[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...
More information about the Stockholmspirater