In a hurry, so just a link-dump:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2014 ... _globally/
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Is it just me, or has Google lost the first word of its guiding ethic somewhere along the line?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
No, they just changed the definition of 'Evil' instead.
Google is 'Not Evil', so whatever opposes them must by definition, be therefore 'Evil'.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
I am no so sure I don't side with Google in this one.The articles are confusing, but it seems that this Canadian court decided that it has the power to forbid Google from linking those non-canadian websites to anybody in the whole planet, not only within Canada :
Quote:I
conclude that an interim injunction should be granted compelling Google
to block the defendants’ websites from Google’s search results
worldwide.
So, when will Google have to start censoring Holocaust Denialist sites because those materials are forbidden in Europe? Or information about contraception because it became forbidden in Iran? Or pictures of women driving because it is illegal in Saudi Arabia? Or anything referencing gay marriage because it is forbidden in Russia?
nemonowan Wrote:So, when will Google have to start censoring Holocaust Denialist sites because those materials are forbidden in Europe? Or information about contraception because it became forbidden in Iran? Or pictures of women driving because it is illegal in Saudi Arabia? Or anything referencing gay marriage because it is forbidden in Russia?
They won't - they'll just have to make sure the .com website isn't available in those countries, which (with redirects to country-specific sites based on IP addresses) is already a Solved Problem and already implemented.
Any more red herrings?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Quote:robkelk wrote:
Quote:nemonowan wrote:
So, when will Google have to start censoring Holocaust Denialist sites because those materials are forbidden in Europe? Or information about contraception because it became forbidden in Iran? Or pictures of women driving because it is illegal in Saudi Arabia? Or anything referencing gay marriage because it is forbidden in Russia?
They won't - they'll just have to make sure the .com website isn't available in those countries, which (with redirects to country-specific sites based on IP addresses) is already a Solved Problem and already implemented.
Any more red herrings?
That does not
seem to be what the Canadian court is demanding, though.
Again, I must admit, the articles are extremely unclear about just what remedy was expected from Google. The sentence that I quoted was what gave me the impression that the judge decided that
nobody in the world should be able to use Google find the websites that sell the infringing product. And blocking google.com inside Canada would not do that.
If you have any information that clarifies this point and shows that this decision was not a massive legal overreach and a dangerous precedent, Rob, please post it. I would be overjoyed if my concerns were misfounded. But leave the sarcasm out.
Kinda siding with Nemo here. Observe this bit of qouted text:
Quote:Along the way, it rejected Google's undue censorship argument that "URLs not specifically reviewed and identified may be used for any number of innocent purposes and a complete removal could result in possibly numerous URLs being blocked without Google having had the opportunity to review them and determine if a departure from its usual indexing process is necessary or warranted in the circumstances."
Justice Fenlon noted that Google already filtered its search results to comply with the law to remove child pornography and hate speech in certain countries. The potential threat of accidental, innocent blocking didn't mean Google could do nothing.
First off, this isn't hate speech or child pornography. This is a copyright infringement suit, and something we've already beaten a dead horse over. In fact, I've seen nothing in the article about the case between Equustek and Datalink other than a ruling has already been handed out. Who the hell are these people and does Equustek really have a legitimate claim?
Secondly, Google is already attempting to comply. If anything, I would like to applaud their efforts to not censor sites needlessly. Evidently, all they ask is to be given a chance to review the webpages in question and determine if they are linking to said product. If the Canadian courts REALLY want Google to act to their satisfaction, then they need to submit a complete list of webpages they want Google to censor.
Sorry, but in this case the pot is calling the kettle black - the courts can't blame Google for their ambiguity.
Besides, if distributors generating new URLs is the problem, then why don't they just stop them at the source: the IP Address System.
blackaeronaut Wrote:First off, this isn't hate speech or child pornography. This is a copyright infringement suit,
Copyright has nothing to do with this matter. The IP laws being violated - not by Google - are patent laws.
blackaeronaut Wrote:and something we've already beaten a dead horse over. In fact, I've seen nothing in the article about the case between Equustek and Datalink other than a ruling has already been handed out. Who the hell are these people and does Equustek really have a legitimate claim?
Well, I did ask for other red herrings...
See the actual judgment, section II, paragraphs 4-7. They're the patent holders, and the courts say the claim is legitimate.
blackaeronaut Wrote:Secondly, Google is already attempting to comply. If anything, I would like to applaud their efforts to not censor sites needlessly. Evidently, all they ask is to be given a chance to review the webpages in question and determine if they are linking to said product. If the Canadian courts REALLY want Google to act to their satisfaction, then they need to submit a complete list of webpages they want Google to censor.
Sorry, but in this case the pot is calling the kettle black - the courts can't blame Google for their ambiguity.
That isn't the way it works in other fields of illegal activity. "Justice Fenlon noted that Google already filtered its search results to comply with the law to remove child pornography and hate speech in certain countries. The potential threat of accidental, innocent blocking didn't mean Google could do nothing." If they can filter to comply with one law, they can filter to comply with another law. They just don't want to obey the court order.
There's no ambiguity here. Datalink has been prohibited by the courts from selling the GW 1000 through any website. Google search is a website. Google definitely has software and a database that they can use to search for a string of text on websites - it's their main draw to their own website. They don't need a list of URLs; they can google it.
Also, see the actual judgment, section V, paragraphs 50-63. They've already admitted responsibility here.
(By the way, it wasn't the courts that gave Google the list of URLs, it was the plaintiffs. The court only stepped in when that proposed solution proved ineffective and Google refused to try a different solution.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
nemonowan Wrote:Quote:robkelk wrote:Quote:nemonowan wrote:So, when will Google have to start censoring Holocaust Denialist sites because those materials are forbidden in Europe? Or information about contraception because it became forbidden in Iran? Or pictures of women driving because it is illegal in Saudi Arabia? Or anything referencing gay marriage because it is forbidden in Russia?
They won't - they'll just have to make sure the .com website isn't available in those countries, which (with redirects to country-specific sites based on IP addresses) is already a Solved Problem and already implemented.
Any more red herrings?
That does not seem to be what the Canadian court is demanding, though.
Again, I must admit, the articles are extremely unclear about just what remedy was expected from Google. The sentence that I quoted was what gave me the impression that the judge decided that nobody in the world should be able to use Google find the websites that sell the infringing product. And blocking google.com inside Canada would not do that.
If you have any information that clarifies this point and shows that this decision was not a massive legal overreach and a dangerous precedent, Rob, please post it. I would be overjoyed if my concerns were misfounded. But leave the sarcasm out.
You are correct - the decision does not place a territorial limitation on the injunction.
The decision also cites 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir 2004), reheard in 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir 2006) to support the injunction's applicability in the USA despite its being granted in a non-US court and its limitation of Google's freedom of expression - so there is no overreach and no precedent was set by this case.
And I have not used sarcasm at all in this thread.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Quote:robkelk wrote:
You are correct - the decision does not place a territorial limitation on the injunction.
The decision also cites 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir 2004), reheard in 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir 2006) to support the injunction's applicability in the USA despite its being granted in a non-US court and its limitation of Google's freedom of expression - so there is no overreach and no precedent was set by this case.
And I have not used sarcasm at all in this thread.
You were calling the fact that I raised a serious concern a "red herring". If you weren't being sarcastic, then you were accusing me of knowingly making fake accusations in order to confound an issue. That's worse then.
As for the ruling, I don't know whether USA and Canada have some kind of treaty making the results of a patent lawsuit binding in each other's territory or not. If there were, it would justify removing those results form the USA search pages. If not, I don't see how it could be justified, even if other canadian veredicts had already made the same demand.
But "within USA" is not "worldwide", which again is what Canada is claiming.
So please, explain to me in layman's terms: how is this NOT that Canada claims the right to force Google to delist any link that goes against their laws, for everybody in the world? And if Canada has that right, why doesn't the EU, China, Iran and North Korea have that right too?
I apologize for the aspersion.
This isn't Canada claiming a right, it's the USA offering the right. See 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir 2004), reheard in 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir 2006) - the Ninth Circuit Court should have its decisions online, just like every other US court.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
I must admit - I've read the article 3 times now and it's still seems pretty opaque.
Could someone explain or illustrate more clearly what's going on with this one? What is Canada expecting Google to do? What are Google's rights and responsibilities under American, Canadian and International law and/or trade law? Are they complying? (It sounds like they're trying to, as BA pointed out.)
Did you read the article, the analysis (linked from the article), or the judgment itself (also linked from the article)?
I'll try to do an executive summary.
Background:
1) group leaves a company and uses the company's patents without permission
2) company gets judgment to stop group using the patents
3) group ignores judgment and shifts to selling online
4) company asks Google to block group's websites
5) group starts auto-creating new websites to get around specific-URL blocks
6) company asks Google to block all sites containing a particular string (like they do with hate speech and child porn) - Google refuses
7) this court case happens
Arguments:
Company says Google has the ability to abide by the previous court ruling, so should abide by the previous court ruling
Google says the court doesn't have jurisdiction because Google's international
Google says the court doesn't have jurisdiction because there's a national border between court and Google
Google says they aren't involved
Company says Google Ads did business with group up to the day the court proceedings started
Findings:
Court says you can't argue "international" and "national border between court and Google" - they're mutually exclusive
Court cites precedents from US, Australian, UK, and French courts showing court has jurisdiction
Court says Google Ads contract makes Google involved
Judgment:
Court orders Google to comply with previous court's ruling
I think that's everything.
What does the court want? The court is instructing Google to use the capability it already has to act in accordance with a judgment rendered in accordance with patent laws, and to pay the company's court costs.
What are Google's rights and responsibilities? Again, I refer people to 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir 2004), reheard in 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir 2006). Google has a responsibility to comply with the court order, and a right to continue doing business in Canada as long as they abide by the laws of the land.
Are they complying? They were not making a best-effort to comply, as shown by their demonstrated ability to block hate-speech or child-porn sites based on specific search strings and their refusal to use this capability in this instance. Google also had (but no longer has) a financial interest in having those pages available to be found. They have two weeks (from the date of the judgment) to actually comply.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
So, it does basically come down to, "you do business in our country, you're expected to hew to the line like everyone else." Which, well, is not shocking, and is probably ultimately the way things have to be.
I do see the "slippery slope" problem, though, because some countries might try to drive a wedge into this hole to get other stuff completely off the internet (or at least off Google results) that their own country firewalls have proved to be somewhat porous against. This is something Google doesn't want to have happen, any other considerations aside, because the size of the resulting blacklist would be staggering.
On the other hand, the company in question refuses to stop selling a product using stolen information... the only way to get them to stop is to dry up the revenue stream until they either stop selling the infringing products, or go under. Unfortunately, that does mean making what seems to be incredibly broad orders with regards to the websites. And I expect that the most effective block would also hit some "innocent" sites (which would accomplish a whole other set of pressure via, "we can't be seen on Google, EITHER YOU STOP HOSTING THAT SITE CAUSING IT OR WE TAKE THE BUSINESS ELSEWHERE!")
The only other option Google would have would be to leave Canada entirely, including region blocking ALL their sites to Canada. And I don't see that happening.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
JFerio wrote: Wrote:...
I do see the "slippery slope" problem, though, because some countries might try to drive a wedge into this hole to get other stuff completely off the internet (or at least off Google results) that their own country firewalls have proved to be somewhat porous against. This is something Google doesn't want to have happen, any other considerations aside, because the size of the resulting blacklist would be staggering.
...
That ship has already sailed. (link is to an Irish story about a German case.) They don't have a choice in the matter...
Quote:robkelk wrote:
Quote:JFerio wrote:
...
I do see the "slippery slope" problem, though, because some countries might try to drive a wedge into this hole to get other stuff completely off the internet (or at least off Google results) that their own country firewalls have proved to be somewhat porous against. This is something Google doesn't want to have happen, any other considerations aside, because the size of the resulting blacklist would be staggering.
...
That ship has already sailed. (link is to an Irish story about a German case.) They don't have a choice in the matter...
Yes, those sorts of things I did notice. It does appear it's going to start becoming a case of "if you're an important part of the internet, you may have to start applying things internationally when told you have to keep people from finding certain things."
Again, slippery slope territory (who's to say a place with extreme views won't start abusing it to sanitize the internet for their comfort?), but part of it will be that we have to find the balance.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
Fortunately there are technologies like
Tor that make it easy to evade censorship.