3 ms·

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

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-...

qb45 9y ago
> Google will comply because it is an intermediary and does not lose power from this decision. Why did they oppose this ruling, then? They will comply because Canada would fine them or block their operations in the country if they didn't. > It comes out of this decision with more power: the ability to pick and choose which laws it wishes to follow. They come out of this with more obligations: to globally filter some silly thing that somebody somewhere considered illegal, and possibly in the future to globally filter every silly thing that anybody considers illegal anywhere. That's a lot of mess for sure. If they really get to pick which laws to follow, they should give the finger to Canada in accordance with the position they held in court. We will see if they have such freedom.
- mabub24 9y ago
  > They come out of this with more obligations: to globally filter some silly thing that somebody somewhere considered illegal, and possibly in the future to globally filter every silly thing that anybody considers illegal anywhere. That's a lot of mess for sure. They don't have to do this. The ruling is very finely worded. See Michael Geist's immediately following article that replies to the music industries comments about monitoring. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/no-monitoring-no-liability-supreme-courts-google-v-equustek-decision-not/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/no-monitoring-no-liabilit... The choice quote is here: > In fact, the majority stated precisely the opposite, emphasizing that there was no obligation to monitor content and no liability for facilitating access. The court states at paragraph 49: > The injunction does not require Google to monitor content on the Internet, nor is it a finding of any sort of liability against Google for facilitating access to the impugned websites. > The music industry may have wanted the Supreme Court of Canada to establish an affirmative duty on Google to monitor content, but the ruling is unequivocal that there is no such requirement as a result of the Equustek decision. The music industry representatives are basically lying. There are negative consequences to this law, but it's important to fully understand the written ruling and the limits it imposes and what it could impose. Google is an intermediary in this case so there were limits as to what the SCC could impose on Google.
  - qb45 9y ago
    OK, maybe it sets a Canadian precedent limiting what can be ordered from Google in such cases, but it sets a nasty (informal) international precedent of random country X strong-arming a company from country Y to censor content in country Z. That's why Google opposed this motion and that's what many others, including me, have an issue with. I don't live in Canada, don't do business with Canada and don't want to give a rat's ass about Canadian courts and their rulings.

qb45 9y ago

> Google will comply because it is an intermediary and does not lose power from this decision. Why did they oppose this ruling, then? They will comply because Canada would fine them or block their operations in the country if they didn't. > It comes out of this decision with more power: the ability to pick and choose which laws it wishes to follow. They come out of this with more obligations: to globally filter some silly thing that somebody somewhere considered illegal, and possibly in the future to globally filter every silly thing that anybody considers illegal anywhere. That's a lot of mess for sure. If they really get to pick which laws to follow, they should give the finger to Canada in accordance with the position they held in court. We will see if they have such freedom.

mabub24 9y ago
> They come out of this with more obligations: to globally filter some silly thing that somebody somewhere considered illegal, and possibly in the future to globally filter every silly thing that anybody considers illegal anywhere. That's a lot of mess for sure. They don't have to do this. The ruling is very finely worded. See Michael Geist's immediately following article that replies to the music industries comments about monitoring. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/no-monitoring-no-liability-supreme-courts-google-v-equustek-decision-not/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/no-monitoring-no-liabilit... The choice quote is here: > In fact, the majority stated precisely the opposite, emphasizing that there was no obligation to monitor content and no liability for facilitating access. The court states at paragraph 49: > The injunction does not require Google to monitor content on the Internet, nor is it a finding of any sort of liability against Google for facilitating access to the impugned websites. > The music industry may have wanted the Supreme Court of Canada to establish an affirmative duty on Google to monitor content, but the ruling is unequivocal that there is no such requirement as a result of the Equustek decision. The music industry representatives are basically lying. There are negative consequences to this law, but it's important to fully understand the written ruling and the limits it imposes and what it could impose. Google is an intermediary in this case so there were limits as to what the SCC could impose on Google.
- qb45 9y ago
  OK, maybe it sets a Canadian precedent limiting what can be ordered from Google in such cases, but it sets a nasty (informal) international precedent of random country X strong-arming a company from country Y to censor content in country Z. That's why Google opposed this motion and that's what many others, including me, have an issue with. I don't live in Canada, don't do business with Canada and don't want to give a rat's ass about Canadian courts and their rulings.