Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction can at some times become a complicated issue. Especially in cases that are international in nature. This is because jurisdiction laws differ in different regions. Some cases have shown jurisdiction law differences even between states of a country. For example, the US has different jurisdiction laws regarding child custody. (Source: nysdivorce.com) For this paper, focus is put on jurisdiction laws for Canada, US and the Council of Europe. The idea is to bring out the differences in law between jurisdiction and other legal matters such as privacy, copyright/trademark, and patent. Jurisdiction laws in general are similar aside from privacy laws. Copyrights are standardized to some extent internationally. This makes it possible to use jurisdiction laws for lawsuit cases over borders wherever necessary. For better understanding of jurisdiction laws, it is best to look at lawsuit cases where jurisdiction laws are enforced or not enforced due to international law differences. A lawsuit that brings into light jurisdiction law took place between A&M Records and Napster. A&M claims that Napster was basically distributing copyrighted music commercially through the technology of MP3 music format via peer-to-peer. The lawsuit was filed as a copyright infringement. The plaintiff claimed that Napster uses the technology format where a music file is compressed and stored on computers and then these compressed files are rapidly shared between computers using the software provided by Napster’s servers. (Source: ttp:www.law.cornell.edu/ copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm). The lawsuit required two important requirements in order to hold in court. Proof of copyright music being shared without consent and prove ownership of the infringed material which in this case is music files. A&M successfully provided the court with the necessary requirements. “Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct infringement: (1) they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106. See 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) (infringement occurs when alleged infringer engages in activity listed in § 106)” (Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm) The court found that under section 106, the plaintiff’s rights were violated. However, under section 17 of USC which in regards to fair use of material, Napster cannot be held accountable for. Certain States in the US do not have any law regarding peer-to-peer sharing under fair use. We see a clear case of jurisdiction issues over copyright material. Copyright infringement cases have exclusive jurisdiction to US federal courts in the US. This is a disadvantage for small copyright cases. “Although the copyright law offers the advantages described above to copyright owners who pursue claims of infringement, another provision of the law arguably provides a disincentive to pursue small claims. Section 1338 of Title 28 of the United States Code confers upon the federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over claims of copyright infringement.” (Source: United States House of Representatives 109th Congress, 2nd Session March 29, 2006) Small claims of copyright simply will not provide an incentive to be represented at federal level simply because it is not as important. State level courts can easily settle small cases but the argument provided here is that it is addressed by federal courts to keep consistency. The plaintiff’s complaint can be used for basing jurisdiction under a specific law in certain cases. Federal courts have jurisdiction regarding patent law cases, however in one instance, it was found they used the special law “well-pleaded complaint” to restrict its jurisdiction. “The Federal Circuit has asserted jurisdiction over all cases with a patent law claim. But in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.//, the United States Supreme Court applied the "well-pleaded complaint" rule to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This rule looks to the plaintiff's complaint as the basis for jurisdiction, and not necessarily whether a patent issue is part of the case.” (Bassett, 2002) The case shows that the courts have the ability to decide jurisdiction wherever necessary. Jurisdiction law differs from privacy law but with the evolution of the internet, many law suit cases that are regarding privacy are getting complicated due to the sensitivity of jurisdiction issues. The internet is re-shaping laws because it has made it possible to communicate large amounts of data across the globe. Privacy laws of one country may have no jurisdiction in another country even though there may be a case of privacy infringement. References: > Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary; United States House of Representatives 109th Congress, 2nd Session. Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, BEEZER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
 * 1) March 29, 2006- Statement of the United States Copyright Office before the
 * 1) A&M RECORDS, Inc. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
 * 1)  David Bassett, 2002; Email Alerts- WilmerHale ([])