Selling through a Web server in Washington is not presence for purposes of a
*criminal* case, if by "presence" you mean either subject matter or personal
jurisdiction.  Some cases have ruled that a single Web transaction is enough
for such jurisdiction, but those are *civil* cases.  I am currently writing
an article on this, and according to my (as yet not finalized) research, you
will not find one where jurisdiction was proper in a *criminal* case.  The
matter is even worse because this is criminal copyright, not fraud or
something.  US v. Sklyarov & Elcomsoft is a criminal case.  We shall see if
jurisdiction sticks, but if it does, its unprecedented as far as I know and
it's going to be very huge.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of
> der.hans
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 6:11 PM
> To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: RE: anonymous services
>
>
> Am 14. Sep, 2001 schwätzte Eric so:
>
> > My initial response to this is to ask you whether Elcomsoft is going to
> > follow our laws  This is a Russian corporation with no US
> presence, but if
>
> They did have a .us presense. That's what he was charged with.
>
> > you are familiar with the Sklyarov case, you will know they are
> following
> > our copyright (i.e., software) laws very, very closely at this moment.
>
> Outside the .us, not selling to the .us, they are free to ignore .us law.
>
> ciao,
>
> der.hans
> --
> # der.hans@LuftHans.com home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.DevelopOnline.com
> #  When you are tired of choosing the lesser of two evils,
> #  Vote Cthulhu for President!
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail
> doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>