Just a notice to those who might be interested in the fate of Kazaa: According to News.com, a Los Angeles federal judge will decide whether Kazaa, which is headquartered in Australia and incorporated in the island nation of Vanuatu, can be sued in the United States. The decision will hinge around whether Kazaa has sufficient contact with the United States to give courts here jurisdiction over the business.
The article is here.
While this case will be interesting to anybody who follows P2P litigation, it is also noteworthy for raising the problem of what it means to establish "minimum contacts" over the Internet. Things used to be somewhat easier (but still hairy) when you had to deal with automobile shops, shoe salesmen, or helicopter dealers becoming involved in a particular state; their business transactions (or lack thereof) would provide the kind of contacts necessary to establish jurisdiction. Now, though, where Kazaa does not actually do anything in the United States, but the open access it provides undoubtedly influences things here, the old "minimum contacts" analysis looks increasingly outdated.
I am pretty ignorant about this subject, so if you know better (for instance, recent cases about establishing jurisdiction over the Internet), please leave a comment.