[Stockholmspirater] Intressant: Two big decisions examine web blocking in the USA

PP Gagarin Miljkovich gagarin.miljkovich at piratpartiet.se
Wed Nov 8 06:03:22 CET 2017

Se länkar längst ned för ytterligare information. 

Obs notera att denna "copyright blog" drivs av copyright-maximalister aka copyright-talibaner.

-------- Original Message --------
From: 'Ben' via 1709 Copyright Blog <1709-copyright-blog at googlegroups.com>
Sent: 7 November 2017 17:34:07 CET
To: 1709-copyright-blog at googlegroups.com
Subject: [The 1709 Blog] Two big decisions examine web blocking in the USA

In the space of under a week there have been two big cases in the JUSA  
looking at web blocking - and with differing results.

First off, a federal judge in California has issued a preliminary  
injunction preventing Canada's Supreme Court from forcing Google to de-list  
websites for Datalink on its American search engine. The Canadian Supreme  
Court (Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34) affirmed the  
decision from the Supreme Court in British Columbia and ordered Google to  
delist a tech company's website(s) worldwide. The music industry trade body  
Music Canada welcomed the judgement saying it was “a crucial development  
given that the internet has largely dissolved boundaries between countries  
and allowed virtual wrongdoers to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in  
search of the weakest enforcement setting”.

The web giant responded by saying the ruling conflics with the right to a  
freedom of expression contained within the First Amendment of the US  
Constitution, and that the Canadian Supreme Court had no right meddling  
with the American Constitution. Google's argued “This is about whether a  
trial court in a foreign country can implement a law that is violative of  
the core values of this country … imagine if we got an order from North  
Korea that said we could not publish anything critical of Dear Leader.  
Imagine if Russia doesn't like what people are saying about Putin. It would  
be very dangerous to deny relief in this instance”.

There were no representatives of either Equustek or the Canadian Supreme  
Court in attendance, and Judge Edward Davila agreed with Google's request  
for a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the  
Northern District of California. He agreed that “by forcing intermediaries  
to remove links to third-party material, the Canadian order undermines the  
policy goals [of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] and  
threatens free speech on the global internet” adding that “Section 230 of  
the Communications Decency Act states that third-party internet hosts, such  
as Google, cannot be held liable for offensive or illegal material  
generated by other parties”.

Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation welcomed the  
ruling, but said more needs to be done to stop other courts from issuing  
wide-ranging internet injunctions, like that issued by the Canadian Supreme  
Court in June saying “The California ruling is a ray of hope on the horizon  
after years of litigation, but it is far from a satisfying outcome. While  
we're glad to see the court in California recognise the rights afforded by  
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, most companies will not have  
the resources to mount this kind of international fight”.

So with Equustek, the music industry won in Canada but ultimately lost in  
the USA. But web-blocking remains a preferred anti-piracy tool for the film  
and music sectors and both will take heart from a ruling in a separate  
copyright dispute which involed Sci-Hub, the website sometimes dubbed  
the "Pirate Bay of science" which was sued by ther American Chemical  
Society for distributing academic papers it had published without  

Last month, magistrate judge John Anderson in the District Court for the  
Eastern District of Virginia recommended that a default judgement shoud  
award ACS $5 million in statutory damages and that "internet search  
engines, web hosting and internet service providers" should be ordered  
to "cease facilitating" access to Sci-Hub.

After Anderson's decision the Computer And Communications Industry  
Association submitted a paper to the court which stated that: "[The]  
plaintiff is seeking - and the magistrate judge has recommended - a  
permanent injunction that would sweep in various neutral service providers,  
despite their having violated no laws and having no connection to this  
case" which went against the wishes of Congress. : "
Now Judge Leonie Brinkema has followed Anderson and issued the injuction,  
meaning US based registrars can't offer their services, and server farms  
can't host Sci-Hub. The order goes further, ordering “any person …  
including any Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service  
providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries, cease  
facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which  
Defendant Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to, use, reproduction and  
distribution of the ACS [trade] marks or ACS's copyrighted works”.

The judge also ordered Sci-Hub's domains be placed on  
registryHold/serverHold to render their names/sites non-resolving. The  
decison imposed the maximum US$4.8 million to be paid to ACS as statutory  




Posted By Ben to The 1709 Blog on 11/07/2017 04:34:00 pm

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "1709 Copyright Blog" group. To unsubscribe, email 
1709-copyright-blog+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "1709 Copyright Blog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 1709-copyright-blog+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/stockholmspirater/attachments/20171108/7d218acb/attachment.html>

More information about the Stockholmspirater mailing list