By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 05 March 2011
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
theprof00 said:

If Sony pursues anything further than this, if they attempt to sue the people who downloaded the hack, or people who watched a video, then I will be completely against it, and I will apologize.

But.That.Will.Not.Happen

According to standard law regarding jurisdiction, the place where infractions or potential infractions occurred the most is where the case is held. For example, if you sell me somthing online, and I take you to small claims court because of some infraction of the deal, you will have to come to me.

Similarly, the infraction IS the video. They want to know where the infraction occurred the most so that they can claim jurisdiction in a court that is beneficial to their case. This is common in law. The video was the distribution, and though the infraction started in NJ, the infraction occurred when the video was viewed.

If the infraction occurs by distribution, it comes from where it was uploaded. That's what Sony would be doing if it were a normal pirate, so they're just being opportunistic, which is what this entire case is about in the first place: opportunistic persecution of one man because they're incapable of protecting their own products effectively

*Throws hands up in the air*

"Internet jurisdiction is used to determine which legal authority may hear a case, between a defendant and plaintiff, in which the potential crime was committed on the Internet. Typically, when a plaintiff, or the individual who initiates a lawsuit, wishes to accuse someone of a crime, he appeals to the legal authority, or court, given jurisdiction over the geographical area where the crime occurred. Internet crime, however, is difficult to assign to a particular geographic location because the originator of the website may be located in a different region or country than the individual against whom the crime was allegedly committed.

When determining state jurisdiction within the United States, current US legal precedence has established that a website operator must exhibit the intention to do business within a specific region in order for that regional court to claim jurisdiction. For example, if a plaintiff in Massachusetts believes that the content of a website, operated in the state of California, violates laws unique to Massachusetts, the plaintiff must prove that the website specifically targets his state as a region in which it wishes to do business. If this intent can be proven, a Massachusetts judge and court would have jurisdiction over the case.

Evidence of intent to do business may be proved through various means, such as contact, made by the website operators, with businesses in a specific geographic area, via the website itself. It could also be established if operators made business trips, telephone calls, or fax messages to the region. A variety of other means for proving the intent to do business exist as well, and are often determined by the court of jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis."

Hence, the twitter accounts, who he talked to specifically, they can make the case that he targeted california.

Period. End of story. Very common. Happens all the time.