Timeline for Under what circumstances is a website subject to United States laws?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2013 at 0:20 | vote | accept | Joe Z. | ||
| Dec 9, 2013 at 21:00 | history | edited | JamesRyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 290 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2013 at 10:20 | comment | added | JamesRyan | Megaupload had legitimate use too, it wasn't FOR piracy. The difference between them and google is the cost of their legal and PR depts. Whether the raid was illegal or not is less important than the end result. You CAN be held accountable for a few links here and there, the only way to avoid it is to do and be seen to be doing your best to make sure that there are none, a token effort to just be technically legal is not considered enough. And even after that you still need to cross your fingers. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 20:17 | comment | added | Joe Z. | The fact that the raid was illegal would be enough for the purposes of this question, as I'm generally thinking of cases where the US would otherwise be justified in taking action against me. I'm not trying to run a site with piracy like he did - I just don't want to be held accountable if a few links to pirate sites pop up here and there and I don't catch them because I didn't perform "due diligence" or something, and I want to limit the amount of in rem action that the US government can impulsively take against my website. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 19:50 | comment | added | Stephen Ostermiller♦ | On the other hand 99% of websites aren't going to get on the radar of the US in a way that will warrant a raid. While you are correct that it is hard to be totally outside of US control, this doesn't answer the question about more mundane offences. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 15:19 | history | edited | JamesRyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| Dec 6, 2013 at 11:23 | history | answered | JamesRyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |