Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
Interesting explanation. The question I have, is how did they determine it was a US asset? Because the controlling registrar was US based? Or are they trying to exert authority over the domain system in general?
Also at least one of the sites was UGC no? I had never heard of it before but zml.com was accused of allowing users to post content I believe. Even thought it was not hosting the content itself. Seems to be a bit of a development there.
|
Ah -- I was going by the info in the article, which is somewhat lacking; some of them might well have been UCG sites. If they were, *and* had the proper disclaimers, *and* registered a DMCA compliance officer with the U.S. Copyright Office, then they may have a DMCA-based defense available to them after all.
As for how/why they are assets in the U.S., it sounds like they used U.S. registrars, and that at least some of the servers were in the U.S. as well. Presumably those facts form the 'U.S. nexus' that the U.S. authorities are using to claim jurisdiction here.
I should have clarified my previous post by saying that it *sounded like* they weren't UCG sites from the descriptions I've read, and that I'm speculating (hopefully reasonably) as to the other details, as well. I'm not personally familiar with the sites in question, and at this point the sites aren't available to look at, so until more information is made available by the U.S. authorities (or if there's a more detailed article about it already lurking around out there), we're all sort of guessing as to what went down here.