> 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 glo

> 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.