Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide(theglobeandmail.com)
theglobeandmail.com
Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/bc-court-seeking-global-reach-orders-google-to-block-sites/article19212708/
108 comments
This wouldn't fly in the USA:
"It is clear from the record that Google was never named as a party to the suit, was never served with process, never waived or accepted process, and never made an appearance in the suit before the expunction order was entered. Nothing in the record establishes that Google stands in privity to the commission or to Jackson. Accordingly, we hold that Google was not a party to the suit and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders against Google." [1]
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07402727525/texas...
"It is clear from the record that Google was never named as a party to the suit, was never served with process, never waived or accepted process, and never made an appearance in the suit before the expunction order was entered. Nothing in the record establishes that Google stands in privity to the commission or to Jackson. Accordingly, we hold that Google was not a party to the suit and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders against Google." [1]
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07402727525/texas...
Some part of me wonders what would happen if they were to turn off Google to Canada for a day and list the judge's phone number as the person to complain to.
(Probably one very angry judge, but I wonder...)
(Probably one very angry judge, but I wonder...)
I've been party to a court session where the defendant tried to pull something like that. Let's just say I would advise against it, 'career limiting move' does not even begin to describe it.
Man, I'd love to hear this story.
No doubt, but I don't think it would be appropriate to stick the knife in even further. The case was a complete victory and we ended up drafting the settlement agreement one sided. There is nothing to gain by further destroying the reputation of the other side. Live & let live. I'm fairly sure they learned their lesson ;)
I do remember making a very explicit 'note to self': Do not under any circumstances piss off a judge during a court session.
Feel free to ignore that, if you do please do blog about it.
I do remember making a very explicit 'note to self': Do not under any circumstances piss off a judge during a court session.
Feel free to ignore that, if you do please do blog about it.
Sounds like something from here would apply:
"Contempt of Court includes the following behaviours:
- Fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding
- Refuses or neglects to obey a subpoena
- Willfully disobeys a process or order of the Court
- Interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the authority or dignity of the Court"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#Canada
"Contempt of Court includes the following behaviours:
- Fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding
- Refuses or neglects to obey a subpoena
- Willfully disobeys a process or order of the Court
- Interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the authority or dignity of the Court"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#Canada
I agree, out and out Contempt of Court.
Further, the Judge themselves is in charge of deciding whether Contempt of Court has occurred.
No possible jury to convince or appeal to, just the judge.
They can have you imprisoned in under a day.
Contempt of Court is very serious.
Further, the Judge themselves is in charge of deciding whether Contempt of Court has occurred.
No possible jury to convince or appeal to, just the judge.
They can have you imprisoned in under a day.
Contempt of Court is very serious.
They can have you imprisoned in under a day.
Only if you're in their jurisdiction. And Google isn't a person to jail. And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person.
However, it would be better to state the argument given by the law professor in the article: "what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database". Find something that the judge cares about personally, and you'll find a country that opposes it. Google can also complain that it's being targetted - why not Bing? Yahoo? Any other search providers? Does Wikipedia have a page for the company? What about reseller companies, that resell the competitor - not only are they facilitators, they're witting facilitators? What about sites with user reviews? At what point do we draw the moral line about shooting the messenger?
Only if you're in their jurisdiction. And Google isn't a person to jail. And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person.
However, it would be better to state the argument given by the law professor in the article: "what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database". Find something that the judge cares about personally, and you'll find a country that opposes it. Google can also complain that it's being targetted - why not Bing? Yahoo? Any other search providers? Does Wikipedia have a page for the company? What about reseller companies, that resell the competitor - not only are they facilitators, they're witting facilitators? What about sites with user reviews? At what point do we draw the moral line about shooting the messenger?
[deleted]
And Google isn't a person to jail.
And corporations have a way of making these things not
attributable to any one person.
> That is in fact their raison d'être.
This looks like an example of @ziobrando's "Bullshit asymmetry principle" in action. You whip out some bullshit (unless I'm really misunderstanding what you are saying) in a one liner with no citations, but to refute it, someone would have to talk about the history of corporations, legal theories around them, compare and contrast with societies that never developed a similar idea (an interesting take on things: http://www.amazon.com/Long-Divergence-Islamic-Held-Middle-eb... ), and so on and so forth. That's a lot more effort than simply spouting some snark.
This looks like an example of @ziobrando's "Bullshit asymmetry principle" in action. You whip out some bullshit (unless I'm really misunderstanding what you are saying) in a one liner with no citations, but to refute it, someone would have to talk about the history of corporations, legal theories around them, compare and contrast with societies that never developed a similar idea (an interesting take on things: http://www.amazon.com/Long-Divergence-Islamic-Held-Middle-eb... ), and so on and so forth. That's a lot more effort than simply spouting some snark.
Thank you. I have long been trying to pin down the description of, and term for, that principle. http://t.bigboxcar.com/post/87256202522/bullshit-asymmetry-p...
There's still a corollary in need of succinct definition/labeling: in context of a casual discussion, you make a fair point in a one liner with no citation, then someone criticizes it (in effect) for lacking peer-reviewed encyclopedic depth & thoroughness. (Ex.: "this car does 0 to 60MPH in 10 seconds" "uh, NO, you're not taking relativity into account! and you didn't cite any certified testing labs!" and from social context you feel compelled to elaborate on why your comment was sufficient, while the other loudly labels you a liar, ignores your objections, and marches off to disrupt other sane conversations.)
There's still a corollary in need of succinct definition/labeling: in context of a casual discussion, you make a fair point in a one liner with no citation, then someone criticizes it (in effect) for lacking peer-reviewed encyclopedic depth & thoroughness. (Ex.: "this car does 0 to 60MPH in 10 seconds" "uh, NO, you're not taking relativity into account! and you didn't cite any certified testing labs!" and from social context you feel compelled to elaborate on why your comment was sufficient, while the other loudly labels you a liar, ignores your objections, and marches off to disrupt other sane conversations.)
Which is why I'm not going to challenge the accusation of 'bullshit'. I don't think the principle applies here.
It does suggest I need to clarify that I believe that it is both the great strength and the great weakness of corporations.
It does suggest I need to clarify that I believe that it is both the great strength and the great weakness of corporations.
> the punishments for various crimes were originally intended to punish natural persons and have never been sufficiently adapted to punish corporations
Good point! :)
Jail == cannot conduct business for X years?
Good point! :)
Jail == cannot conduct business for X years?
Russia mostly uses Yandex anyway :)
Contempt of the law by the judge should be a defense against contempt of court. In an ideal world, that is.
The lawyers made a compelling case that the law allows for the actions taken by the course, so the judge followed it. That's how the court system works.
Yes, how could doxxing the judge possibly backfire? /s
Will the US extradite someone to Canada for contempt of court?
They could simply seize the assets of Google Montreal.
I imagine Google going dark in Canada would hurt Canada more than it's worth (playing out the fantasy scenario). I don't just mean search, but at this point there'll be plenty of companies that rely on Google Apps, including gmail.
Yes, but the law will generally not bend so readily to blackmail as people think it will.
Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook and other global IT companies are at an advantage here because they can always pack up and move but if they start pissing off the legal system in the larger economies it may very well backfire.
For 'brick and mortar' companies such tricks are a lot harder to pull off. Also, to protect against mutual damage governments can enter into collectives which have a lot more power against multi-nationals than any single country.
If a judge orders you 'x', you can appeal but in the meantime it is usually wise do 'x', unless you've very carefully weighed the risks and any fall-out and you decide to make a stand.
It's quite possible this is a case worth doing that for.
Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook and other global IT companies are at an advantage here because they can always pack up and move but if they start pissing off the legal system in the larger economies it may very well backfire.
For 'brick and mortar' companies such tricks are a lot harder to pull off. Also, to protect against mutual damage governments can enter into collectives which have a lot more power against multi-nationals than any single country.
If a judge orders you 'x', you can appeal but in the meantime it is usually wise do 'x', unless you've very carefully weighed the risks and any fall-out and you decide to make a stand.
It's quite possible this is a case worth doing that for.
Oh, for sure. I'm just playing out a fantasy scenario. I imagine in the google offices that making Canada dark in response would have been passed as a joke, but no-one would seriously think it. And even if they did think of it seriously, the legal team would stomp them before they could do anything.
Probably a lot of angry users, anti-trust proceedings, and a bunch of other stuff they don't want.
I think one inevitable fairly result would be many other national governments observing Google trying to use its market position in order to bully the courts and overpower the rule of law in a country, and swiftly passing legislation ordering Google's break up as a company so that it can never do it again.
They should delist the other guy as well so it does appear they are taking sides. Delisting the Canadian government might be worthwhile too
Nothing. Google is not Apple or Microsoft. It's not hardware they are selling. There are many positive things but there's a big downside too: A new search engine, is a click away. No one has to sweat about it.
If 5% of the clicks actually like the new search engine, then Google would have lost 5% of it's clients in a day.
If 5% of the clicks actually like the new search engine, then Google would have lost 5% of it's clients in a day.
That would just lead to a shareholder lawsuit and more traffic to DDG, Bing and Blekko.
Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site.
I am not convinced by that line of thoughts, though.
> Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called "Morgan Jack" in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.
But Google would be the only restaurant on the whole planet in that analogy.
I am not convinced by that line of thoughts, though.
> Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called "Morgan Jack" in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.
But Google would be the only restaurant on the whole planet in that analogy.
To further the analogy - it would be like telling McDonalds to not sell food to this person but ignoring In'n'Out Burger and Burger King.
I understand the point about forcing Google to stop sellin advertising to this person. I am confused about how a disappeared person continues to pay for services from Google; why didn't anyone get a court order to force Google to release information about the infringer?
{edit: i did not downvote parent. I am not sure why parent has been downvoted}
I understand the point about forcing Google to stop sellin advertising to this person. I am confused about how a disappeared person continues to pay for services from Google; why didn't anyone get a court order to force Google to release information about the infringer?
{edit: i did not downvote parent. I am not sure why parent has been downvoted}
Google isn't selling advertising to him. Their only involvement as far as I can tell is that his sites show up in organic search results.
Thanks for the clarification!
I hadn't heard about this before today and doing a bit of research it sounds like something that has been going on for years - since at least 2007 - and there has been some really dodgy practice. (But I still don't see why Google is targeted here).
http://www.rudy2.com/datalink-equustek/
And it seems that Datalink have made some effort to clarify the situation: http://1770-kf3.com/
> We would like to clarify that DataLink no longer sell/promote the following Canadian manufacturer’s products. “Equustek Solutions Inc.’s products (www.equustek.com), as listed below, are no longer distributed by Datalink:”
DL2000 DL3500 DL4000 DL4500 DL6000 DL7000 EQ7000 DL-PC DL-PCI DL-PCIe DL-PC/104 DL-STED EQ-DCM
“Customers of these products should contact Equustek directly at the website above or toll free at 1-888-387-3787"
I don't know this area so I have no idea what I need to type into a search box to get a Datalink result turning up where I should be getting an Equustek result. (And I'm trying across different search engines).
I hadn't heard about this before today and doing a bit of research it sounds like something that has been going on for years - since at least 2007 - and there has been some really dodgy practice. (But I still don't see why Google is targeted here).
http://www.rudy2.com/datalink-equustek/
And it seems that Datalink have made some effort to clarify the situation: http://1770-kf3.com/
> We would like to clarify that DataLink no longer sell/promote the following Canadian manufacturer’s products. “Equustek Solutions Inc.’s products (www.equustek.com), as listed below, are no longer distributed by Datalink:”
DL2000 DL3500 DL4000 DL4500 DL6000 DL7000 EQ7000 DL-PC DL-PCI DL-PCIe DL-PC/104 DL-STED EQ-DCM
“Customers of these products should contact Equustek directly at the website above or toll free at 1-888-387-3787"
I don't know this area so I have no idea what I need to type into a search box to get a Datalink result turning up where I should be getting an Equustek result. (And I'm trying across different search engines).
I wonder if this will eventually lead to google making use of a decentralized federated search strategy where they provide the technology to everyone who wants their site to be findable by means of google, but do not actually produce the results themselves. From a technological pov that would certainly be far more challenging than their current system, but it might make them less of a target legally.
> Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site.
Google is in the ad business in the same way a newspaper or a magazine is: Selling ads is the major source of income. Every time someone says that Google is an ad business, for calibration remind yourself that so is the New York Times.
Anyway, Google linking (in the regular results section, not ads) to the website of a given business is similar to a newspaper or magazine stating in editorial content that a certain business exists and what its address is. That is obviously not "selling ads" in any way, shape or form.
Google is in the ad business in the same way a newspaper or a magazine is: Selling ads is the major source of income. Every time someone says that Google is an ad business, for calibration remind yourself that so is the New York Times.
Anyway, Google linking (in the regular results section, not ads) to the website of a given business is similar to a newspaper or magazine stating in editorial content that a certain business exists and what its address is. That is obviously not "selling ads" in any way, shape or form.
Yes, everyone would do well to remember the NYT is in the ad business too.
Well Google is the only one that matters. Sure Bing and DDG exist and you can sometimes bump into a person using either of those, but for majority of the population, Google is the Internet, for better or worse.
The issue is that a lower court issued a temporary injunction against Morgan Jack to stop selling their products in British Columbia while the issue was being sorted out at trial. Morgan Jack then disappeared "into the cloud" and continued to sell their products online, via links to their products in Google search results. Equustek then claimed that Morgan Jack was still in violation of the court order to stop selling in BC, and that's the issue that has gone to the BC Supreme Court: Is Google "doing business" in BC when it presents Morgan Jack's links to BC residents? The court ruled that under the current rules, Google is indeed doing business in BC, and can be ordered to remove links to Morgan Jack by a BC court.
Earlier, Google already agreed to remove their website, as defined by some 350 urls. But the defendant started auto generating new urls, which had to go back to the judge (I think) to be blocked. Google was fine with blocking specific urls worldwide by court order.
Now, the ruling requires google to block them, even if they change the url. That's the new upgrade that required the ruling.
Now, the ruling requires google to block them, even if they change the url. That's the new upgrade that required the ruling.
How about drawing parallels to a similar situation? A child porn ring manages to stay online via using ever-changing URLs and relying on Google's indexing. Prosecutors of course go after the people maintaining the network. But Google still has a moral and legal obligation to stop indexing the network if feasible.
I'd say at the end of the day it's a matter of degree. In both situations, a content provider has been deemed illegal is leveraging Google to stay afloat. But while in one case Google's obligation seems like a no-brainer due to its heinous nature, the other elicits less passion.
I'd say at the end of the day it's a matter of degree. In both situations, a content provider has been deemed illegal is leveraging Google to stay afloat. But while in one case Google's obligation seems like a no-brainer due to its heinous nature, the other elicits less passion.
Using that logic...
Russia can ban all LBGT sites on Google because it has been deemed illegal.
Russia can ban all LBGT sites on Google because it has been deemed illegal.
That's not my logic at all. The GP asked what this has to do with Google. I'm saying there are clearly scenarios where Google has a responsibility to limit access to content, even content they don't provide. In my opinion, it is not tenable to say "let the courts go after the child pornographers, but Google shouldn't be asked to block access to their content".
And notably, I'm not even arguing that Google should ever be ordered to block sites worldwide. The GP's argument has NOTHING to do with the worldwide nature, on the contrary, that it is worldwide was only parenthetical in the comment. The same argument would stand even if the decision only affected Canada. It argues against involving Google at all, and that's what I'm debating.
And notably, I'm not even arguing that Google should ever be ordered to block sites worldwide. The GP's argument has NOTHING to do with the worldwide nature, on the contrary, that it is worldwide was only parenthetical in the comment. The same argument would stand even if the decision only affected Canada. It argues against involving Google at all, and that's what I'm debating.
Justice systems the world over have been itching for a way to force this whole interweb thing to fall in line for more than a decade, but they couldn't find a solid-enough target in a quickly-changing landscape. Now that things have matured, they are going after the big established players: Google for search/advertising, Facebook for social activity, Twitter for censorship/regulated speech, Amazon for commerce, Youtube for copyright. It will happen more and more and there is no way around it. The classic cyberpunk countermeasure of finding a friendly nation to hide behind just doesn't work in the long run, as Sweden has proven with the PirateBay case.
It might be an unpopular opinion here, but I believe the rise of a global network will inevitably force the rise of a global government. A higher authority is now necessary to sort out this sort of problems in a consistent way. It's the natural evolution we've seen in the past when trade and knowledge networks reached a dimension where differences in legislation made it too difficult for them to flow. The question is: how do we define this global government? Which interests will it represent in practice? I think it's something we should embrace, because otherwise we will be forced to accept it at the point of a non-metaphorical gun.
It might be an unpopular opinion here, but I believe the rise of a global network will inevitably force the rise of a global government. A higher authority is now necessary to sort out this sort of problems in a consistent way. It's the natural evolution we've seen in the past when trade and knowledge networks reached a dimension where differences in legislation made it too difficult for them to flow. The question is: how do we define this global government? Which interests will it represent in practice? I think it's something we should embrace, because otherwise we will be forced to accept it at the point of a non-metaphorical gun.
I expect at least in the medium term it will look more like a global (or at least multilateral) treaty, rather than a global government. But I agree that now is the time to think about how we could like such a thing to be structured. As much as some people would like it to be, the internet can't be the new wild west forever. It will be regulated. The hope is to have it regulated in a fair, consistent, and manageable (minimal?) manner.
As a web-based business owner, I find the prospect of having to comply with an increasing list of obscure regulations from various different entities rather overwhelming. Something comprehensive could be a relief, if it's done right. (Of course, there will still be differences between countries, but perhaps an overarching treaty could at least limit their impact.)
As a web-based business owner, I find the prospect of having to comply with an increasing list of obscure regulations from various different entities rather overwhelming. Something comprehensive could be a relief, if it's done right. (Of course, there will still be differences between countries, but perhaps an overarching treaty could at least limit their impact.)
Good luck regulating my encrypted anonymized connection.
The regulation would be on the other end. Tor won't help you when your favorite site shuts down because they can't comply with conflicting court orders from Canada and Australia (or wherever).
Sure it will -- they could run it (at some loss of bandwidth) as a hidden service. When "my favorite site" gets court orders, they can take down their official server, and spin it up somewhere else behind a Tor hidden service.
Yeah, I know -- Hidden Services need some work. As I understand, the problem is solvable, it just needs a few more heads thinking about it to get solved.
Yeah, I know -- Hidden Services need some work. As I understand, the problem is solvable, it just needs a few more heads thinking about it to get solved.
Variety of laws ensures diversification which protects against and limits the fallout from legal mistakes. It also allows humanity to experiment and learn faster than a single monolithic legal system would permit.
I think that is one of the principles the United States was supposed to be based upon. However...
I don't much like the idea of a global government either, but in effect that is probably what we will see evolving. Consider: it is the opinion of the IMF that trading blocks are becoming more relevant than governments; facilitated by the planned substitution of SDRs for the US dollar as the world reserve currency. The problem with all this is that the tighter coupling of economies and governances makes everything more brittle, more subject to phase transitions leading to severe problems. Topping it off is too many people believing that current political and environmental problems are cyclical, rather than structural. As an example, printing more money is a temporary bandaid when there are structural problems.
Why would a justice system care? Or do you mean government?
Imagine you were a judge tasked with ruling on a case like this. You know the rules force you to tell Google to stop acting like it does, but you also know that your laws are supposed to stop at your borders, and in any case forcing such a global operation to comply with your ruling is almost like fighting windmills. Wouldn't that bother you? Of course it would.
If I recall, the issue of jurisdiction isn't "does any of the activity happen outside our borders" (law stopping at the border) but "does any of the activity happen inside our borders" (activity in a jurisdiction giving those courts standing).
> but you also know that your laws are supposed to stop at your borders
There's a number of jurisdictions where that is not strictly true. Including the US (US citizens are subject to US tax law regardless where they live), and a number of European countries.
There's a number of jurisdictions where that is not strictly true. Including the US (US citizens are subject to US tax law regardless where they live), and a number of European countries.
This shit needs to end. Even the obvious jurisdiction overreach aside, what happened is the court ordering Google - a party not in any way involved in the conflict at hand - to withhold information from the public. The idea that this "western" form of censorship is in any way better than, say, the blocks on porn in Pakistan or political censorship in Russia is either extremely short-sighted or simply serves somebody's interests (as in case of the plaintiff lawyer here). How it is OK for anyone to have such authority is beyond me.
It's not only about free speech. Different cultural, social and economic conditions mean different countries live by different laws.
I don't know the circumstances of the case, but it seems plausible that given an opportunity a German, Emirati, Chinese or Brazilian court may reach a different conclusion as to the legality of Morgan Jack's business. Countries are known to have very different labor and copyright laws. It's plausible that some circumstances (e.g. mistreatment, authorship, limitations on copyright transferability, nuances and even legality of the contract the parties had entered) could make courts elsewhere consider Morgan Jack to be the rightful owner of the design.
What if such a court elsewhere made a contradictory ruling and also demanded from Google that it be enforced worldwide?
I don't know the circumstances of the case, but it seems plausible that given an opportunity a German, Emirati, Chinese or Brazilian court may reach a different conclusion as to the legality of Morgan Jack's business. Countries are known to have very different labor and copyright laws. It's plausible that some circumstances (e.g. mistreatment, authorship, limitations on copyright transferability, nuances and even legality of the contract the parties had entered) could make courts elsewhere consider Morgan Jack to be the rightful owner of the design.
What if such a court elsewhere made a contradictory ruling and also demanded from Google that it be enforced worldwide?
At a guess, this is the risk you take by doing business in two or more jurisdictions: you might be subjected to two mutually-incompatible rulings, in which case your only alternative is to stop doing business in at least one of those jurisdictions.
Assuming courts you deal with don't overreach like the B.C. court just did, you can easily resolve this problem by complying with each law within each respective jurisdiction.
This is made easier by the fact that your company is usually represented by separate local legal entities whose business is within each jurisdiction.
This is made easier by the fact that your company is usually represented by separate local legal entities whose business is within each jurisdiction.
Which jurisdiction is a web page in? Where it's hosted, where it's controlled from, where its ads are served from, where it's read, where its payment processing is done?
A website may be complex enough and distributed enough to straddle multiple jurisdictions (this isn't an entirely new situation though since similar issues came up with radio spectrum regulations).
The bottom line is this: your jurisdiction extends as far as your control. A court may be able to issue injunctions against the systems which are located on its jurisdiction which may only be a subset of systems supporting a given site. In places where it is legal, it may also censor the internet. If everything from hosting, through advertising, payments and readership are outside the jurisdiction then it can do nothing directly and must resort to seeking assistance from foreign jurisdictions. I'd say in those situations it is entirely appropriate.
The bottom line is this: your jurisdiction extends as far as your control. A court may be able to issue injunctions against the systems which are located on its jurisdiction which may only be a subset of systems supporting a given site. In places where it is legal, it may also censor the internet. If everything from hosting, through advertising, payments and readership are outside the jurisdiction then it can do nothing directly and must resort to seeking assistance from foreign jurisdictions. I'd say in those situations it is entirely appropriate.
Jurisdiction does not (necessarily) follow national borders.
The US claims jurisdiction over US citizens worldwide for certain tax matters, for example.
And Norway has laws intended to let Norwegian courts pursue residents that travel abroad to take advantage of legal systems that are bad at pursuing sex crimes against children even though the crime takes part outside Norwegian borders.
Many countries have laws for which the courts jurisdiction is either worldwide, or substantially different from the national borders.
The US claims jurisdiction over US citizens worldwide for certain tax matters, for example.
And Norway has laws intended to let Norwegian courts pursue residents that travel abroad to take advantage of legal systems that are bad at pursuing sex crimes against children even though the crime takes part outside Norwegian borders.
Many countries have laws for which the courts jurisdiction is either worldwide, or substantially different from the national borders.
I fail to see how this judgment is any different from those where the courts ordered ISPs to block sites like the piratebay. If you're ok with one kind of interference about third parties linking to stuff you should probably be ok with all of them, and if you're against interference in this case you should probably be against interference in general.
It's very hard to argue consistently that the one is ok and the other is not. I strongly believe any kind of interference is bad. If you have beef with someone sue them, don't involve the facilitator.
It's very hard to argue consistently that the one is ok and the other is not. I strongly believe any kind of interference is bad. If you have beef with someone sue them, don't involve the facilitator.
I think the difference here is that the court is asking Google to remove the links worldwide, not just for people accessing Google from within Canada.
There was a similar case a few years ago with Yahoo vs France, iirc France prevailed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/04/news/04iht-yahoo.2.t.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/04/news/04iht-yahoo.2.t.html
Haha. What a hilariously nonsensical ruling. The United States should quickly issue a ruling that expressly forbids Google from blocking sites in Canada. Then we can fight over it!
As a I would like to see all countries in which Google has an office claim their nation's full tax rate on Google's worldwide revenue. All rates combined I think it might be possible for Google to owe ten dollars in taxes per dollars of revenue.
As a I would like to see all countries in which Google has an office claim their nation's full tax rate on Google's worldwide revenue. All rates combined I think it might be possible for Google to owe ten dollars in taxes per dollars of revenue.
There's already a US law limiting the extent to which UK libel damages are enforceable.
Direct link to the ruling: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht...
Not that new. Most of the DMCA take down notices are also executed worldwide.
DMCA take downs are only effective because Google is a US company. If I have a company in e.g. Slovenia, DMCA is ineffective, and they would have to go through Slovenian courts to take down the website (unless they just seize the domain).
Yes and no. Some countries (Canada being one) have treaties with the US that let court judgements in one country be enforced in the other. So even if you have no assets in the US or income from the US, a US court decision could still affect you if you live in such a country.
Of course, most internet companies do do some business in the US.
Of course, most internet companies do do some business in the US.
Good point. Obviously Google does considerably more business in the US than Canada, but it's still bizarre for any one country's courts to make decisions that directly impact the entire world.
Maybe it's time for an international treaty on Internet regulation to spell out exactly what powers any given nation has. (Although such a thing would probably have the potential to go very wrong.)
Maybe it's time for an international treaty on Internet regulation to spell out exactly what powers any given nation has. (Although such a thing would probably have the potential to go very wrong.)
DMCA takedowns are not court orders. You're not actually compelled to comply with them at all, but you lose access to the safe harbor provision if you don't.
So I am going to assume that the plaintiff will also be filing against Bing, Yahoo and all the other search engines individually too? Cos you know, Google is not the only search engine out there...
It's more likely that, if this trend continues, Google itself will eventually drag competitors through the courts to force them to comply with rules they are forced to obey. Or they might lobby the US Congress or EU Parliament to pass laws that "clarify the position of all search engines".
It had occurred to me that the (apparent) failure of the plaintiff, the engineering company, to file complaints against the other companies providing search engines might be a factor in an appeal against the injunction by Google.
As others have commented, I suspect something like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that replaced a previous court dating from the League of Nations times, may arise.
Meanwhile, the legal profession in Canada will experience a welcome increase in civil law work and fees!
As others have commented, I suspect something like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that replaced a previous court dating from the League of Nations times, may arise.
Meanwhile, the legal profession in Canada will experience a welcome increase in civil law work and fees!
The Internet is going to become a country-by-country intranet at this rate.
The world wide web. Off topic, but I think we tend to forget that most legislation affects websites. Nothing keeps you from writing your own version of DNS, your own protocol (who says it has to be HTTP) etc. That's the beauty of TCP/IP! :)
They'll just start writing laws regulating TCP/IP instead. They already do in China, after all.
There is no technical answer to this sort of problems.
There is no technical answer to this sort of problems.
At this rate google is going to shit.
By the time every court in the world is done removing all the stuff they want the only thing left will be cats.
There won't be any porn though that is too controversial.
By the time every court in the world is done removing all the stuff they want the only thing left will be cats.
There won't be any porn though that is too controversial.
The article is quite sparse on details of what, exactly the website is selling. Has anyone found a link to it?
Plaintiff: http://www.equustek.com/
Defendant: http://www.gw1000.com/
Defendant: http://www.gw1000.com/
tl;dr British Columbia Supreme Court determines that Google is conducting business in British Columbia, despite no servers, facilities or employees in the province, and can be ordered to remove links that infringe on the plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
What happens to Google if they comply in all of Canada but do not comply for the rest of the world?
It would be cheaper for Google to offer specialist SEO and web design help for these aggrieved parties - "here's how you get your story out and ranked higher than the attack sites" - than to fight legal cases through the courts. Although I am pleased thay're taking the cases to court to defend their position.
It would be cheaper for Google to offer specialist SEO and web design help for these aggrieved parties - "here's how you get your story out and ranked higher than the attack sites" - than to fight legal cases through the courts. Although I am pleased thay're taking the cases to court to defend their position.
Google was the defendant in this case, so they had little choice but to go to court. Let alone the consequences to their Canadian business, US and Canadian courts cooperate in enforcing judgements, so they couldn't ignore it regardless. (Of course they are choosing to appeal, which is optional but obviously a good idea given the pain this precedent could cause.)
> Google was the defendant in this case
No they weren't. In fact, the decision linked at the top of the thread specifically refers to Google and Google Canada as "non-parties".
No they weren't. In fact, the decision linked at the top of the thread specifically refers to Google and Google Canada as "non-parties".
Ah, right you are. Google was a non-party, but was named and served:
"Non-parties affected by Mareva injunctions are not normally before the Court, because applications of that kind are brought without notice. Google was named in this application, served with materials, and attended the hearing."
So the rest of the comment stands, but you are correct that they were not a defendant.
So the rest of the comment stands, but you are correct that they were not a defendant.
You would have to think that ceasing to do business in BC would be an option competitive with accepting rulings like this in the future.
Why only google? is that the only search engine that displays those links?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you think this is bad, just wait until July 1 and CASL gets introduced. As a Canadian I'd like to apologize for this:
http://www.marketingprofs.com/chirp/2014/25293/how-canadas-a...
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/casl-lcap.htm
http://www.marketingprofs.com/chirp/2014/25293/how-canadas-a...
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/casl-lcap.htm
Having consent, a person who can be replied to instead of ano-reply and a mandatory unsubscribe doesn't sound so bad to me. What are the main arguments against it?
Mandatory unsubscribe is totally fine, obviously.
But CASL includes making confirmation, welcome and update emails opt-in, or else risking an up to $10 million dollar fine.
Yes, really.
Even if you're not a Canadian business, this will apply to you if you email Canadians.
Yes, really.
Say goodbye to your opt-out email drip courses.
But CASL includes making confirmation, welcome and update emails opt-in, or else risking an up to $10 million dollar fine.
Yes, really.
Even if you're not a Canadian business, this will apply to you if you email Canadians.
Yes, really.
Say goodbye to your opt-out email drip courses.
Wouldn't confirmation and welcome emails fall under "implied consent"?
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com500/infograph3.htm
Seems like update emails might too, depending on the circumstances.
Seems like update emails might too, depending on the circumstances.
Is Canadian court trying to change the definition of so called "Internet"..?
This is insane.
I am pretty sure Google is not going to comply.
What happens if Google just says no? Fines?
Hahahaha, that would be a good one. Probably extremely high fines. It's not the way a democracy works to say no. The appeal was the only sensible way to go.
The problem is not this case per se. The problem Google faces is the precedent. If this goes through, every one who thinks that there is an irregularity about a website will go to court in order to bring it down from google.
If many websites stop being listed on Google, people might start looking for new search engines and... You can imagine how the story goes from there...
The problem is not this case per se. The problem Google faces is the precedent. If this goes through, every one who thinks that there is an irregularity about a website will go to court in order to bring it down from google.
If many websites stop being listed on Google, people might start looking for new search engines and... You can imagine how the story goes from there...
"No"
now what?
Sorry Canada, I like you guys, but you don't really get to make rulings for everybody else.
now what?
Sorry Canada, I like you guys, but you don't really get to make rulings for everybody else.
The plaintiff, Equustek Solutions Inc., says the main defendant, Morgan Jack, sells networking devices that infringe on their trademark.
The defendant sells these things online; the plaintiff wants his websites to be dereferenced from Google.
The court agreed and asked Google to remove the links on all its properties worldwide (not just google.ca).
But what does Google have to do with this?
Why does the plaintiff not go after the infringer, to shut his websites down and/or fine him and/or get him in prison?
Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called "Morgan Jack" in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.