Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Not Bound by French Court Ruling
Klerck writes "Luckily, a US federal judge has ruled that Yahoo! is not bound by the French ruling that demanded that all Nazi memorabilia be removed from its auction site. It's a nice surprise to have a sensible ruling come out of a federal court in times like these."
And the DMCA doesn't try and impose US law on non US Nationals?
Politicians can make bad laws whatever their nationality.
The EFF was conspiciously absent from this battle for online freedoms. I guess they think there are some freedoms that people shouldn't have online.
And no, I don't think this is funny!
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
Well, the French law only said they cant sell that stuff from French yahoo servers. It only applies to France.
And since this is US law, it's only going to apply to the US.
Neither country has any say in what the other's laws are.
-J5K
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
if there's one thing the current world climate will speed up it's globalization in every respect...now it seems an issue of safety that everyone is (forced to be) on the same moral/politicol/economic page. then what happens to the little liberties like this? the little first amendment issues? what will a PC attitude adjusted for every culture on earth look like?
we speak the way we breathe --Fugazi
Riiight and what about software patent laws? ure not trying at all to get us to use your laws are you? DMCA? That doesnt pertain to anything at all does it? As for saving our arses? Hmmm 1 year eh? Isolationist stance before that? nah, u can continue to be demented.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So if an American website is not bound by a French ruling, then perhaps there's hope for a certain Russian Programmer accused of breaking US law.
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.
Well, they don't have to abide by it in the States. You can bet your ass that those things will not appear on the french version of Yahoo- at least not if they don't want to get a massive fine slapped on them.
:-)
At lease the exchange rate on Franks is really good. Any fine would probably end up costing them oh about $2.00
So, I suppose what this does is make Yahoo move any business interests located physically within france to somewhere else. Which is fine, because I doubt all of europe wants to exclude large portions of the internet sector from doing business within their borders.
So, why can't a Californian web site operator consider herself safe from prosecution under Tennessee "community standards"? Or is that the next one to fall?
Lets say they said that Yahoo wasn't allowed to sell any Nazi Memorabilia. HOw the hell would they enforce that? Would they require all ISP's in the country to filter any data coming out of *.yahoo.com? Deciding any other way than what they did would have only made them look ineffectual and silly in the long run. In the end isn't that what courts are concerned about anyway?
After reading the article it wasn't clear to me whether they could still freeze assets etc to get their $15,000 a day fine. What if Yahoo wanted to open an office there one day, would it be denied? I would think it would possible.
Assumming we have a treaty with France that we cooperate in freezing assets, much like the US is doing with terrorists networks, does that mean France could influence other countries to freeze Yahoo's assets? I think Yahoo will probably still worry about these things, in effect letting the French Government win.
Does it apply in reverse?
Example: DeCSS is legal in France. If I post DeCSS on a US server and this server is a mirror of a French server, does French law and "backup copy" laws apply to the US site as well?
No? Then this decision is nothing more than US protecting its huge mega-corporation. Yes? Then free speech is really better protected.
Just my US$0.02... =)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
now we can listen to every slashdotter pat themselves on the back about not agreeing with what you have to say, but defending the right to say it
"Je ne regrette rien" ( I have no regrets.)
Non, Rien De Rien, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien
Ni Le Bien Qu'on M'a Fait, Ni Le Mal
Tout Ca M'est Bien Egal
Non, Rien De Rien, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien
C'est Paye, Balaye, Oublie, Je Me Fous Du Passe
Avec Mes Souvenirs J'ai Allume Le Feu
Mes Shagrins, Mes Plaisirs,
Je N'ai Plus Besoin D'eux
Balaye Les Amours Avec Leurs Tremolos
Balaye Pour Toujours
Je Reparas A Zero
Non, Rien De Rien, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien
Ni Le Bien Qu'on M'a Fait, Ni Le Mal
Tout Ca M'est Bien Egal
Non, Rien De Rien, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien
Car Ma Vie, Car Me Joies
Aujourd'hui Ca Commence Avec Toi
Although it may be good to have free speech laws defended, these memorabilia glorify a very nasty idealogy that killed a lot of people. In Europe there are "neo nazis" who think that Hitler and the Nazis were good, and sometimes these neo nazis attack foreigners (usually with the wrong color skin) or people whose religion or race they don't like.
Whereas it may be right to allow such sales in principle and in law, it is rather poor taste to sell them in my opinion.
John Kleeman
So, this does in fact also mean that the rest of the world is not bound by US laws and patents, if their courts should choose to come to the same conclusion on these topics. I would say that this evolution is actually undermining the global economy and tradezone, rather than protecting it.
Just to be clear, I think the ruling is justified, because I am a profound believer in free speech and against any form of censorship. Denial of information is the worst of all evil. That said, I an understand the french ruling, but I honestly think they should have dealth with this issue differently.
However, as inernational laws begin to conflict with each other, in this case just on the freespeech front of just one company policy, but later on maybe also on other topics, we're in the porcess of entering a new kind of tradewar, in which the legal systems will oppose eachother in order to support the opinions and economies of their societies. I'm curious as to what all this might eventually lead.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Will you trade it for a pair of vintage american bollocks, collected by hand in vietnam ?
Your history is like mine : we both had ancestors with sad stories, so please don't do this again.
The difference between you and me, is that i tell who I am. Not you.
David.
Ps : my apologies to the non-assholes who could have been upset by my answer. i'm fed up.
Who will take the bet with me that USA will go to great length to make it possible to extend THEIR laws to other counries in a purely unjust way for the rest of the world.
They already sue EU people for creating and publishing the DeCSS, try to have EU pass "anti-terrorism" wiretaping laws... What else?
I am a european citizen and the last thing I want is see those corporate bought US laws apply to me.... Hey, who wants to pay for other people's lack of action?
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
So what would U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel think of the Dmitry Skylarov case? (If you've been asleep for six months, Skylarov is a Russian citizen who is charged with violating the DMCA by writing a program _in Russia_.)
In France (and Germany, btw) apologism of nazi is forbidden. ditto.
So in France you don't sell nazi stuff. The same way that in the usa you don't drink alcohol in the street (well, you do, but you hide it...)
So, I propose this silly US judge comes to France and try to enforce his decision. Let's hope he's very good.
Every country has a right to its own specifics.
We don't bother you when you do stupid stuff (please ask for a list 8|), you don't talk to us when we forbid any teenager has access to stuff belonging to Mindwashed mongrels.
BTW, if a french wants some Nazi stuff, all he has to do is go to yahoo.com. Or ProudWhiteAmericans.com, any web in USA or nazi supporting area...
Mostly, yahoo tried to protect itself (in the usa) so that next time a nazi flag is sold they won't have to pay fines.
and, of course, please those wo don't agree now flame me, put me @-14 (Dumbass), I don't really care.
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
The point is moot, since Yahoo and eBay have already yanked all of their Nazi auctions anyway. This court case won't fix anything for big business, since they were probably happy to get out of the unpopular Nazi stuff market. I'll believe it's a victory for free speech when the little guy is defended from another nation's laws by this ruling.
On the plus side, this certainly gives a leg up to the overseas distribution of DeCSS and other stuff that our !@#$ U.S. laws prevent, doesn't it?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It seems hard for many people to understand, but Internet is not only the US nor it is a new virtual country without laws.
Now, if in France (as it is in most of Europe) it is forbidden to sell and display Nazi memorabilia, then it makes a lot of sense that it is also forbidden for Yahoo! to sell and display that stuff in France, right?
So that's it, Yahoo! should provide the means to be compliant with French law if they want to do business there, if they don't, well, I guess French justice will have nothing to do if the company is based outside of French territory but at least they have to try. Fortunatelly they don't have anything close to the infamous Helms-Burton law there that could help.
It is the same with the Confederate flag. You cannot bury or forget about history. The fact is the Nazis did very well in their efforts to turn Europe into one BIG Germany, killing millions in the process. Although the cause was wrong, it is a part of history that should not be forgotten.
The same is true for the Confederate flag and associated memorabilia. The U.S. was at war with itself on policies, state rights, and eventually slavery. These facts should not be forgotten either.
You will always have the Skinhead and Neo-Nazi types abusing the symbolism but, that is the cost of a free society.
Isn't France itself a Nazi memorabila?
How can a US court make a decision regarding enforcement of a foreign court decision? Likewise, how can a French court expect to decide the practices of a US company that hosts a site in the US? I hope that somebody in the respective govts wakes up and realizes that these decisions make no sense at this level.
In a later ruling, the French court ruled that the US court ruling does not apply. (tomorrow) A US court ruled that the ruling of the French court that ruled that the us court ruling does not apply, does not apply. (next week) A French court ruled that the US court sucks.
That means that as a British citizen I am not bound by American laws! What a novel idea!
I guess I'll just put DeCSS on my website.
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
the euro is the worst possible name for it -
seems to be pronounced differently in each
country;
GB Yur-oh
France Er-O
Spain eh-ur-ro
Germany oy-ro
They should take all that Nazi crap off there anyway. Shouldn't need a French court to tell you that having that crap up there is pretty immoral. Heck, I guess if it's cool for the US to feature Nazi memorabilia it must be cool for Islam nations to cheer terrorist attackers, too huh? We need to all stick together. There is no point in pissing off the French (and all the US citizens like myself who find Nazi memorabilia repulsive).
I guess I'll just put DeCSS on my website.
:)
It's abolutely ok, I guess. But refrain from any useless trip to the states for the next, say, 10 years.
I am a U.S. Citizen that hosts 3 web sites on a server Based in Canada. Who's laws will I need to follow? Are my sites considered free speech? Or do I need to provide a french translation on the site?
This latest ruling, while all good in well in allowing operators to control their own content is just a baby step twords addressing the eventual evolution of laws governing the internet.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
This sets of an interesting precedent and something that I do not know if the world is ready to accept. It basically says that I can do, say, sell and buy anything I want so long as the country where I am doing the transaction allows it.
So putting this into context. I could legally in US buy drugs so long as the transaction is carried out in Holland. Of course the comment would be "Gee Einstein how are you going to get the drugs to the US?". Well that is beside the point. What it says is that I can basically money launder because if the transaction occurs within a country that does not ask of the origin it is legal.
Consider it this way. I make drug money. The money is considered income in a country that does not ask questions. The country asks for a 10% cut and calls the money legal. At that point I have the right to take that money into my own country. Of course US citizens may have problems because they have special tax laws. But if I was a non-US citzen living in the US I would be exempt (I think). So at that point I have legal money since I paid tax at source.
Ok I may be over-simplifying some things, but the precedent is still set and freezing of terrorist monies may not be legal anymore. Interesting!!!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
You can have the freedom to be a racist hate-monger all you want, as long as you don't play DVDs on Linux.
(This message has been brought to you by the US Government, owned and operated by the MPAA, RIAA, et al.)
Situations like this are going to bring about an eventual world government. the case being that there seems to be a need now for some sort of *enforceable* world law or common standard between nations. War will never unify the world, but you can bet petty lawsuits will.
if Yahoo! is incorporated also in France, then French courts can still attach any of its French assets for violation of French laws.
Why would this be suprising?
Our US courts are getting more Nazi-esque every day.
Very true. www.shac.net, the website for animal rights group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, was removed from it's American based server (though later re-hosted outside America) due to a legal threat citing the DMCA against the host. The startling thing is that HLS (the swines invovled) are a UK based company, and they were objecting to "copyright infringement", and the said copyright was not protected under US jurisdiction. f00k that!
"We kill to cure, with cures that kill" - Skinny Puppy
I just saw some good news on goatsexlovers.com - the well-known idiot Anonymous Coward was found dead in his Afghanistani home this morning. There were plenty more details. I'm sure noone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions the gay-porn culture. Truly an American goatfucker.
Didn't they know that they were implementing Godwin's Law and that in such they were doomed to failure?
It's funny to see this described as a sensible ruling. Well, the ruling is not surprising, and I'm personnally quite happy with it. But it clashes big time with the rules US courts have developped regarding the application of US law abroad, especially when it comes to anything Internet or telecom related.
So far, american courts have used the most far fetched factual elements to tie any dispute to US jurisdictions and apply US law to them.
Now what? All national laws are equal, but some nationality are more equal than others?
This message was generated by a Cadre of Trained Hitler Jugent.
Don't say No, say May be
I know most people don't agree with me about the whole 'Nazi' issue.
With that said, let us get to the issue. If Yahoo! wants to do business in France, don't they have to abide by their rules?
Isn't this American-we don't have to-all your culture are-Pax Americanus crap getting us in enough trouble?
When you've got a company like Yahoo! something tells me that it isn't a free speech issue, but more of a money issue.
Everyone is trying to find DMCA loopholes, but what about other issues. Can I order pot seed from Holland? Nope. It's something that is illegal here, and I wouldn't expect the Dutch to rule that they can send seeds just because they want to.
It seems that we try to push our so called freedom on people so much and they end up wanting to kill us.
The American Dream: Growing up from the gutter and getting to the top, just to tell people Screw You!
Get your Unix fortune now!
Is he a jew? His name sounds sort-of Jewish.
Of course the opinion of a French court does not apply to Yahoo, US. But we knew that all along. However, the opinion of the French court applies very well to Yahoo, France , and if the court says "you cannot sell nazi memorabilia", or "you cannot be affiliated to a company selling nazi memorabilia", they better respect that opinion if they want to continue doing business in France. And unfortunately, Yahoo, France is not bound by the US federal ruling which claimed Yahoo! was not bound by the French ruling that demanded that all nazi memorabilia be removed from its auction site...
>Europe sucks ! , we save their asses then they try
>to impose their screwed up laws on us here because
>somebody sells sometinhg online that offends them,
These nazi items does not only offend us, they offend the whole humanity.
>well guess what in America youre allowed to be
>offensive,, for now, kinda makes you want to send
>nazi spam to all the french judges eh ?
Right now, if you were a pro bin laden American citizen would you be able to exercize your right to speak in the streets of NY?
The freedom of speech does not mean that everybody has the right to say everything: you're only able to do so if you respect the other's right to live and to speak.
but wait till a french judge rules that yahoo.fr, the franch subsidiary, is responsible of the "wrong doings" (according to french law) of yahoo.com, and impose penalties.
Have anybody see that web site he's linked to? He's a realy sick person. Do you really have to post such a crap?
Don't say No, say May be
Skylarov was arrested in the US, Yahoo isn't physically in France.
Skylaorv's best hope is that the 1st Amendment will trump the DMCA.
Best Slashdot Co
The actor David Duchovny, aka Fox Mulder of X-Files fame, has an unknown, very dark past. This photo proves that he was, during WWII, a member of the Croatian Waffen-SS legion 'Waffen-Gebrigs-Division der SS "Handschar"' (he is the second from the left). Probably it was fears that this dark fact would become known that prompted his dismissal from the TV-series. One can only speculate about the atrocities he has committed and taken part in, as this particular legion, mainly recruted among Bosnian Muslims, was notorious for it's brutality.
I'm sure nobody will be fooled by this, but I really must point out that child pornography is not legal in Thailand, and that the Thais are actually doing their level best to stamp out the child sex trade, with next to no help from the legions of fat American and German tourists who agree with Slashdot that domestic laws can't be enforced overseas.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Did I say french law was perfect ?
They tried to carry on a good decision as far a possible.
Personnaly, I'm not for FREE SPEECH, I'm for Free Speech, were you are responsible for what you say and try not to hurt others (too much that is)
So I know in the states you have the right to be a racist, to belong to KKK and to play Nazi's every WE. It's not because you have the right to that you should. Or that it's Right you have the right.
France freezing Yahoos assets ? you mean 5 computers ans 2 desks ? Nope. But screening auctions.yahoo.* is possible.
+ A set of international right already exist. It's not as if they are enforced, but then...
"It would teach the whiny French a lesson about the real world"
Real World : Oh my god are you powerfull and wealthy ! Please have free rein and pick your choice...
If this is the real world, I will then claim the right to choose otherwise.
It's not because you are a Global / Internet company that you are not subject to local laws. You know, the same way that the world is not subject to US laws....
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Perhaps it would be better if common sense would be applied in law...
Why should we be glad for this ruling ? It does not further our cause in free speech.. you can't explain things like Sklyarov did but you can evengalize nazi dogma's.. which one is worse for our youth, our FREE world?
This ruling is one of the many things that show us there is a gap between common sense and the law.
More and more i am becoming to see the US government as a subsidiary from a company.
Presidents are even campaigning with money donated by companies but yet people still believe they are doing things for the good of all... the companies don't donate large sums of money if the weren't sure they would gain anything..
Same with the law... Now Microsoft (which, through it's c*o's, donated large sums to the election fund of GWB)has been allowed to make a deal and Yahoo can go through with auctioning rejectable material. But if they convict Sklyarov
it is only because of one reason.. CORPORATE GREED!
Isn't it time that lawmaking should be done with common sense instead of money? Lobbying used to be a side thing people with similar interests did.. today you can hire a professional lobyist whether he or she has the same interests or not.. it has become an industry on it's own.. perhaps those who make laws should be made to publicize their agenda's and bookkeeping? Not just to a few but to all who want's to..
Then maybe we see common sense returning to our laws..
BTW.. this is not applicable to the US only.. it is the same for europeans as well..
On one hand, the US can go on and impose their laws (Helms-Burton, etc.) on other countries when these are just doing something that they simply don't like (like talking to Cuba or any other country on the US blacklist), something that does not hurt the US in any way.
On the other hand, when the actions of US companies have a direct impact on what goes on in other countries, go against the laws of said countries (like prevention the spread of hate litterature), the US entities are not bound by the laws of other countries.
What the french judge said, at the urging of jewish activists and other anti-racism groups, was basically "do whatever you want in *your* country, but abide by our laws in *our* country". In this Age of the Internet, where so-called "local" actions can have global consequences, this was not un-reasonable.
The only signal that non-americans get out of this is that the US thinks its above anyone else, that it can do as it pleases wherever it wants to do it and that it has little respect for laws and customs of other countries. That it thinks it has "the right" to interfere in other countries' affairs (Helms-Burton, their very active involvment in the recent Nicaragua election, etc.), while other countries can't say anything on the activies of US companies and/or can critisize (sp?) moronic decisions of the US gov't (Kyoto, etc.).
Then don't wonder why the US is so hated abroad -- and contrary to Dan Rather said on Letterman's, they don't hate the US because they envy it. They hate it because it can be such a idiotic bully, at times.
First you can say everything on France fighting during WW2 , but not "cowardice". True the strategy of the general at that time was pityful, they thougth themselves back to WW1. But French resisted the occupation. Do I have to remind you what happened to the people caught, which incidently were flagged as "terrorist" ? Furthermore , if you really want to recall everybody of what they fatehr/great father/ur father made wrong, let me remind you of the *genocide* your ancestor made in what is now the U.S. Wasn't there an amer-indian population before you (nearly) killed them all, and stole all their land ? We have a nice proverb in France : "Before looking at the small twig in your neighbourgh yard look at the big trunk in your own yard."
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The french took the easy way. If you want to buy or deal in Nazi stuff, you have to be above 21 or be a professionnal...
So you can get the stuff you want, and you are right about the memory thing.
Just banning is a bad solution. But the law came just after WWII, and this wasn't the best of times.
I know it's cool to annoy the parents, but then I should bar you from buying stuff I find immoral as long as you are under my responsability (No, Techno & Hard Rock are not immoral 8)
Just that.
Abot US drug laws, I seem to remember that the US got the more repressive Marijuana act ever. and also that the Us is among the WorldWide first producers... Well, a good paradox is always a joy 8)
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Sklyarov
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Sir, you are a revisionist. French armies had 90,000 casualties in the 5 weeks of May-June 1940 campaign. Total US casualties of WWII: only 280,000 in 3 1/2 years. See?
You are right!!! They should also sell Japanese memorabilia especially Perl Harbor one. Hail to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH
:-))) ... While we're on the subject, I wanna buy some bamboo cages from Vietnam too...
Its a precedent for Skylarov, since if a US company performing actions in US cannot be bound by a French court, Skylarov working in USSR cannot be bound by decision of US courts!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If I see your reaction, it is probably a tradition i should be proud of.
We are always the idiot of another.
Fuck you.
David
(By the way, this is strictly personal, nothing to do with your site anyway).
The French court did *not* rule anything on Yahoo US.
The French court ruled about Yahoo France, a *French* company. Yes, it is owned by a US corporation, but so what ?
In regards to the law, Yahoo France is a French company, registred at la Chambre des Commerces. So it must abid to French law.
You might discuss that law, I do not agree with it either.
But that does not change one point : good or bad, a *French* company must abid to it. The court never targeted Yahoo US.
Please bear that in mind. French courts do NOT target US stuff. They target French stuff. So I don't see why a US judge has anything to say to a French rule about a French company.
The fact that the French company is owed by a US corporation is irrevelant and void.
I live in France, let me show you round... See that old guy over there ? His father was executed by the Gestapo... That old woman over there? She was raped by several SS when she was 16.. See that sign to 'Oradour-Sur-Glane', you should go and see that village, one day the SS cam calling and killed everybody, they say 640+ men, women and children died. Now imagine how some people who live here feel when they see Nazi sympathisers (and it's virtually always sympathisers that buy this stuff, which is why there is a law against selling it) parading swastikas, deaths head badges etc. Get the point?
Is it just me, or are the moderators getting hypersensitive of late?
It was humor, people. You might also want to get a definition of "irony" from someone other than Alanis Morissette. (And in case you missed it, that was humor, too.)
Does Yahoo actually have any office space, servers or employees outside of the USA?
This ordeal is a good way to illustrate that most large corporations in America don't give a damn about Constitutional rights. Rather than ban NSDAP items from any native French servers (if they have them) the cowards chose to ban stuff from all Yahoo auction servers/sites.
If France had a law preventing the criticism of Communists, do you folks think for a minute that Yahoo would resist censoring anti-Communist material from their auctions?
I don't think Yahoo would bat an eyelid before complying with any silly law or unconstitutional idea that makes them look good.
Yahoo is in it for the MONEY and nothing else. If shooting Jews was profitable and legal, they'd probably do that as well!
Galland
That guy is called 'CmdrTaco on' not 'CmdrTaco'. Your eyes are playing tricks on you. Now, flame on.
just make sure that Yahoo! France is a separate legal entity not owned or operated by Yahoo! here in the US. Then, the assets in France could not be seized in response to actions by the US web site (as long as the French site is in compliance - which it was). Perhaps, this is already the case...
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
but it is legal fo the us to regulate the 'speech' for a russian resident outside of the United States, and like wise it is legal for the US to regulate the auction of the software just because some Americans were able to buy it?
---
"We find you offensive, and demand you pay us to relieve some of the stench of your offensive nature"
In other times, disputes like this have led to wars.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
In fact, I scanned his recent post and realized who he was. Id won't bother anymore, but thanks anyway
Say what you will about the Germans, they've always the best uniforms, every war.
If bidding for Nazi memorabilia on yahoo.com had been shut down, where else could my girlfriend and I have turned for all our SS fetish-wear? As it is, we're really hurting for a couple more Sam Browne belts on which to holster our Lugers . . .
The US Court ruled that Yahoo isn't bound by the French court's decision...
So, then... is the French court bound by the US court's ruling?
It's a good ruling for information and freedom, but I'm puzzled by the international law ramifications, particularly jurisdiction issues. Maybe someone can help me out...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
So when US courts shut down ICraveTV a couple of years ago, they had no right to do so?
I think I'm going to Canada and opening an ICraveTV-like website. Now, when major networks take me to court, I'll point to this ruling and laugh.
Oh, wait. Major networks will sue me and win anyway. Money talks, and both of these rulings went in favor of US companies. The day when US courts actually recognize that people in other countries (and non-US citizens) should have the same rights (and responsibilities) as US citizens is far away. Right now, if you're an outsider, you already lost.
m
We should have fought with the Germans!
The war is not over! Aryans can still win! join the National Front! Europe for Europeans!
Sieg Heil Mein Führer!
It's a nice surprise to have a sensible ruling come out of a federal court
I see *no* niceness whatsoever when it comes to spreading nazi shit around any piece of the globe.
(This is apart from the fact that I believe that, if the opposite was the case, the US would be bombing France by now....)
Actually, "community standards" DO apply in a case like this (according to the US Supreme Court). This means that theoretically, if someone is caught looking at porn in a place in which the "community standards" outlaw it, or if someone operates a porn site in that same community, then that person could be sanctioned. However, this does not apply to a site operator who is outside of the community.
This all implies of course, that someone can simply sniff your net connection without a warrent, or your consent. There is no way tapping everyone's net connection under the "probable cause" that they'd be looking at porn would ever hold up in court (simply because its not looked at as being a "real" crime).
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
1)Yes what Dimitry did is legal in Russia.
Damnit! No wonder there are no more good programming jobs left in the USA!
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Europe sucks ! , we save their asses then they try to impose their screwed up laws on us here because somebody sells sometinhg online that offends them, well guess what in America youre allowed to be offensive,, for now, kinda makes you want to send nazi spam to all the french judges eh ? ...
... you kill Afgans people instead, and communists one too ... why ? they just don t think as you -- oh and if you want to tell me that Bin Laden is an asshole for destryoying 2 towers and a little more, i ll reply you that the US give Bin laden the money to build an army since 30 years. just, now the guns are no more against the russians, but against you ! )
... or maybe not.
oh, yeah, thanks to you oh my great american hero
frankly, i m asking me sometimes if i d prefer the German invasion ( the nazis and other assholes ) or the US invasion ( YOUR judges, YOUR laws, YOUR money, YOUR "protection" )
just tell me what differencies the us politic from the german one of the WW2 ? you don t attack Europe ? ( either of us would loose due to the A-bomb ) maybe you don t kill jews ? ( oh no, you wouldn t have many people left
in fact, i think the US is just in the way of being a nice second nazi germany. imposing THEIR mind to the rest of the world
oh, and, as you should guess, i don t agree with the french government when it says the France ll support you during this war.
a french that think that your mind just sucks.
all the mp3's and cheap cloned software that you want from a number of nations that do not observe USA's law
Here's an idea.
.fr or .ca (etc) they are bound by the country they wish to represent.
.ca, .fr, etc) must copmly with a set standard if Internet laws created by a governing body with representatives from the bulk of the countries. This would be general laws that hopefully would not infringe on any one nation's laws.
Everything is bound by the laws of the location of its servers. Also, if they have the domain
If you wanted to make things really nice and confusing, you could require that any URLS that do not specify a country (.us,
I think this would encourage companies to place their servers inside the nation they wish it to server (.fr sites placed physically in france) in order to reduce the number of laws they have to comply with.
So to cap. All sites comply with their locations laws, and the laws of the country they wish to serve (as determined by domain name extensions).
Any sites without an extension for the country must comply with a standard set of laws (which hopefully would represent most nations equally).
I know it would be hell to implement and change, but what do you think?
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Call me pedantic, but the Nazis are responsible for quite a few more than 6,000,000 deaths. Granted, that link lists totals for all of WWII, but I think we can be sure the Nazis are responsible for a bit more than 6,000,000 with over 52,000,000 total dead.
I'm so happy about this ruling. if yahoo in the US is not bound by french law, then surely /me in Germany is not bound by silly US laws like the DMCA, right?
uh, right?
why is it that I have this feeling that this knife doesn't cut both ways? or will I be receiving a court document soon (to add to the other 1000 or so pages) that'll tell me I'm dismissed from the California DeCSS suit?
not holding my breath. the ruling is, of course, obvious. at least until the hague convention gets passed, which will invalidate it and make all those silly foreign lawsuits enforceable locally. that will be a day! finally you can sue everyone, everywhere for pretty much every imaginable reason.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Some French retard said(I know,French Retard is redundant): ... you kill Afgans people instead, and communists one too ... why ? they just don t think as you
just tell me what differencies the us politic from the german one of the WW2 ? you don t attack Europe ? ( either of us would loose due to the A-bomb ) maybe you don t kill jews ? ( oh no, you wouldn t have many people left
First:
I applaud you for your valiant attempt to rise above your "second world" native language. More French should be so motivated, your country could then rise to first world status.
Second:
We, in the USA don't endorse the killing of those who don't agree with us. We do however endorse the killing of those who would harm us simply out of a hatrid for our way of life. Let's face it, there will always be snivelling losers who hate winners. Most of them however don't try to kill the winners. France is a nation of well behaved losers, since they as a nation have a childish dislike of the WINNERS in the USA, however they don't try to kill nor do they for the most part advocate the killing of Americans. Those who do try to kill us should always receive their dividends in abundance. The USA is a tolerant nation, Almost tolerant to a fault. It's OK to disagree with us. It's OK for our citizens to disagree with the government. I have been to France on four different occasions and have always been glad that I had a free and tolerant nation to return to and call home.
But I don't want to live in a democracy and in the USA I don't.
Fair enough. I recognise that something isn't necessarily right merely because a majority believe it to be, but then again I don't know of a better alternative system of government.
And what makes you think that a world government would be a democracy? Or a Republic?
I don't think it would necessarily be either. My post didn't mention republics at all; as for democracy, I mentioned that because the parent was talking about the effects that democracy would have on a world government-- "set by majority vote", "largest voting block".
I still don't see how the fact that different places have different customs means that they can't be governed in common. In my (perhaps limited) experience, different states of the USA have different outlooks, but nevertheless manage to subscribe to federal government.
(I should also perhaps add that the mere fact that I disagreed with two points of a posting opposing world government does not imply that I'm in favour of world government.)
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
I hate the nazis as well but we can't pick and choose freedom of speech and information to when it suits our point of view. That wouldn't really be freedom of speech would it?
Snoozer.
I'm not French neither do i live in France, but i'm curious:
- Have you visited France only or have you also lived in France?
The thing is, simply visiting a place is not enough to make an informed opinion about it's inhabitants.
Putting things in a different way:
- I would be the jerk if i said that all Americans are jerks just because i happened to had a bad experience with a taxi driver when i visited New York.
Oh by the way, i hope you are aware that:
- People behave differently as turists in a foreign land than they do in their own country.
- Turists are very easily detectable (and as such make visible targets for crooks) and especially so for a lot of american turists (many of them dress and act differently from everyone else, including turists from other nationalities)
- Other people's behaviour will be influenced by your own behaviour (i would expect French people to be very unpolite to me if for example i went around the Louvre commenting loudly to my wife that it was all a pile of crap)
I agree! We should outlaw anything we disagree with anywhere around the globe! China killed as many people in the Cultural Revolution as Germany did in the holocaust. We should outlaw sales of the Little Red Book! That Maoist shit is all about hate and oppression. And while we're at it, let's ban American memorabilia, since we annihilated the Indians. The Koran, Talmud, and Bible all have passages promoting slavery, and oppression of women. Let's outlaw them too.
And yes. The US would be bombing France for stating that French companies were not bound by US law. You should see all the dead Frenchmen that were piled up after the French said "screw you" to the Helms-Burton Act. America just likes to bomb people.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Any evidence to support this? While I'm sure neo-nazis love to get their hands on original artifacts, there are a lot of people (WWII veterans & history buffs) who collect war trophies from both sides. Both my grandfathers served in WWII; and we have several family friends who are WWII vets as well. One gentleman in particular, a retired Army colonel, has an extensive collection of artifacts that he
acquired in North Africa and Italy. The barber I used to patronize (also a WWII vet) had a huge display case in his shop of war souvineers. I've met dozens of people who collect militaria, and I wouldn't dare call any one of them a Nazi sympathizer (at least not unless I was looking for a fight). A collector isn't necessarily pro-nazi because he buys German artifacts, any more than he would be pro-slavery because he buys Confederate artifacts, or pro-communist because he buys Soviet artifacts.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Yes i suppose we could accept that a Taleban
court is more appropriate to rule a decision
like Bin Laden's case, nomatter what the
French, US etc people say. They know better.
After all, he lives there, even if his
actions affect the world. We should respect
the order eh?
(hope that i'll be moderated as funny by
the appropriate people too, because if you ask me it is the funniest comment i've ever heard)
And register a .ca domain, US can't touch it. Except Icravetv, but that's beacuse they registered a .com in the US.
Consider a lower-tech analogy. Say there are phone-sex lines in France that would be considered obscene and illegal under U.S. law. Now say that a U.S. citizen calls from California and listens to one of those phone-sex lines. He may be breaking the law in the U.S., but the U.S. can't really expect to go to France and say "hey, you've got this service that my citizens are using, and even though it's legal there, where it's based, it's illegal here, and my citizens can get to it, so you must shut it down!" (Not that the U.S. might not try such a thing in one of its more imperialistic moments, but I really can't see any legal foundation for it...)
Remember that Yahoo France had already removed the illegal items from its site. This case was about whether a French court could impose its standards on entities entirely outside its borders. That makes no sense at all. (If France can do it, why not Afghanistan? What's to stop courts there from claiming that Afghani citizens can use their Internet connections to look at images of women who work outside the home and don't wear veils?)
If France is really insistent that its citizens shouldn't be able to get this stuff, it should take the China approach and just firewall the whole damn country. They could do it, much as I might find it despicable.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
The French essentially rolled-over when the Nazi's came to visit. They should be reminded that they are chickenshits and that they still owe the US for the help we gave them in BOTH of the previous world wars. Pay up you French bastards.
So what if a judge in the US says its ok for Yahoo to sell nazi memorabilia. All the French courts need to do is issue a court order banning all ISPs in France for carrying traffic from auctions.yahoo.com (and its IP addresses).
I can't think of anything witty right now
Sure. Pearl Harbor was a pretty good demonstration of the power of carrier warfare, as well as surprise against a relatively complacent and definitely inexperienced enemy, even though the politics behind the action involved, er, rather drastic miscalculations. Sell away. *shrug*
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
yupppers.... just look at the Dimitri S.. being prosecuted in the USA for crimes against the us law that he commited in his country.... thus... if any Yahoo execs ever fly to France, you had better watch out... cuz I'm sure these countries would love to play this ball game on US citizens.
So now what? The french goverment is going to do what.... have a pissing match with the US lawmakers?
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
If you don't want your citizens to be offended, don't let them on the Internet.
If your country wants to make laws that forbid certain content, then don't let your citizens communicate outside your country because your laws don't apply to other countries.
So does Germany ban memorabelia that may be painful to its war survivors? Can I buy a British medal in Germany, even though some people's grandparents were killed by British troops. Can I buy Soviet badges even though the Russians executed many people in their path on the way to Berlin? They probably raped a few too, who knows. So whose story is sadder?
When will you guys understand that in war, people die. Not just soldiers. Anyone who get in the way of someone's rage. And besides, you Europeans have been killing each other for thousands of years. Don't expect any sympathy from me. I don't have any more for you than I do for Germany after Napolean conquered them in the 1800s. How many innocent Germans died then? It's obvious you don't care about that, it's ancient history. War is hell, get over it.
Slightly OT: The current issue of Rolling Stone magazine (with Bob Dylan on the cover) has a feature about racism against Muslims in America, and has a photograph of wooden "twin towers" that people built at Harvard (?) to scrawl opinions on regarding the terrorist attacks. You can clearly see "Free Skylarov" written on the left tower.
As many reader point out, will Yahoo exec be jailed in France like Dmitry in US? Or can non-US security researchers publish findings without US prosecution?
US like to impose their rules on the rest of the world but can get away with it when reversed.
The French ruling is similar to Helms-Burton Act where companies or individuals who trade in Cuban expropriated property outside of the United States are not allowed into the United States. Similarly, the French government is saying that a company that facilitates the trading of nazi memorabilia outside of it's country cannot exist in it's own country.
The judgement from the U.S. judge means nothing. If France wants to throw the French division of Yahoo out of the country, there is little it can do. If the french government fines Yahoo, then they either have to pay or pull out of France. All the U.S. ruling said is that if they pull out, France can't get them to legally pay the fines.
-no broken link
1) What Yahoo did is legal in the US
:P or anything for that matter since it's merely hosting an auction forumn where others can sell stuff.
True...
2) Yahoo tries to sell software to anyone world wide (including the French) via French and American hosted websites
False, yahoo isn't selling software
3) This broke French law
Also false, as I stated above, yahoo isn't selling anything, they are hosting a forumn where others sell. Since they aren't the ones selling, I fail to see how they violate the law of selling. The fact that the french are suing the medium instead of the individuals is disturbing since they are trying to hold guilty an innocent bystander. In this case it's like yahoo owns a building, they tell people to bring stuff there to sell. And yet rather than going after the people who bring stuff to the building, they go after the building's owner who wasn't necessarily involved. They'd probably have a problem going after citizens here since the citizens could claim they put the item up for internal american consumption. It looks like they want yahoo's assets for their own purposes. Why else would you sue yahoo and not the people who actually buy/sell the stuff?
4) They were charged since they operated on French soil.
Care to prove that the auctions.yahoo.com webserver is physically in france? If the french don't like an american website they should be the ones to censor it on their end. If they were smart they'd monitor the aution site, and arrest their own citizens that buy the stuff rather than try to take the assets of a company based in another country for failure to comply with the technically/politically/econimically infeasable.
Try again.
I'd suggest you take your own advice.
I can't tolerate that position :)
Does it apply in reverse?
Example: DeCSS is legal in France. If I post DeCSS on a US server and this server is a mirror of a French server, does French law and "backup copy" laws apply to the US site as well?
No? Then this decision is nothing more than US protecting its huge mega-corporation. Yes? Then free speech is really better protected.
Just my US$0.02... =)
If I had mod points I think your post would be going down.
The cases aren't even remotely similar and you're trying to compare apples to windows(oranges).
Since it's terribly difficult to send a backup copy of a physical item over the internet, your comments really don't apply.
Furthermore as I've mentioned in another post, yahoo isn't doing the selling of the items, they are hosting a forum where others can sell. Basically the french court system (and perhaps their police agencies as well) don't want to take responsibility for the purchaces made by their own citizens and instead of tracking and arresting them they have to blame someone else.
If someone was sending death threats to you over
NO, absolutely not!
if (auction contains nazi memorablilia) and
(requesting IP is in France)
then (deny page request)
After all, there are (currently at least) a fairly limited number of IP addresses, and server side proccessing is not that tough.
Sure this is not a perfect solution (some way of deciding what auctions contain "objectionable material" would have to be devised, for one), but I bet that it would have been much cheaper (in the terms of both direct, lawyer costs and indirect, publicity costs) than this whole protracted legal battle.
Many people buy and trade those things for the same reason they buy and sell Japanese swords, pistols and such, brought back by American GIs as souveniers.
The cake is a pie
...to know the details of a case before you shoot your mouth off about it? Let's do this again.
> Right, and that's why a Russian Programmer was arrested in the US for breaking US law in russia.
He was arrested in the U.S. for breaking U.S. law in the U.S., not Russia. Writing the program (which he did in Russia) was not his crime. The crime was that his company then sold the program to U.S. customers, in the U.S., hosted on a U.S. website. Since the program violated the DMCA, that's against U.S. law. Since he happened to be the guy who represented his company in the U.S. the U.S. grabbed him when he entered the U.S. for a conference. Unfortunate, perhaps, but he wasn't grabbed for breaking the law in Russia. If his company hadn't sold the program in the U.S., he wouldn't have been arrested.
The lesson here is to read the full story before commenting.
Virg
> The basis for the charges seem to be that the program is sold
> by a Russian company on the web, therefore Americans can buy it.
This is too simplistic. The charge is that the company used a U.S.-based site for the sales, not just that it was made available to U.S. citizens.
And not to pick nits, but it's Sklyarov, not Skylarov.
Virg
While your point is a good one, call me pedantic but the loss of life in China is not the responsibility of the Nazis. It is Japan's.
Also, it would be interesting to see how they arrived at the number for the civilian deaths in Poland, Finland, and the Soviet Union. The Soviet's were far from innocent in slaughtering innocents during WWII.
This hardly absolves the Nazis. They were certainly evil and have tremendous blood on their hands.
It does make you wonder about the wisdom of appeasing Hitler by France and Britain during his rise to power, though. They were loath to enter into an armed confict with him, even when they had far superior armies, because they wanted to preserve the peace. The peace was not preserved and the loss of life was astronomical. Timely action would not have preserved the peace, but would have saved millions of lives.
The reason to be against these laws is because they are dangerous. The government has no constitutional authorization to issue such laws. By creating them, they weaken the constitution, and reduce the protections that it offers all of us.
The constitution does say that the governments of the states shouldn't discriminate, and that is thus proper. And it's also desireable that the US govt not descriminate. And, I suppose, that one could stretch things to say that the states should not be allowed to have laws that descriminate.
The original "public accomodations" decision (Rosa Parks) was based on the states involved not having adhered to the constitutional provisions forbidding them to discriminate. And that was, thus, proper. I'm much less convinced that any decision coercing a lunch counter operator to provide "non-descriminatory" service was reasonable unless he leased or rented his place of doing business from the government (fed, state, county, or city). OTOH, I certainly support the action of people to make him uncomfortable about descriminating (sit-ins, pickets, etc.).
The problem is that the 14th amendment (or is it the 12th) is largely ignored. Local people are supposed to be the ones with the rights to make these decisions. The government has just promised to keep it's own part of the playing field level. If reparations are reasonable then there should be a civil suit, and re-writing the legal code is not a valid demand in a civil suit.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
while United States have fought against Nazis, french happily submitted to them. no french resort to these stupid token gestures like outlawing Nazi memorabilia.
In europe, a lot of people are not sure WWII won't be repeated.
In some parts of Europe (e.g. Yugoslavia), it effectively has been.
Is it really worse to do it because they're black (for example) than to do it because they nailed your wife? Why is one cause worthy of different legal treatment?
In some cases it is different, and so requires different legal treatment. In a commutity with high racial (or religious, whatever) tensions, killing someone becasue they're black can incite riots, lead to civil wars (aka Kosovo), and much more violence down the road. This may not fit in with your "colorblind" value-system, but some crimes are more damaging than others. The shooting of MLK comes to mind. A country/community must work hard to try to enable/encourage minorities to participate in its political and economic life. High-profile racial crimes can set that work back by decades, and so are a greater threat to the society in which they are committed. That's why they (in some cases) receive stiffer punishments.
Having said that, most of the actual laws on the books about hate crimes are silly, dangerous and not applied correctly. Speech on the other hand, should always be sacrosanct.
btw, Yahoo is an American company, so a good case can be made that the French court was over-reaching it's authority. On the other hand, nothing stopped the US from invading Panama, kidnapping Noriega, and putting him on trial for violating US drug laws. I wonder how many americans would not mind, say, Nicaragua kidnapping Reagan and putting him on trial for mining the their harbors.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I'm from the US and am in full agreement. But what can you do? We've got a bunch of idealistic liberals who think internationalism is some kind of blessing from God.
YES!!! See, that's the beautiful thing about borders--when some stupid law is made in one place, you can go somewhere else! Up with borders!
even if a white hood is the best costume they can find.
Nobody likes the French. Heh.
The cases aren't even remotely similar and you're trying to compare apples to windows(lemons).
Quite right. My intent was to say that they're responsible for some number between 6,000,000 and 53,000,000. I speculate that that number is substantially greater than 6,000,000, but I couldn't find a handy reference to tell me just who killed who in the few minutes I had available. My point was just that a lot of people lost their lives to Hitler and his Nazis. We do them a disservice to forget that they were not all Jewish civilians in Europe.
It doesn't make me wonder, it makes me think that might be one of the greatest blunders in history. Of course hindsight is 20/20. Still, I hope we learned something. That was a hell of a price to pay if we didn't.
Possibly because corporate interests can afford the best lawyers and thus have a stronger likelihood of winning?
But when they do only intellectuals or journalists listen, regular people continue using the Anglicised words.
We say CDRom, Email, Web like everyone else and screw those who want us to say Cédérom, Mél, Toile.