Jurisdiction over Ubiquitous Copyright Infringements: Should Right-Holders Be Allowed to Sue at Home?

arxiv: 2605.17317 · v1 · pith:CNIMHKHXnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.ET

Jurisdiction over Ubiquitous Copyright Infringements: Should Right-Holders Be Allowed to Sue at Home?

Paulius Jurcys , Toshiyuki Kono This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 23:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.ET

keywords copyrightjurisdictioncloud computingonline infringementprivate international lawcross-border disputesintellectual propertyubiquitous infringement

0 comments p. Extension

pith:CNIMHKHX Add to your LaTeX paper

What is a Pith Number?

\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{CNIMHKHX}

Prints a linked pith:CNIMHKHX badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

Right holders should sometimes be allowed to sue for cloud-based copyright infringements in their home courts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines when courts should claim jurisdiction in copyright disputes that cross borders because of the internet and cloud computing. It explains how these technologies let content be stored, sent, and viewed in many countries at the same time, which makes it hard to apply old rules that tie legal power to one specific territory. The authors conclude that this mismatch means right holders need the option, in some cases, to bring suits in the courts of their home country or main economic base. A reader would care because the change could make it easier and cheaper for creators to protect their work while clarifying risks for platforms that handle global digital content.

Core claim

Cloud computing changes how intellectual property is exploited and blurs the territorial connecting factors used to decide jurisdiction. The territorial fragmentation of copyright law therefore sits uneasily with the realities of ubiquitous online infringement. Existing jurisdictional doctrines in common law and civil law systems may not remain suitable for these disputes, so right holders should be permitted in some circumstances to sue before the courts of their home state or center of economic interests.

What carries the argument

Examination of subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and infringement-based jurisdiction rules to show how cloud storage and transmission across borders undermine traditional territorial tests.

If this is right

Right holders face greater risks when allegedly infringing material is stored or accessed across many states at once.
Digital intermediaries encounter uncertainty about liability when content moves through cloud systems in multiple jurisdictions.
Courts must weigh subject-matter, personal, and infringement-based jurisdiction principles against the realities of ubiquitous online activity.
Ongoing work by international bodies on intellectual property and private international law may incorporate these considerations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Home-state jurisdiction could reduce the need for multiple parallel lawsuits but might concentrate cases in a few favorable courts.
The same logic of adjusting territorial rules for cloud effects could apply to disputes over trademarks or data privacy in digital environments.
Empirical review of actual court filings in cloud-heavy sectors would reveal whether the proposed option lowers enforcement costs for right holders.

Load-bearing premise

Cloud computing has so changed the storage and access of content across borders that traditional ways of linking a dispute to one country no longer work without letting right holders sue from home.

What would settle it

A series of court rulings that continue to require separate suits in each country of access for cloud copyright cases, without allowing home-state jurisdiction even when infringement is clearly multi-territorial, would show the traditional rules remain adequate.

read the original abstract

The Internet, and more recently cloud computing, has transformed the technological, economic, social, and cultural conditions under which intellectual property rights are exploited. These developments also challenge traditional rules of private international law, particularly rules governing international jurisdiction. This paper examines when courts should assert jurisdiction over cross-border copyright disputes arising in cloud-based environments. It focuses on the risks faced by right holders and digital intermediaries when allegedly infringing content is stored, transmitted, or accessed across multiple states. The paper first explains how cloud computing changes the exploitation of intellectual property assets and complicates the identification of territorial connecting factors. It then analyzes the main jurisdictional principles applied by courts in common law and civil law systems, with particular attention to subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and infringement-based jurisdiction. The paper argues that the territorial fragmentation of copyright law sits uneasily with the realities of ubiquitous online infringement. It therefore asks whether existing jurisdictional doctrines remain suitable for cloud-related disputes and whether, in some circumstances, right holders should be permitted to sue before the courts of their home state or center of economic interests. The paper concludes by discussing related work undertaken by a special committee of the International Law Association on intellectual property and private international law.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper reviews jurisdictional rules for cloud copyright cases and ties them to ILA work, but the push for home-state suits rests on an undemonstrated claim that cloud tech creates new problems beyond earlier online disputes.

read the letter

The main point is that the paper reviews how common law and civil law courts handle jurisdiction in cross-border copyright disputes involving cloud storage and access, then asks whether right holders should sometimes be allowed to sue from their home state or economic center. It flags the mismatch between territorial copyright rules and ubiquitous online infringement and points to ongoing ILA committee efforts on IP and private international law. The overview of subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and infringement-based rules is clear and covers the standard doctrines without unnecessary complexity. It also spells out the practical risks for right holders and intermediaries when content moves across borders. That synthesis is the useful part. The softer spot is the central claim that cloud computing fundamentally alters territorial connecting factors in a way that existing rules cannot handle. The text explains the general changes but gives no concrete technical mapping of multi-jurisdictional replication, edge caching, or similar features, and it does not compare these directly to pre-cloud internet cases or check how courts have already adapted targeting and accessibility tests. Without that detail or counter-analysis of recent decisions, the normative suggestion for expanded home-state suits lacks a secure foundation. This is for private international law scholars and IP practitioners who follow cross-border enforcement issues. Someone tracking ILA developments would find the policy question and doctrinal summary worth reading. I would send it to peer review. The topic is timely, the engagement with existing principles is straightforward, and the question it raises is practical even if the cloud-specific argument needs more support.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper examines when courts should assert jurisdiction over cross-border copyright disputes in cloud-based environments. It first explains how cloud computing alters the exploitation of IP assets and complicates identification of territorial connecting factors. It then analyzes jurisdictional principles in common law and civil law systems, focusing on subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and infringement-based jurisdiction. The central argument is that the territorial fragmentation of copyright law conflicts with ubiquitous online infringement, raising the question of whether existing doctrines remain suitable and whether right-holders should in some circumstances be permitted to sue before the courts of their home state or center of economic interests. The paper concludes by referencing related work by an ILA special committee on intellectual property and private international law.

Significance. If the analysis of cloud-induced changes and the normative recommendation hold, the paper could inform ongoing debates in private international law about adapting jurisdictional rules to digital realities, potentially influencing policy on protecting right-holders without unduly burdening intermediaries. The comparative treatment of common and civil law approaches and the explicit link to ILA efforts represent strengths that could enhance its utility for scholars and practitioners working on cross-border IP disputes.

major comments (1)

[Section on cloud computing changes to IP exploitation] The section explaining how cloud computing changes the exploitation of intellectual property assets and complicates territorial connecting factors: the paper asserts that cloud storage, transmission, and access across multiple states creates problems qualitatively different from prior online infringement cases, rendering traditional doctrines unsuitable without allowing home-state suits. However, it provides no specific technical mapping of mechanisms such as multi-jurisdictional data replication or edge caching and how these defeat existing targeting or accessibility tests already applied by courts. This distinction is load-bearing for the central claim that existing rules cannot adapt.

minor comments (2)

The abstract and structure outline the analysis of common and civil law principles but could benefit from a brief roadmap paragraph at the end of the introduction to clarify the sequence of doctrinal examination and normative conclusions.
[Analysis of jurisdictional principles] References to specific court decisions or statutes in the analysis of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction would strengthen the comparative discussion; currently the treatment appears high-level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comment identifies a point where additional specificity could strengthen the manuscript's central claim. We address it below and have revised the relevant section accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Section on cloud computing changes to IP exploitation] The section explaining how cloud computing changes the exploitation of intellectual property assets and complicates territorial connecting factors: the paper asserts that cloud storage, transmission, and access across multiple states creates problems qualitatively different from prior online infringement cases, rendering traditional doctrines unsuitable without allowing home-state suits. However, it provides no specific technical mapping of mechanisms such as multi-jurisdictional data replication or edge caching and how these defeat existing targeting or accessibility tests already applied by courts. This distinction is load-bearing for the central claim that existing rules cannot adapt.

Authors: We appreciate this observation and agree that greater specificity on technical mechanisms would clarify why cloud environments pose challenges beyond those in earlier online infringement cases. In the revised manuscript, we expand the section to map key features such as automatic multi-jurisdictional data replication (where copies are distributed across servers in multiple states for redundancy and latency reduction) and edge caching (where content is stored at network edges near users, often without direct control by the right-holder or primary uploader). These mechanisms fragment territorial connecting factors because infringement can occur simultaneously in numerous jurisdictions through automated processes, making it difficult for courts to apply targeting tests (which require evidence of deliberate direction toward a specific forum) or accessibility tests (which focus on whether content is merely available). For example, a single upload can trigger replication across data centers in the EU, US, and Asia, defeating attempts to localize the act of infringement to one place. We maintain that this supports the normative argument for permitting home-state suits in appropriate cases, as traditional doctrines struggle with such ubiquity. The revision adds these illustrations while preserving the paper's legal focus. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor reference to ILA committee work but central normative argument rests on independent analysis of common/civil law jurisdictional doctrines.

full rationale

The paper's derivation proceeds by describing cloud-induced changes to IP exploitation, reviewing established subject-matter, personal, and infringement-based jurisdiction rules from external legal sources, and then advancing a normative proposal that existing doctrines may need adaptation to permit home-state suits in some cases. This chain draws on standard private international law principles and cites the ILA committee's related work as a concluding discussion rather than as the load-bearing justification for the core claim. No step reduces a prediction or result to a self-definition, fitted parameter, or unverified self-citation chain; the argument remains open to external doctrinal critique and does not equate its conclusion to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard assumptions of private international law regarding territoriality and connecting factors, plus domain assumptions about how cloud computing distributes content access. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Traditional jurisdictional rules require identifiable territorial connecting factors that can be applied to cloud-based content storage and access.
Invoked in the discussion of how cloud computing complicates identification of connecting factors.
domain assumption Copyright law remains territorially fragmented despite global online exploitation.
Central to the argument that fragmentation sits uneasily with ubiquitous infringement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5747 in / 1240 out tokens · 40090 ms · 2026-05-19T23:24:10.018923+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The paper examines when courts should assert jurisdiction over cross-border copyright disputes arising in cloud-based environments... territorial fragmentation of copyright law sits uneasily with the realities of ubiquitous online infringement.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

analyzes the main jurisdictional principles applied by courts in common law and civil law systems, with particular attention to subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and infringement-based jurisdiction.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

4 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

defendant who is resident in a Member State may also be sued before the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur

2. Personal Jurisdiction over Copyright Infringements The second jurisdictional issue related to disputes involving copyright violations in the cloud concerns jurisdiction over the parties. This issue has been one of the disputed points during the negotiations of the so-called Hague Judgments Project, which was undertaken by the Hague Conference on Privat...

work page 2003
[2]

Transparency Principles

I S H OME C OURT A B ETTER F IT TO A DJUDICATE I NFRINGEMENTS IN THE C LOUD ? The emergence of cloud computing poses a plethora of new legal issues related to the protection of personal data as well as the enforcement of IP rights. Although this technological development has been anticipated, history shows that the legal framework often lags behind swiftl...

work page 2013
[3]

market effects

2. Concentrating Litigation at the Right-Holder’s Center of Economic Interests The universal protection afforded by the Berne Convention to the creators of original content allows the copyright-holder to seek protection in every country where the alleged infringement occurs. From a costs and benefits point of view, it may be questioned whether it is effic...

work page 1988
[4]

targeting

C ONCLUDING R EMARKS The Internet opened the gates to a vast pool of knowledge, available at very low cost and in multiple forms. Cloud computing is another unprecedented technological development. The possibility of storing and accessing big data in a remote server provides new business T ECH . 193 (2010); Carl F. Nordmeier, Cloud Computing und Internati...

work page 2010

[1] [1]

defendant who is resident in a Member State may also be sued before the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur

2. Personal Jurisdiction over Copyright Infringements The second jurisdictional issue related to disputes involving copyright violations in the cloud concerns jurisdiction over the parties. This issue has been one of the disputed points during the negotiations of the so-called Hague Judgments Project, which was undertaken by the Hague Conference on Privat...

work page 2003

[2] [2]

Transparency Principles

I S H OME C OURT A B ETTER F IT TO A DJUDICATE I NFRINGEMENTS IN THE C LOUD ? The emergence of cloud computing poses a plethora of new legal issues related to the protection of personal data as well as the enforcement of IP rights. Although this technological development has been anticipated, history shows that the legal framework often lags behind swiftl...

work page 2013

[3] [3]

market effects

2. Concentrating Litigation at the Right-Holder’s Center of Economic Interests The universal protection afforded by the Berne Convention to the creators of original content allows the copyright-holder to seek protection in every country where the alleged infringement occurs. From a costs and benefits point of view, it may be questioned whether it is effic...

work page 1988

[4] [4]

targeting

C ONCLUDING R EMARKS The Internet opened the gates to a vast pool of knowledge, available at very low cost and in multiple forms. Cloud computing is another unprecedented technological development. The possibility of storing and accessing big data in a remote server provides new business T ECH . 193 (2010); Carl F. Nordmeier, Cloud Computing und Internati...

work page 2010