Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
from the that-seems-like-a-problem dept
Almost exactly a year ago we wrote about a troubling lawsuit in British Columbia, where a court ruled that Google needed to block access to a website globally. The case involved one company accusing another of selling counterfeit or copied equipment, and despite Google not even being a party to the case, said that Google needed to make sure no one could find the site in question via Google anywhere in the world. As we noted, this had tremendously problematic consequences. For example, China doesn't think anyone should be able to learn about the protests in Tiananmen Square. Can it now order Google to remove all links to such references globally? That result seems crazy. And, of course, there was a separate issue of how the court even had jurisdiction over Google, seeing as it does not have any operations, staff or servers in British Columbia. Google stepped in to protest the injunction at the appeals court.Unfortunately, the court has now ruled against Google, using the same sort of logic the lower court did -- basically arguing that because Google is available in British Columbia, the court has jurisdiction, and because it's trying to stop what it deems to be illegal actions from reaching Canada's shores, it has every right to order Google to block things worldwide, lest someone from British Columbia decide to type "google.com" into their browser to avoid the "google.ca." On the question of "doing business" in BC, the appeals court basically accepts the lower court's confused understanding of things:
While Google does not have servers or offices in the Province and does not have resident staff here, I agree with the chambers judge’s conclusion that key parts of Google’s business are carried on here. The judge concentrated on the advertising aspects of Google’s business in making her findings. In my view, it can also be said that the gathering of information through proprietary web crawler software (“Googlebot”) takes place in British Columbia. This active process of obtaining data that resides in the Province or is the property of individuals in British Columbia is a key part of Google’s business.In other words, if you don't want to be subject to the laws of BC (with control over your entire global operations) don't index websites based in BC? That's crazy. While I doubt it will happen, it's got to be tempting for some at Google to just say "okay, no more Google for BC or any website in BC."
Google says that even if it is concluded that it carries on business in British Columbia, the injunction was not properly granted, because it did not relate to the specific business activities that Google carries on in the Province. In my view, the business carried on in British Columbia is an integral part of Google’s overall operations. Its success as a search engine depends on collecting data from websites throughout the world (including British Columbia) and providing search results (accompanied by targeted advertising) throughout the world (including British Columbia). The business conducted in British Columbia, in short, is the same business as is targeted by the injunction.
Now as for the nutty idea that a court in BC has jurisdiction over all of Google's global operations, again, the court doesn't seem even remotely concerned about that. It's response is basically "yeah, so?"
Google raises the specter of it being subjected to restrictive orders from courts in all parts of the world, each concerned with its own domestic law. I agree with the chambers judge that it is the world-wide nature of Google’s business and not any defect in the law that gives rise to that possibility. As well, however, the threat of multi-jurisdictional control over Google’s operations is, in my opinion, overstated. Courts must, in exercising their powers, consider many factors other than territorial competence and the existence of in personam jurisdiction over the parties. Courts must exercise considerable restraint in granting remedies that have international ramifications.And it notes that previous cases have said that, sure, BC courts have "worldwide jurisdiction."
At one time the courts of this Province refrained from granting injunctions that enjoined activities outside of British Columbia.... In 1988, however, the English Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to issue a worldwide Mareva injunction.... It is now over 25 years since the Supreme Court of British Columbia first issued a worldwide injunction.... The jurisdiction to do so was re-confirmed .... and is, today, well-established.Google, quite reasonably, points out that while injunctions make sense against parties that actually break the law, it makes no sense to issue an injunction against a third party that has nothing to do with the party that actually broke the law. The court goes on a long and winding road saying "sure, but... in this case, it's okay."
Finally, the court addresses another concern raised by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, noting that banning access to a website worldwide has serious free speech consequences. Once again, the court says "sure, but, we don't care in this case."
For that reason, courts should be very cautious in making orders that might place limits on expression in another country. Where there is a realistic possibility that an order with extraterritorial effect may offend another state’s core values, the order should not be made.In short, sure, banning speech around the globe from one court in British Columbia, Canada could have serious global free speech concerns, but... we really don't like this website, so we're not going to change the ruling. In fact, later in the ruling, the court basically says "hey, the idea that there may be some 'legitimate' speech on this website we're ordering blocked globally is totally speculative":
In the case before us, there is no realistic assertion that the judge’s order will offend the sensibilities of any other nation. It has not been suggested that the order prohibiting the defendants from advertising wares that violate the intellectual property rights of the plaintiffs offends the core values of any nation. The order made against Google is a very limited ancillary order designed to ensure that the plaintiffs’ core rights are respected.
I note, as well, that the order in this case is an interlocutory one, and one that can be varied by the court. In the unlikely event that any jurisdiction finds the order offensive to its core values, an application could be made to the court to modify the order so as to avoid the problem.
There has, in the course of argument, been some reference to the possibility that the defendants (or others) might wish to use their websites for legitimate free speech, rather than for unlawfully marketing the GW1000. That possibility, it seems to me, is entirely speculative. There is no evidence that the websites in question have ever been used for lawful purposes, nor is there any reason to believe that the domain names are in any way uniquely suitable for any sort of expression other than the marketing of the illegal product. Of course, if the character of the websites changes, it is always open to the defendants or others to seek a variation of the injunction.And, thus, British Columbia believes it can order global blocking of any website its courts deem problematic in BC. One wonders if we'll start to see "censorship tourism" migrating to BC courts now that its doors are open for global censorship orders.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: british columbia, canada, counterfeits, global injunction, injunction, jurisdiction
Companies: equustek solutions, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you don't stop evil, then you will just get all up in your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sad thing is, as much as I would hate loosing the internet, I almost think it would be a good thing. People here need to wake up and take back control of our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't stop evil commenters, they they will just get up in all of our faces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyway, who uses google now anyway, startpage gets google results as if you were on google without the crap (and I got AdblockEdge and bunch of other mandatory addons, so they can't even personalize my search,which is the most controling aspect of google, it thinks everyone have one track minds with maybe 3 subjects of interest online, at best.That might be true for people in their late 50's and older, as for me, the internet has got me to learn how to get practically billingual (I'm french canadian).
Use ixquick or duckuckgo for results not indexed by google. Supreme Court of Canada could intervene and put an end to this too, like they do with our current PM, even with his small majority he manages to get get 1/3 of his fascistic laws and edicts annulled by the our Santa Clauses (our SP, their dress is basically a santa claus costume without the hat heh. Gives me more fuel to vote BQ again since Duceppe is coming back at the head os a party, because first past the post elections and by percentage. Shit, we have 3 to 4 (2 were bitchslapped in 2008 and 2011, that time in 2011 it was for contempt of parliament..which automatically dissolves it and new elections start, but that time the fucker was prepared, with people who worked with karl Rove (yes, he brought in Bush Jr. election people in for money in return) and he still barely got the most ridings(districts for the american equivalent?,anyway), but that time he became Dictator of Canada with a majority that could have have been prevented, had the Liberals been less..well, they don't like the NDP because they are leftist party, while Liberals are Left to Centre Left, but add these 2 together and we could have had our first ever coaliation government, would have been worth it for us.
By the way back on topic, like I said, the Supreme Court (of Canada, not the provincial SP)wont let that stand if the defendants are to pursue this. I think all of the internet is gonna be laughing off their asses, who's gonna stop people living in BC....for a quite Liberal/New Democratic Party, with also the sole Green Party seat, I'm surprised their court would be filled like small minded people like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. It is no more true for them than it is for younger people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So... if you use it you're still using Google, you're just using a different frontend.
"the internet has got me to learn how to get practically billingual (I'm french canadian)."
I'm pretty sure there were a lot of bilingual French Canadians before the internet as well. Congrats on using such a useful tool for actual education, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google: Sure you did, but we don't care in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they push it to a federal court and the federal court also agrees, then Google is in a bit more trouble. At that point they'd have to either comply or remove their local CDN and google.ca. Of course there's still the question of how much that would matter to Google. It would mostly hurt Canadian companies that rely on Google's advertising network, but it would have minimal impact on Google and minimal impact on searches (typing .com isn't that much harder than .ca!) Might have a significant impact on things like Youtube in Canada (CDNs are gone so we'd be streaming from the US.)
Overall, short of one of those China-style provincial (or national, if it comes to that) firewalls that I mentioned, there's basically a whole lot of squat Canada could really do to enforce this because the internet is a global phenomena and unlike the similar situation in France, most Canadians wouldn't really care a whole lot if they had to use the US servers to do their searching.
All that of course is assuming Google's willing to risk a war of attrition in order to stick by the principles of free speech. I somewhat hope they will as this is a horrendous precedent to set. Canada and France and wherever else don't seem to want to consider the fact that if we're applying our local censorship to China, China has a much stronger argument for enforcing their (significantly worse) censorship back on us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Block them? That would be interesting.
But let's say Google/Bing/Yahoo/... complies. How long will it take for someone to sue Google/Bing/Yahoo/... in US for stifling the free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether the court can actually enforce a fine and force Google to comply and pay up is another matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would bet a whole paycheck that the US would either not comply with an asset seizure order or, more likely, drag it out until the courts gave up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Block them? That would be interesting."
Yeah that was my first thought. They have no direct jurisdiction over Google, and the collateral damage inflicted against local companies by any such block would dwarf any punitive effect inflicted on Google. According to a rough calculation, BC represents 0.06% of the world's population. I'm sure Google will be fine without them for a while. A lot of local business could well suffer - but they're as much innocent bystanders as Google themselves..
"But let's say Google/Bing/Yahoo/... complies. How long will it take for someone to sue Google/Bing/Yahoo/... in US for stifling the free speech?"
Is there an American law the blocks a private company from doing this (I believe that the 1st amendment only covers US government censorship)? Especially since they're not blocking anything, they're just not providing a tool for the speech to be located as easily? The speech is still there, you just couldn't use Google's platform to locate it (but, as you rightly note, they have many competitors who have not been asked to block anything).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I could just see the algorithm suddenly deprecating every thing from BC and then .CA a few points. What do you mean the only Pizza shop in Nukko Lake BC is on the bottom of the second page of search results for Nukko Lake Pizza?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This again appears to be based in the magical thinking that Google = The Internet.
One of these times, I would really like to see Google say f' it again and give them exactly what they want. I imagine that blackholeing BC or all of Canada from Google explaining that the liability to index anything in CA is to great to do so might get people talking... and maybe someone with a modicum of technical knowledge would clue some Judges in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
Of course Masnick worries will spread because has the view that "free speech" covers EVERY web-site for EVERY purpose -- especially sites having nothing but links to infringing content drawing eyeballs to ads -- but it's just simply not true. Illegal business models like knockoffs here, Aereo, and Megaupload are illegal.
Here's my summary of the above:
) When the basis of a biz is stealing intellectual property, it undermines every bit of legitimacy. Relying on legalisms does not work.
) Google IS doing business in BC, therefore IS subject to local courts. How could it be otherwise? Google is trying to have it every way at once, and never be pinned down. NOW IT IS.
) As noted, is highly targeted. There's NO obvious spread. Courts make wacky exceptions all the time when pressed.
So now it's not only due-processed but completely processed. Pirates just hate that.
Conclusion is that smart-ass Google should have accepted lower ruling quietly so it stayed limited and uncertain, rather than have gone to court! Never push courts on their powers. -- I call that the "Google effect", and hereby state copyright for it! -- Though won't mind if you promote it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
If you don't, then we'll conclude that you're a hypocrite and your trolling is as impotent as your ideology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
Google isn't doing business in BC, businesses in BC are doing business globally. This would be like ordering something from a business in China and then trying to take them to your local small claims court when things didn't work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
Give it some thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
If you have to lie to support your point, yes. If you live in the real world, no.
"Here's my summary of the above"
Fantasy world drivel as ever.
Here's the real summary: Google have been ordered to censor content worldwide based on the say-so of a single local court, in a case where they weren't even a named party. You would have to be a special kind of moron not to see the negative impacts of that.
"As noted, is highly targeted."
THIS time, and by THIS court. The issue is not with this particular ineffective, stupid ruling, but of the wider implications if others try to copy them. Do try to keep up with the issues you're trying to attack.
"Conclusion is that smart-ass Google should have accepted lower ruling quietly"
Yeah, yeah, if injustice is served by those you support, everyone should just shut up and take it. But if someone accesses a file they shouldn't have, your heroes should be free to ignore, twist and change as many laws as they wish to punish whoever gets in their way. We know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
Going after Google instead of going after the site which Google conveniently identified for you is just plain stupid and shows complete ignorance of how the intarwebtubes work.
Other search engines will still show the site. Pirates using the site will continue to share the location of the site with other would-be pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue. About Time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue. About Time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
other search engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other search engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: other search engines
If we take the court seriously (which we should not do), this means that it is impossible to put anything but the most trivial content on the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other search engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That sword cuts both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That sword cuts both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That sword cuts both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pig Guns
1st, they should make sure that the Streisand effect causes the blocked website to get more traffic than ever before.
2nd, replace result links to the site with the word with Blame Canada playing in the background.
3rd arrange for a sequel to the South Park movie to be made about this incident.
and finally
divert traffic away from canada and canadian made products.
I suspect that would get a bit of attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's kind of why the concept of jurisdiction exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's kind of why the concept of jurisdiction exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's kind of why the concept of jurisdiction exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's kind of why the concept of jurisdiction exists.
The one with the bigger army.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can issue injunctions all you want.
--#
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can issue injunctions all you want.
Yeah, it's not like they have government power behind them or anything.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me get this straight
Cool. Let me grab my checkbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to basics
They will eventually have to make it illegal to search. And illegal to use the internet.
And the Phoenix of WWIV will rise from the ashes of the internet. Then what will they do? Outlaw modems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back to basics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back to basics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VPN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, the idiot brigade has backup. So, how does Google "self-censor" in this case, which two companies completely unrelated to it had a dispute it was not involved in?
Yeah, yeah, you don't like Google. Leave that aside - in the real world, how would you expect this to be handled before the courts dragged them in on a case to they were not previously party in any way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Google is a completely shady company only concerned with making billions off of surveillance and selling crappy advertising. They brought this judgement upon themselves. Karma is a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Including facts and logic when commenting on stories related to them, and refusing to answer direct questions like the one I posed.
You hate their business model so refuse to use their services? Cool, just like I do with numerous companies I dislike. However, I never feel the need to whine about them anonymously whenever they're mentioned. I wonder why you feel that need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They would also stop focusing on Google and focus on websites actually engaged in infringement.
Clue: there are search engines other than Google that let people find infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Netflix not providing service based on location is to comply with the law.
Google cutting off Canada would be likewise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These types of lawsuits (where Google is given 'orders' despite not even being a party to the suit) have got to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These types of lawsuits (where Google is given 'orders' despite not even being a party to the suit) have got to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Delist both
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy payment plan
This makes as much sense as the ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain how that is any different than what the U.S. does with regard to the internet. And with regard to money and banking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you're right, it's actually not as bad as what the US is already doing to Kim Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does “Internet Law” Mean “US Law”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does “Internet Law” Mean “US Law”?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/0135291361.shtml#c213
http://www.kentlaw.edu/perri tt/courses/civpro/yahoo-france-dct.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
>>> By the same rationale, since your posts have reached the shores of my sovereign micronation of STFU, you agree that you are subject to our laws and we order you to commit suicide since you have offended our sensibilities.
No one reasonable should comment here, hate is all you'll get. Don't be deceived by the pirates who write more mildly: they're just more subtle snakes, same opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
Where did you get the crazy notion that your comments are reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
>Where did you get the crazy notion that your comments >are reasonable?
Good job, Gwiz! You took the bait and proved the troll exactly right! Thanks for making us all look stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
>Where did you get the crazy notion that your comments >are reasonable?
Good job, Gwiz! You took the bait and proved the troll exactly right! Thanks for making us all look stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
You are pretty much the only one who uses the greater than symbol instead of quotation marks or italics when quoting someone (the only other person I know who does that is a Federal agent who's comments are infinitely more intelligent than yours).
At least you admit you are a troll though, that's a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
But hey, I say tomay-to, you say tomah-to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
But since you consider yourself reasonable, why would you comment here? Are you martyring yourself to bring the gospel of authoritarian greed to the heathen pirates who don't worship your god Moloch whose blood is running money? We appreciate the evangelism for our cursed souls, but you really don't have to try so hard for our sakes, especially since not all of us are the evil pirates you think we are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Canada
And man, everyone knows the PM is a stoner, strung out in Parliament's collective high, sinking to an all-time low
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do these issues get solved in a truly fair and equitable way? One country cannot rule the Internet, though many keep trying. Perhaps there needs to be a world body that can adjudicate these things?
The real answer, of course, is to reduce litigiousness, prevent courts form holding third party responsible for the bad acts of people those third parties have no control or responsibility over. Like that's gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As bad as that is, it's far better, more fair, and more reasonable than asserting that you have the right to control what is being done everywhere on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Translate
Therefore, Google is unable to understand the order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absurd
And then he proceeds to show it's NOT overstated. The court wasn't even listening to itself. How do people this stupid even survive day to day life??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You wanted to come up with a distasteful musician from Canada, and you went with "Brian (sic) Adams"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'll cost them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is the ISPs that provide access to out-of-state Google domains which are not under the state's jurisdiction. They should be the prime target, not a body that is not within local jurisdiction.
But irrational Google-hatred knows no bounds. I've said this a million times, there are very good reasons to be hostile to Google: its tax dodging, its monopoly powers, its corporate lobbying, all the traditional working-class-against-the-ruling-class stances etc. But it's incredible how they are the last things people want to bash Google for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I highly doubt Google's links to THOSE links have been made to be removed either.
We're living in a wish-thinking world if we think this will do anything to attack piracy. If we've learned anything from the stupidity of the war on drugs, it is that if there is a majority demand in a black market, it will always cause a supply for that black market no matter how many times you attack the supply. Some conservatives think you should deter against the demand in the drug war by bringing in harsher punishments for possessers, but everyone knows deterrents are all talk if you can't enforce them. What bloody fool thinks you can enforce a deterrent against an infringing downloader?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By not getting the ISP's in BC to block access to the site people in BC can still very much access the site in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for the goose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems it's time for Web 3.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disconnect the cable to the attic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahah! I'm sure China's and Iran's legal system considers themselves the "Good Guys" too. Ignorance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not possible. Canadians are stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been thinking about this one.
What if, say, they said "If you want to do business in Canada, you may not be engaged in slave trading anywhere in the world." Would that be a problem?
To use the China example, sure, China can attempt to censor the internet globally. That's the price of doing business in China. They have zero power over my local newspaper who doesn't have reporters in China.
The real issue, to me, comes when a company like Google or Yahoo says "Ok, we'll comply with that and censor globally".
And forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but couldn't any company just spin off a wholly-owned subsidiary called "GoogleCanada" which *does* follow the Canada rules (or China rules etc.) and have regular Google pull out of the country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Been thinking about this one.
What if, say, they said "If you want to do business in Canada, you may not be engaged in slave trading anywhere in the world." Would that be a problem?
Seems like the same situation to me - the Canadian court has no jurisdiction over the rest of the world to enforce what happens there. They should only be permitted to enforce rules within their own jurisdiction. Besides that, I don't think this order is in the form of "if you want to do business in BC" it's just a flat out injunction - you shall block this content worldwide, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Been thinking about this one.
Right, however that amounts to the same as "if you want to do business here you must..."
Because if Google wasn't doing business in Canada, they wouldn't even need to respond, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Been thinking about this one.
There is no meaningful way in which Google is doing business in British Columbia (theoretically, the jurisdiction of this court). They have no servers, no facilities of any kind, and no employees there. Yes, they could just ignore the order, but for good reasons they like to play nice with courts and work with them rather than blowing them off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Been thinking about this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
court order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]