[ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan access toYouTube restoredafter "blasphemous"vid removed

Exactly what I was going to say, without the quote of Virginia law. Many companies are Delaware incorporated. Does that mean you can only sue them in Delaware? Well, IANAL either, but I think the answer is “it depends.” And this is only considering the laws of the USA. When you are talking about international business it is common knowledge that companies must comply with local laws. If you don’t believe me, incorporate a business in Delaware and try selling Nazi trinkets on the street in France or Germany. I don’t know the exact laws there, but I believe both countries have laws against trading Nazi material. I don’t have to agree with that law (I think it’s pretty silly, but I understand the reasons behind it), but if I want to do business in those countries I have to abide by their laws.

And make no mistake about it, Google is doing business in Pakistan. Either with their search service or with YouTube, they are providing a product (search results or video) in return for the purchaser’s marketing information (what they are searching for or viewing) and for direct marketing (the ads). “Free” magazines you see at the supermarket that trade the free articles for ad space are not immune to the law. You wouldn’t believe that just because the magazine is free they would be able to distribute child porn, so why would you think YouTube would be able to distribute something that is illegal in Pakistan, in Pakistan?

Just because it is the Internet, or “free,” does not make it exempt from the laws of any country. Communications or transfer of bits on the Internet can and probably should be viewed as a type of international trade. You can stretch this as far as you want, or make it more limited, but you can’t ignore the international aspects of the Internet. One example of a stretch would be considering outsourcing to companies in India by companies in the USA as trade, since the USA company is purchasing a product (service) from a company in another country. Hence, it should be possible to impose tariffs on that trade in order to protect the IT workforce in the USA. I don’t necessarily agree with this or think it would be a good idea, but you can’t deny the logic in the concept.

Fred Reimer

From: nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Bill S
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:30 PM
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan access toYouTube restoredafter "blasphemous"vid removed

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com> wrote:

Fred Reimer wrote:

> Personally, I think Google/YouTube's response WAS appropriate. They are
> just following the law.

Google is a California corporation. They are legally required to comply
with US and California law. They are under no obligation to follow the
law in any other country, except to the extent that they find it to
their advantage to do so.

Not so. Many states employ "long arm statutes" which permit them to go after entities that are not inside the territorial borders of thier state. I would think other countries may see it the same way.

Virginia State Code

§ 8.01-328.1. When personal jurisdiction over person may be exercised.

A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's:

[Irrelevant parts deleted]

B. Using a computer or computer network located in the Commonwealth shall constitute an act in the Commonwealth. For purposes of this subsection, "use" and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as those contained in § 18.2-152.2.

C. When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him; however, nothing contained in this chapter shall limit, restrict or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of any court of this Commonwealth over foreign corporations which are subject to service of process pursuant to the provisions of any other statute.

What all that means is Virginia interprets this to mean that if Google traffic transits AOL networks (AOL is a Virginia company) then it can exercise personal jurisdiction over them, and haul Google into court for violating one of its laws.

http://www.jocs-law.com/long-arm_statute.htm (1999)

A 2002 case in the appeals court has limited this somewhat, but the principle is well and alive.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2002/20021213.asp

In a wrongful death suit, Georgia is going after a company that is in Kuwait.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1203677143074

In summary, what Google did was probably prudent, but I don't have to like it. BTW, IANAL, and this isn't legal advice.