tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post2608886846498375974..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: When is the UK public targeted by an infringing website?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-57514204759983666912014-12-21T11:41:14.841+00:002014-12-21T11:41:14.841+00:00I can't help thinking that every time a court ...I can't help thinking that every time a court has to decide this sort of case, rather than picking up on the 'world wide' part of the world wide web, they have an eye to limiting the amount of spurious or downright vexatious cases to which they could lay themselves open by a relaxed approach to defining the 'public' which is targeted. This was the situation prior to the 2012 Defamation Act with libel claims in which the British High Court became the <i>forum conviens</i> for every disgruntled litigant, despite both claimant and defendant often being domiciled outside the UK.<br />The judicial practice of drawing artificial boundaries around specific 'publics' really flies in the face of the globilised nature of the internet, and will become even more artificial when, in the future, more online transactions are made using bitcoin or other non-state-specific currencies.<br />Andy Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-59226323434232744182014-12-20T21:22:14.920+00:002014-12-20T21:22:14.920+00:00After Svensson and Pinckney, is it still so clear ...After Svensson and Pinckney, is it still so clear that "targeting" is needed to localize infringement online? Or would potential reception suffice? Paul Edward Gellerhttp://www.pgeller.com/noreply@blogger.com