Internet Jurisdiction Essay Example for Free

Internet Jurisdiction EssayIn his article, Wolf (1999) explained how jurisdiction may be acquired through over persons who operate and use internet websites. By applying the rules enumerated in Wolfs article to a popular bit cloudburst search engine based in Sweden called thepiratebay. org, we see that no jurisdiction may be acquired over the drug users or the promoters of the website because 1) there is a minimal take aim 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 descent proceedings to take place. individualised jurisdiction is an issue because it allows the court to prosecute any 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 have caused damage to a resident of place where the court exercises jurisdiction. In ordinary proc edure, personal jurisdiction is acquired by either the stop of the culprit in criminal cases or the service of summons on the defendant in civil cases.In special cases where culprits are not residents of the gathering state, 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 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 question 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 analysis of Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. , 130 F. 3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997), Wolf mentions that mere advertising is not enough to give the court jurisdiction over the operators of the website.It has to be shown that the operators actually sold 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.