How is Google beholden to the Canadian court to perform actions outside it's jurisdiction? Surely the response from Google should be something like "Google.ca can comply in removing links from all web pages and databases it legally controls in the jurisdiction of the court but as this court has no jurisdiction over foreign partner corporations will not comply with ultra vires demands against third-party legal entities in other countries"?
I guess Google can choose to comply, what benefit is there for Google in that?
Aside OP lacks detail: it sounds naively like a company was butt-hurt because someone did marketing better than them and sold more re-branded product? Anyone got analysis of the actual harm committed?
>> it sounds naively like a company was butt-hurt because someone did marketing better than them and sold more re-branded product? Anyone got analysis of the actual harm committed?
I noticed there is a potential debate around IP law in this case, but I think it's best to leave that for another day. The use of Google to enforce the wishes of the legal system is prominent here.
> How is Google beholden to the Canadian court to perform actions outside it's jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction doesn't work the way you think it does, so the premise of your questions is false, but Google is “beholden to” the court because the court has the legal and practical power to impose further sanctions which do not rely on Google's cooperation if it's orders are not obeyed.
Google will comply for the same reason it has built the overly-abused (and extra-legal) automated-takedown tools for its search engine and YouTube in order to cater to Hollywood's wishes and to get the content contracts they were hoping to get from Hollywood.
Google will comply because it is an intermediary and does not lose power from this decision. It comes out of this decision with more power: the ability to pick and choose which laws it wishes to follow.
See this part:
> “Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction is, with respect, theoretical. As Fenlon J. noted, “Google acknowledges that most countries will likely recognize intellectual property rights and view the selling of pirated products as a legal wrong”
> In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.”
And see Micheal Geist's opinion in relation to that section:
> "This is a key aspect of the decision as the court has effectively concluded that those seeking global takedown orders do not need to canvass the laws in other countries to consider the potential for conflicts with their request. In doing so, it places the obligation on intermediaries such as Google and increases the likelihood that those companies will
pick and choose among the orders they are willing to follow."
This is a very dangerous precedent. Will Google have to remove LGBT organizations and information from Google worldwide because Russia asks them? Will all links mentioning woman driving have to be removed worldwide because some middle eastern country tells them to?
I feel like nations should be only allowed to have providers block content based on GEO location from the visitors IP address. They have no right limiting speech in America.
Copyright protection is something I agree with like I think if Google gets a DMCA it's removed worldwide anyways since they host in the US too... So that's been the norm anyways. But just scary other nations might try to use this to further restrict non-copyright related things.
But then again not all nations view intellectual property the same. Doesn't some nations not recognize software patents? Like I heard they are harder to do in Europe than in the US before. Maybe you could get a US judge to order your European competitors website removed even if completely legal is their own country. Then same for trademarks, you may get a trademark in the US but someone might have a trademark in China. For example, iPad Apple trademarked in the US, but in China, they had to pay $60 million to settle a trademark dispute.
I wonder if this will have a material effect on the value of Google. An ad firm / search engine forced to comply with these kinds of rulings is a new development in my opinion.
Reading the details of the case makes me insist "If you're a tech person (indie developer?), put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off, and tell me how you'd justify letting the scam continue" because it's pretty clear-cut to me. At least in this case and it remains to be seen if there will be other reasonable cases in the future.
What worries me is the precedent for each nation to be able to enforce it's idea of what speech is okay on google, for the whole world. Does google just have to keep exiting markets when they have a disagreement about something, or do they keep delisting any result internationally to not offend Russia, or India, or whatever market next wants something removed. It was simpler to say "we don't do that outside your jurisdiction" before this precedent. I have no doubt they will be able to figure it out on a case by case basis though, it just gets far more complicated.
The company was merely rebranding products they had purchased. Reselling rebranded equipment has a long legal history. No one was being ripped off as you put it, they were being paid for their goods.
We just had a Supreme Court win for the right of resale in the United States over rebranded refilled printer cartridges. Should Lexmark now be able to go to court in Canada and get the refillers delisted in the United States? It's literally the exact same issue.
> "If you're a tech person (indie developer?), put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off, and tell me how you'd justify letting the scam continue"
Because doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing if "something" doesn't solve the problem. What happens now when Datalink registers a .org to circumvent the block? Equustek are back to square one playing whack-a-mole, having achieved nothing and have forced Google to damage their own product in the process.
> put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off
No such person exists. If a physical item is being rebranded, then the item must have been purchased from the original manufacturer. This means that they got money for it, the same as if anyone else had purchased it. If they are somehow not getting money for it, then it's either a case of theft or it's not really a rebranded item because someone else made it.
Ugh. What does the court order actually read, anyone found it?
Is Google supposed to be able to somehow identify any web page operated by the named company, and de-list it? Any web page mentioning the infringing product? What?
Something to note when discussing music copyrights.
The industry is much less focused on what it can gain through litigation, and much more focused on what it loses by not aggressively protecting their copyrights.
I recall a conversation with a friend who managed PR for the RIAA when they went around suing teenagers for using P2P (yeah, imagine that PR job). They knew the mess it would cause, but they had to do it, because it sent a stronger message if they did nothing. IANAL, but there's something about if you knowingly let someone use your copyright without demanding they license it from you, you give up or lose the copyright at some point? (Edit: apparently this only applies to trademarks, not copyrights)
Labels have invested a heap of cash buying these rights, we shouldn't all be shocked when they act lawfully to protect them.
> there's something about if you knowingly let someone use your copyright without demanding they license it from you, you give up or lose the copyright at some point?
You are thinking of Trademarks. In copyrights there is no such thing, and international treaties make it unlikely there will be.
In Trademarks you have to use and defend it or it is gone. Thus companies make efforts to be seen defending their trademark: if they can show the court that they have been careful about defending their trademarks they have a stronger case when someone is genuinely infringing.
The RIAA does not lose any rights by not protecting their copyright. However they also know sending a message to kids when they are only involved in small illegal act can prevent them from getting bigger, which is consideration they need to think about.
> Labels have invested a heap of cash buying these rights
IP legislation needs to move into the 21st century where we have digital audio workstations and word processors and non-linear editors and many other modern conveniences that have brought the cost of producing and distributing content way way down. We need to send some sort of sunset signal to the labels and comparable organizations that they should stop investing so much in lawyerifying their content because the government is going to severely limit the enforcement of their claims to particular combinations of colors and sounds.
Come to think of it, maybe the enforcement period should be proportional to the development costs. E.g., how many man-hours at minimum wage + amortized equipment costs did it take to record that song? Okay, we'll enforce your copyright for three years. Oh, you spent gajillions producing a AAA-tier video game? You get 10 years.
Yeah, if you own a copyright or trademark and do not defend it, and can be shown to have known about it, then it becomes almost impossible to defend later on in court. Kind of like a muscle, if you don't use it, you lose it.
The problem here is traceability. The court ordered them to stop but can't enforce that order because it can't find the people behind the infringing product. This is yet another reason for stuff on the internet to be traceable by default. It seems odd that Google can link to a website, but even the courts can't track down the owners of the web site.
Stuff that isn't in Google effectively does not exist on the web since that's how people get around these days rather than to follow links from one page to another.
The 0.001% (if that) that uses DDG can be safely ignored.
A nation state is not just there to collect taxes but to provide some guarantees that the company can survive and conduct business in a certain way.
If you or Google were to move to a boat, who is preventing some nation state from bombing you. Who is preventing nations to not just raid Google servers and ban them as they wish. Other nations currently don't do that because of the backing of the nation Google is located in.
[+] [-] slantyyz|8 years ago|reply
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/naftacopyrightcomments/
[+] [-] MrZeus|8 years ago|reply
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/top-canadian-court-per...
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|8 years ago|reply
I guess Google can choose to comply, what benefit is there for Google in that?
Aside OP lacks detail: it sounds naively like a company was butt-hurt because someone did marketing better than them and sold more re-branded product? Anyone got analysis of the actual harm committed?
[+] [-] phkahler|8 years ago|reply
I noticed there is a potential debate around IP law in this case, but I think it's best to leave that for another day. The use of Google to enforce the wishes of the legal system is prominent here.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
Jurisdiction doesn't work the way you think it does, so the premise of your questions is false, but Google is “beholden to” the court because the court has the legal and practical power to impose further sanctions which do not rely on Google's cooperation if it's orders are not obeyed.
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabub24|8 years ago|reply
See this part:
> “Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction is, with respect, theoretical. As Fenlon J. noted, “Google acknowledges that most countries will likely recognize intellectual property rights and view the selling of pirated products as a legal wrong”
> In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.”
And see Micheal Geist's opinion in relation to that section:
> "This is a key aspect of the decision as the court has effectively concluded that those seeking global takedown orders do not need to canvass the laws in other countries to consider the potential for conflicts with their request. In doing so, it places the obligation on intermediaries such as Google and increases the likelihood that those companies will pick and choose among the orders they are willing to follow."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/global-internet-takedown-...
[+] [-] sfifs|8 years ago|reply
Because the court can impose sanctions that restrict Google's ability to earn revenue in Canada?
[+] [-] Keverw|8 years ago|reply
I feel like nations should be only allowed to have providers block content based on GEO location from the visitors IP address. They have no right limiting speech in America.
Copyright protection is something I agree with like I think if Google gets a DMCA it's removed worldwide anyways since they host in the US too... So that's been the norm anyways. But just scary other nations might try to use this to further restrict non-copyright related things.
But then again not all nations view intellectual property the same. Doesn't some nations not recognize software patents? Like I heard they are harder to do in Europe than in the US before. Maybe you could get a US judge to order your European competitors website removed even if completely legal is their own country. Then same for trademarks, you may get a trademark in the US but someone might have a trademark in China. For example, iPad Apple trademarked in the US, but in China, they had to pay $60 million to settle a trademark dispute.
[+] [-] kalmar|8 years ago|reply
Among "some middle eastern countries" that exist, only Saudi Arabia has that law, and they do not censor images of women driving.
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|8 years ago|reply
Reading the details of the case makes me insist "If you're a tech person (indie developer?), put yourself in the shoes of the person being ripped off, and tell me how you'd justify letting the scam continue" because it's pretty clear-cut to me. At least in this case and it remains to be seen if there will be other reasonable cases in the future.
[+] [-] mattnewton|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donatj|8 years ago|reply
We just had a Supreme Court win for the right of resale in the United States over rebranded refilled printer cartridges. Should Lexmark now be able to go to court in Canada and get the refillers delisted in the United States? It's literally the exact same issue.
[+] [-] Cakez0r|8 years ago|reply
Because doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing if "something" doesn't solve the problem. What happens now when Datalink registers a .org to circumvent the block? Equustek are back to square one playing whack-a-mole, having achieved nothing and have forced Google to damage their own product in the process.
[+] [-] pyre|8 years ago|reply
No such person exists. If a physical item is being rebranded, then the item must have been purchased from the original manufacturer. This means that they got money for it, the same as if anyone else had purchased it. If they are somehow not getting money for it, then it's either a case of theft or it's not really a rebranded item because someone else made it.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|8 years ago|reply
Is Google supposed to be able to somehow identify any web page operated by the named company, and de-list it? Any web page mentioning the infringing product? What?
[+] [-] qb45|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14657061
The article has a link to court documents.
[+] [-] mitchellshow|8 years ago|reply
The industry is much less focused on what it can gain through litigation, and much more focused on what it loses by not aggressively protecting their copyrights.
I recall a conversation with a friend who managed PR for the RIAA when they went around suing teenagers for using P2P (yeah, imagine that PR job). They knew the mess it would cause, but they had to do it, because it sent a stronger message if they did nothing. IANAL, but there's something about if you knowingly let someone use your copyright without demanding they license it from you, you give up or lose the copyright at some point? (Edit: apparently this only applies to trademarks, not copyrights)
Labels have invested a heap of cash buying these rights, we shouldn't all be shocked when they act lawfully to protect them.
[+] [-] bluGill|8 years ago|reply
You are thinking of Trademarks. In copyrights there is no such thing, and international treaties make it unlikely there will be.
In Trademarks you have to use and defend it or it is gone. Thus companies make efforts to be seen defending their trademark: if they can show the court that they have been careful about defending their trademarks they have a stronger case when someone is genuinely infringing.
The RIAA does not lose any rights by not protecting their copyright. However they also know sending a message to kids when they are only involved in small illegal act can prevent them from getting bigger, which is consideration they need to think about.
[+] [-] steamer25|8 years ago|reply
IP legislation needs to move into the 21st century where we have digital audio workstations and word processors and non-linear editors and many other modern conveniences that have brought the cost of producing and distributing content way way down. We need to send some sort of sunset signal to the labels and comparable organizations that they should stop investing so much in lawyerifying their content because the government is going to severely limit the enforcement of their claims to particular combinations of colors and sounds.
Come to think of it, maybe the enforcement period should be proportional to the development costs. E.g., how many man-hours at minimum wage + amortized equipment costs did it take to record that song? Okay, we'll enforce your copyright for three years. Oh, you spent gajillions producing a AAA-tier video game? You get 10 years.
[+] [-] syntheticnature|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TylerH|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phkahler|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
Traceable by whom? This is a recipe for speech suppression by harassment on a colossal scale.
[+] [-] larodi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thunderbong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redleggedfrog|8 years ago|reply
In other words, should this be for all the search engines?
[+] [-] jacquesm|8 years ago|reply
The 0.001% (if that) that uses DDG can be safely ignored.
[+] [-] millzlane|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyager|8 years ago|reply
How long until Google moves to a boat nation or something? I'd live on a boat if I could skip out on income taxes.
[+] [-] sacheendra|8 years ago|reply
If you or Google were to move to a boat, who is preventing some nation state from bombing you. Who is preventing nations to not just raid Google servers and ban them as they wish. Other nations currently don't do that because of the backing of the nation Google is located in.