Internet Jurisdiction Essay

In his word, Wolf (1999) explained how legal power whitethorn be acquired through oer persons who incline and utilization internet websites. By applying the rules enumerated in Wolfs article to a popular bit torrent search engine found in Sweden called thepiratebay. org, we see that no jurisdiction may be acquired over the exploiters or the operators of the website because 1) there is a minimal level of interactivity among the users 2) the users and operators of the website do non engage in commercial activities and 3) the website does not provide contact details that would allow future telephone line transactions to take shopping centre.Personal jurisdiction is an issue because it allows the court to prosecute all criminal activity that occurs because of the use of the website. It also allows the court to impose civil liabilities on any user operator who might harbour caused damage to a resident of place where the court exercises jurisdiction. In ordinary procedure, pers onal jurisdiction is acquired by every the arrest of the culprit in criminal cases or the service of mention on the defendant in civil cases.In special cases where culprits atomic number 18 not residents of the assemblage nominate, the court would have to use this long-arm jurisdiction in order to punish those responsible for the illegal activity. The interactive-passive use test states that courts have to look into the nature of the transactions made by the users of the website. If the website allows users to have a two-way online communication which fosters an ongoing business concern relationship, the court may acquire personal jurisdiction over the operators of the website.However, is the website merely provides information without any other interaction, the court may not exercise jurisdiction. The key perplexity to be asked would be is the website operator doing business in the forum state? If yes, then the court has jurisdiction over the operator. Based on his compend o f Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. , 130 F. 3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997), Wolf mentions that mere advertising is not adequacy to give the court jurisdiction over the operators of the website.It has to be shown that the operators actually sell their products in the forum state. Once again, we see that actual business must be performed before the court can claim jurisdiction over the website operator. This is because it is only the act of engaging in actual business where the website operator is deemed to purposely avail of or submit himself to the jurisdiction of the forum state.