7 ms·

Music industry welcomes landmark ruling in Google delisting case

41 points by 6stringmerc 9y ago

6stringmerc 9y ago
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.
- donatj 9y ago
  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.
  - 6stringmerc 9y ago
    Did you read closely in the story where the "rebranding" actually involved theft of material technology / code? Please explain how that is considered rebranding or anywhere NEAR the rights implied by the doctrine of first purchase in the US. You made a clear and coherent wrong observation and came out with a completely bass-ackwards conclusion.
  - cmiles74 9y ago
    My understanding is the company started out by re-branding equipment but then stole some proprietary data so that they could create their own competing product. "The case began as a dispute between two technology companies, Equustek Solutions and Datalink Technologies Gateways. The latter was accused of repackaging one of the former’s products as its own, and then of nicking confidential files from Equustek and using the information contained within to produce and sell a competing product."
- mattnewton 9y ago
  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.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Just about everything is illegal somewhere. OK, so can Saudi Arabia force Google to delist everything that violates its laws about sexuality? Or Nigeria? What about China and the Dalai Lama? Thailand and its king? So then, who decides which national courts get global control?
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      The China problem example suggests that Google can stand up for freedom of information principles. But it can't just exit every large market.
      - lazerpants 9y ago
        But there are only 36 million people in Canada. It isn't a very large market. It would be interesting to see the political reaction to Google closing its three campuses in Canada. The PM went to the opening of the largest one, outside of Toronto.
        mattnewton 9y ago
        You have to pick and choose your battles. I think you can only win when appealing to the court of public opinion if the other side is doing something the public could find odious. I think here it's too easy to paint it as David vs Goliath, and people aren't going to care about the slippery slope argument. And they aren't wrong, I certainly hope Google doesn't pull out of Canada over something like this.
- Cakez0r 9y ago
  > "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.
- pyre 9y ago
  > 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.
slantyyz 9y ago
Since we're talking about a case in Canada, it's also worth noting that the RIAA is also trying to exclude "fair use" from the renegotiation of NAFTA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/naftacopyrightcomments/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/naftacopyrightcomments/
- MrZeus 9y ago
  Also, the EFF has an article warning that this court decision might set a dangerous precedent for Internet Censorship in the future: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/top-canadian-court-permits-worldwide-internet-censorship https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/top-canadian-court-per...
larodi 9y ago
fuck. the. music. industry. links are always gonna pop, google or not.
- thunderbong 9y ago
  The question is - how're you going to find them?
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    Forums? But really by the time a new link pops up, is indexed, found, recognized by infringed parties, then by court order delisted, 10 more will have arisen no? As long as courts are involved and the process is slow, I can't imagine it having any substantive effect on these kind of links which seem to come and go. This is different from the case in the article which is a longer term enterprise being delisted. And in that case a regroup, rename, new domain and maybe a new website seems it would be easy enough if the infringing party is determined to stay up.
  - shirian 9y ago
    The Internet is clever. It will find a way, I'd wager.
  - drngdds 9y ago
    Search engines that don't care about Canada's laws, probably.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nadya 9y ago
    Private music trackers exist, aren't (that) hard to discover, and aren't (that) hard to get into assuming you understand the differences between lossy and lossless file formats and the gist of torrenting. There's even places to discover these trackers: /r/trackers Google isn't necessary.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
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?
- phkahler 9y ago
  >> 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.
- mtgx 9y ago
  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.
  - qb45 9y ago
    To that end, the music industry backed Equustek in its case against Google, and widely welcomed yesterday’s Supreme Court judgement. I'll put my tinfoil hat on and ask if maybe this could solve the mystery of some Canadian court ordering American companies around?
- mabub24 9y ago
  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." http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/global-internet-takedown-orders-come-canada-supreme-court-upholds-international-removal-google-search-results/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/global-internet-takedown-...
phkahler 9y ago
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.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > stuff on the internet to be traceable by default Traceable by whom? This is a recipe for speech suppression by harassment on a colossal scale.
millzlane 9y ago
Which site did they have to delist? There are so many of them though.
wyager 9y ago
First a frivolous €2.4B "fine" from the EU, now some insane global censorship attempts by an aggressive minority market. That's just this week! 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 9y ago
  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.
  - wyager 9y ago
    Google has $64B cash reserves as of 2015. More than enough to purchase a decent military deterrent arsenal (up to the Samson Option, if they wanted) and/or the cooperation of some small money-hungry nation.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      So, for the sake of avoiding taxes and penalties, you think Google should go into the 3rd-world, warlord business? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
      - wyager 9y ago
        Who said anything about the third world? The GoogleBoat(tm) would probably be very nice, especially without the overhead associated with paying taxes and "fines". Even the €2.4B the EU is trying to extort from Google would be more than enough to purchase a heavily entrenched offshore presence.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    They don't need to bomb. A blockade and cutting the wires out will work. But if Google moves somewhere I think I might go with them. People complain about Google but I think I'd almost rather live under their governance than that of random elected fools and unelected bureaucrats. I think it might actually be better.
mitchellshow 9y ago
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.
- syntheticnature 9y ago
  Trademarks are the thing you can lose if you knowingly let someone use it, not copyright. Copyright remains even if you do nothing to enforce it.
- TylerH 9y ago
  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.
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    This is true (to a point) with trademarks, but absolutely false with copyrights.
- bluGill 9y ago
  > 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.
redleggedfrog 9y ago
Uhh, so I'll use DuckDuckGo to find the site instead? In other words, should this be for all the search engines?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  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.
  - redleggedfrog 9y ago
    Heh, like that I'm in that 0.001%. I'm special.
jrochkind1 9y ago
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?
- qb45 9y ago
  More details here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14657061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14657061 The article has a link to court documents.
Keverw 9y ago
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.
- kalmar 9y ago
  > Will all links mentioning woman driving have to be removed worldwide because some middle eastern country tells them to? Among "some middle eastern countries" that exist, only Saudi Arabia has that law, and they do not censor images of women driving.

41 points by 6stringmerc 9y ago

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.

donatj 9y ago
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.
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  Did you read closely in the story where the "rebranding" actually involved theft of material technology / code? Please explain how that is considered rebranding or anywhere NEAR the rights implied by the doctrine of first purchase in the US. You made a clear and coherent wrong observation and came out with a completely bass-ackwards conclusion.
- cmiles74 9y ago
  My understanding is the company started out by re-branding equipment but then stole some proprietary data so that they could create their own competing product. "The case began as a dispute between two technology companies, Equustek Solutions and Datalink Technologies Gateways. The latter was accused of repackaging one of the former’s products as its own, and then of nicking confidential files from Equustek and using the information contained within to produce and sell a competing product."
mattnewton 9y ago
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.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Just about everything is illegal somewhere. OK, so can Saudi Arabia force Google to delist everything that violates its laws about sexuality? Or Nigeria? What about China and the Dalai Lama? Thailand and its king? So then, who decides which national courts get global control?
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    The China problem example suggests that Google can stand up for freedom of information principles. But it can't just exit every large market.
    - lazerpants 9y ago
      But there are only 36 million people in Canada. It isn't a very large market. It would be interesting to see the political reaction to Google closing its three campuses in Canada. The PM went to the opening of the largest one, outside of Toronto.
      - mattnewton 9y ago
        You have to pick and choose your battles. I think you can only win when appealing to the court of public opinion if the other side is doing something the public could find odious. I think here it's too easy to paint it as David vs Goliath, and people aren't going to care about the slippery slope argument. And they aren't wrong, I certainly hope Google doesn't pull out of Canada over something like this.
Cakez0r 9y ago
> "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.
pyre 9y ago
> 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.

slantyyz 9y ago

Since we're talking about a case in Canada, it's also worth noting that the RIAA is also trying to exclude "fair use" from the renegotiation of NAFTA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/naftacopyrightcomments/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/naftacopyrightcomments/

MrZeus 9y ago
Also, the EFF has an article warning that this court decision might set a dangerous precedent for Internet Censorship in the future: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/top-canadian-court-permits-worldwide-internet-censorship https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/top-canadian-court-per...

larodi 9y ago

fuck. the. music. industry. links are always gonna pop, google or not.

thunderbong 9y ago
The question is - how're you going to find them?
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Forums? But really by the time a new link pops up, is indexed, found, recognized by infringed parties, then by court order delisted, 10 more will have arisen no? As long as courts are involved and the process is slow, I can't imagine it having any substantive effect on these kind of links which seem to come and go. This is different from the case in the article which is a longer term enterprise being delisted. And in that case a regroup, rename, new domain and maybe a new website seems it would be easy enough if the infringing party is determined to stay up.
- shirian 9y ago
  The Internet is clever. It will find a way, I'd wager.
- drngdds 9y ago
  Search engines that don't care about Canada's laws, probably.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Nadya 9y ago
  Private music trackers exist, aren't (that) hard to discover, and aren't (that) hard to get into assuming you understand the differences between lossy and lossless file formats and the gist of torrenting. There's even places to discover these trackers: /r/trackers Google isn't necessary.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

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?

phkahler 9y ago
>> 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.
mtgx 9y ago
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.
- qb45 9y ago
  To that end, the music industry backed Equustek in its case against Google, and widely welcomed yesterday’s Supreme Court judgement. I'll put my tinfoil hat on and ask if maybe this could solve the mystery of some Canadian court ordering American companies around?
mabub24 9y ago
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." http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/global-internet-takedown-orders-come-canada-supreme-court-upholds-international-removal-google-search-results/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/global-internet-takedown-...

phkahler 9y ago

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.

pjc50 9y ago
> stuff on the internet to be traceable by default Traceable by whom? This is a recipe for speech suppression by harassment on a colossal scale.

millzlane 9y ago

Which site did they have to delist? There are so many of them though.

wyager 9y ago

First a frivolous €2.4B "fine" from the EU, now some insane global censorship attempts by an aggressive minority market. That's just this week! 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 9y ago
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.
- wyager 9y ago
  Google has $64B cash reserves as of 2015. More than enough to purchase a decent military deterrent arsenal (up to the Samson Option, if they wanted) and/or the cooperation of some small money-hungry nation.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    So, for the sake of avoiding taxes and penalties, you think Google should go into the 3rd-world, warlord business? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    - wyager 9y ago
      Who said anything about the third world? The GoogleBoat(tm) would probably be very nice, especially without the overhead associated with paying taxes and "fines". Even the €2.4B the EU is trying to extort from Google would be more than enough to purchase a heavily entrenched offshore presence.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  They don't need to bomb. A blockade and cutting the wires out will work. But if Google moves somewhere I think I might go with them. People complain about Google but I think I'd almost rather live under their governance than that of random elected fools and unelected bureaucrats. I think it might actually be better.

mitchellshow 9y ago

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.

syntheticnature 9y ago
Trademarks are the thing you can lose if you knowingly let someone use it, not copyright. Copyright remains even if you do nothing to enforce it.
TylerH 9y ago
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.
- pwinnski 9y ago
  This is true (to a point) with trademarks, but absolutely false with copyrights.
bluGill 9y ago
> 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.

redleggedfrog 9y ago

Uhh, so I'll use DuckDuckGo to find the site instead? In other words, should this be for all the search engines?

jacquesm 9y ago
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.
- redleggedfrog 9y ago
  Heh, like that I'm in that 0.001%. I'm special.

jrochkind1 9y ago

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?

qb45 9y ago
More details here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14657061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14657061 The article has a link to court documents.

Keverw 9y ago

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.

kalmar 9y ago
> Will all links mentioning woman driving have to be removed worldwide because some middle eastern country tells them to? Among "some middle eastern countries" that exist, only Saudi Arabia has that law, and they do not censor images of women driving.