DJ said it was preferable to an Internet publisher to be subject to only one law, which is the place where its servers are located (unless that place was merely opportunistic). Otherwise, DJ would have to take account of the law in every country.
Just because the website is accessible here does not mean that this court has jurisdiction. Otherwise, this court would have jurisdiction over all websites, regardless of where located.
Just because the website is accessible everywhere does not mean that this court should not have jurisdiction. Otherwise, websites that are accessible here may not be subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
“ Persons outside of Minnesota who transmit information via the Internet knowing that the information will be disseminated in Minnesota are subject to jurisdiction of Minnesota courts for violations of state criminal and civil laws.”
Attorney General of Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey III, 1995
This week’s Michael Geist’s Toronto Star Law Bytes column examines recent Internet jurisdiction developments arguing that the real threat comes not from high profile cases such as Gutnick and Kazaa but rather from statutory developments that adopt an expressly extra-territorial approach. In particular, recent decisions interpreting the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ensure that U.S. law applies to every dot-com domain, regardless of where it was registered, when it was registered, or what a foreign court has to say about it. <http://shorl.com/bedridagrisovu>