a Russian name) for
> legal actions engaged in from his country of origin, while on foreign
> (US) soil because American laws have a different slant on his actions.

More of my not being a lawyer:

International jurisdiction is a tricky issue.

The Complaint alleges that Sklyarov _did_ do something in the U.S.:
selling a copy of a program to Adobe (and in general offering to sell
the program to people in the U.S.).  There are possibly some
interesting parallel to international jurisdiction cases involving
commercial web sites, e.g. _Yahoo! v. LICRA_.

I don't think there is any suggestion here that the DMCA applies
extraterritorially, but rather that Sklyarov made contacts with the
U.S. by selling software to U.S. residents and _because of this_ is
subject to U.S. law.  That's the only way I can understand why the
complaint goes into so much detail about the physical location of the
people at Adobe who are supposed to have bought a copy of AEBPR over
the Internet.

So the Complaint claims Sklyarov did things in the U.S. even if he
wasn't physically present there at the time.  (You can verify this by
looking at the date of the offense alleged in the Complaint!)  This is
often enough for domestic jurisdiction (you can have "contacts" with a
place which courts say make the exercise of jurisdiction valid, even
while you weren't physically present at the time of certain complained-of
activities).  Aside from this, some laws claim to apply
extraterritorially (for example, certain laws against terrorism).

A lot of plaintiffs in Internet cases have tried to blur traditional
jurisdictional standards by noting that the Internet provides access
to material which was created and published elsewhere.  Thus, some
plaintiffs will argue that jurisdiction is potentially proper
_anywhere complained-of content reaches_ or _anywhere from which
complained-of content can be purchased_.  Someone on one list today
mentioned _U.S. v. Thomas_, the old "Amateur Action BBS" case, in
which two people in one state were convicted of violating the
obscenity laws of a different state _because their BBS could be
accessed by people in the foreign state_.

Many people are afraid of a proposed new treaty on jurisdiction in civil
cases because it would possibly create international jurisdiction
standards that worked like this.  However, I am oversimplifying the
situation.

It's interesting to talk to lawyers who are knowledgeable about
international jurisdiction.  Probably they don't understand it,
because nobody understands it, but at least they're likely to have
their facts straight. :-)

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5