There's a legal principle call Forum Non Conveniens that is supposed to remedy this, though I don't know if anyone has challenged these seizures on those grounds. Basically, a legal matter is supposed to be tried in the most relevant and appropriate jurisdiction. For example, you sue a corporation in the state where it violated civil law, rather than state where it's headquartered. I shouldn't have to fly to Dallas to sue Pizza Hut if my local franchise poisoned me.
That said, the Internet breaks down a lot of established jurisdictional law because a website can operate effectively anywhere the Internet exists, and as such can theoretically be subject to the laws of any web-connected jurisdiction. These seizures are just another example of how the law has not caught up to the basic operating procedures of the web.
There is a certain legal philosophy that says the Internet is operating under its own version of Maritime Law, which is to say its a non-national zone where the law is defined by consensus practice and then ratified by bordering or participating jurisdictions. International salvage rights emerged from common maritime practice, and are now generally recognized as legally binding.
That's in theory a good model for the web, but I'm very certain the US Government doesn't see it that way.
The US constitution also grants a right to a jury trial in "all suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars".
All US judicial authority derives from the constitution. Given a controversy under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, a trial cannot be denied the agreeved party unless:
1. There is no controversy
2. There is a stipulation in the constitution, or the jurisdictional laws passed by congress, that says federal jurisdiction doesn't exist.
3. There is a valid treaty which specifies a different process
4. The case was already tried.
5. Neither party is subject to the laws of the US.
Absent those conditions the US courts would have to take the case.
Forum selection conventions must still conform to the constitution.
If you wanted to change this you would need to convince Congress to pass a law changing enforcement of copyright.
This isn't a suit at common law, though, this is a seizure by government officials. The courts have generally held that those only have to allow you a chance to legally contest it after the fact.
I really doubt forum non conveniens can be applied here. The website allegedly broke US law on US soil. Furthermore, it seems that the plaintiff is the US government itself. It would certainly be more inconvenient (or probably even impossible) for US law enforcement to sue a canadian company in canada.
This article does not mention it at all, but Bodog.com was accepting online payments from residents of Maryland. That is how a MD state court was able to establish jurisdiction. Once that was done, they were able to take action against Verisign, a U.S.-based company.
That said, the Internet breaks down a lot of established jurisdictional law because a website can operate effectively anywhere the Internet exists, and as such can theoretically be subject to the laws of any web-connected jurisdiction. These seizures are just another example of how the law has not caught up to the basic operating procedures of the web.
There is a certain legal philosophy that says the Internet is operating under its own version of Maritime Law, which is to say its a non-national zone where the law is defined by consensus practice and then ratified by bordering or participating jurisdictions. International salvage rights emerged from common maritime practice, and are now generally recognized as legally binding.
That's in theory a good model for the web, but I'm very certain the US Government doesn't see it that way.