A French court case against Google could threaten global speech rights

Auvergnat · Dec 27, 2016

JANFU said:
And what borders does the law stop at. That is what (1 main reason) the case is about. Extending French Laws to other countries.

People outside of France will still be able to see this content, their freedom is untouched.

There is nothing new here: the same mechanisms are already used in all countries to force Youtube and Netflix to restrict what content one can see depending on the country he is located. Same thing with hate speech prohibition in Europe or blasphemy prohibition in Muslim countries: those content are hidden in those countries only.

Legally speaking, in many international business situations, the law that applies is the one from the country where the customer lives (where the transaction is assumed to take place), not the one where the servers are located or the company registered. Enforcement is achieved through international treaties that warrant reciprocity.

Lafayette · Dec 28, 2016

JANFU said:
And what borders does the law stop at. That is what (1 main reason) the case is about. Extending French Laws to other countries.

International Law exists only in the "treaties" that have evolved amongst interested nations. For instance, if a country has a complaint about world-trade, they can go to the WTO.

In this case, the Berne Convention of Literary & Artistic Works does indeed extend patent-laws internationally.

However, in this case, it was brought against Google France in a French court. So, it must apply or the French authorities would have had no grounds to pursue it. Thus, if you have an Internet Access in France, more than likely there are some items that you can google but will not show up.

They would, however, elsewhere in the world. I am not "extending" the French law's reach beyond French borders, except where it is extendable by the Berne Convention.

Got a problem with a piece of artistic work being copied and sold in and out-of China? Get an international lawyer ...

joG · Dec 28, 2016

Auvergnat said:
People outside of France will still be able to see this content, their freedom is untouched.

There is nothing new here: the same mechanisms are already used in all countries to force Youtube and Netflix to restrict what content one can see depending on the country he is located. Same thing with hate speech prohibition in Europe or blasphemy prohibition in Muslim countries: those content are hidden in those countries only.

Legally speaking, in many international business situations, the law that applies is the one from the country where the customer lives (where the transaction is assumed to take place), not the one where the servers are located or the company registered. Enforcement is achieved through international treaties that warrant reciprocity.

They will be able to see the content, if it was stored outside the EU. Presently there is serious discussion about preventing personal and other information from being stored outside.

Lafayette · Dec 28, 2016

AliHajiSheik said:
I asked the nature of the content that was on a 3rd party server that you say was located in France and that Google acquired the content. I asked for a source that indicated what content Google had acquired that is the subject of this case.

You are Google's lawyer?

Then ask those questions of the French authorities who are bringing the case against Google. Btw, Google has already responded by prohibiting download (of illegal-in-France web-site information) to internet-users with a French country code.

(Yes, your browser tells where you a located internationally if you are not in "hide mode". And if you are in "hide mode" and the authorities want to find who you are, they just ask your Internet Provider who will furnish, under warrant, the information.)

AliHajiSheik said:
In other words, provide a news or government source to indicate that the content was acquired from within France. What website did google index that brought them in contact with this content? You keep referencing photos and I'm not finding that it is an image.

You're Google's lawyer? So find it out yourself!

I've explained that the prohibited information was from a Google-site accessible in France. Even if not located in France, sending the information onto a French browser is illegal.

Do you get it now? Or must I repeat the legal mechanism ... ?

AliHajiSheik · Dec 28, 2016

Lafayette said:
You are Google's lawyer?

Then ask those questions of the French authorities who are bringing the case against Google. Btw, Google has already responded by prohibiting download (of illegal-in-France web-site information) to internet-users with a French country code.

(Yes, your browser tells where you a located internationally if you are not in "hide mode". And if you are in "hide mode" and the authorities want to find who you are, they just ask your Internet Provider who will furnish, under warrant, the information.)

You're Google's lawyer? So find it out yourself!

I've explained that the prohibited information was from a Google-site accessible in France. Even if not located in France, sending the information onto a French browser is illegal.

Do you get it now? Or must I repeat the legal mechanism ... ?

You seem really concerned about whether I am a lawyer with Google. No I am not. I'm someone trying to understand a decision made by a French court.

All you are presenting are generalities without any facts: "I've explained that the prohibited information was from a Google-site accessible in France."

How about explaining it with facts like what was the prohibited information, to start? If you don't know, then say so and I'll just chock it up as another nationalistic opinion.

Lafayette · Dec 28, 2016

AliHajiSheik said:
You seem really concerned about whether I am a lawyer with Google. No I am not. I'm someone trying to understand a decision made by a French court.

All you are presenting are generalities without any facts: "I've explained that the prohibited information was from a Google-site accessible in France."

How about explaining it with facts like what was the prohibited information, to start? If you don't know, then say so and I'll just chock it up as another nationalistic opinion.

I am presenting to you French law in the matter of ownership of one's personal portrait. It is hardly a generality. As well as the Berne Convention, also hardly a generality. You don't "buy them", that's all.

You're the one refusing to understand the nature of such a "right" of ownership of personal work; whether it is the written word, or art or photography.

I don't expect you to believe it. I'm a Yank and have learned a LOT about the law and human rights in general whilst living in Europe.

The US is way behind the "Old Continent" clinging to a belief in liberty is defined by the notion that "the individual can and should be able to do whatever they damn well please and whenever they want as long as they don't kill anybody".

Europe is light-years ahead of that simplistic concept of "Liberty" - and has far fewer people in jail cells to prove it ...

AliHajiSheik · Dec 28, 2016

Lafayette said:
I am presenting to you French law in the matter of ownership of one's personal portrait. It is hardly a generality. As well as the Berne Convention, also hardly a generality. You don't "buy them", that's all.

You're the one refusing to understand the nature of such a "right" of ownership of personal work; whether it is the written word, or art or photography.

I don't expect you to believe it. I'm a Yank and have learned a LOT about the law and human rights in general whilst living in Europe.

The US is way behind the "Old Continent" clinging to a belief in liberty is defined by the notion that "the individual can and should be able to do whatever they damn well please and whenever they want as long as they don't kill anybody".

Europe is light-years ahead of that simplistic concept of "Liberty" - and has far fewer people in jail cells to prove it ...

And I am saying that I have no idea what the content that was part of this case. You are saying that it is a portrait, but I don't understand the context. I'm also unclear from what website the "portrait" was indexed and whether the "portrait" was removed from that original site at the "owner's" request. I believe that context is extremely important to the case. Was the "portrait" of the person in a crowd of an accident scene, or was it a literal portrait taken at an individual seating in a studio.

I'm well acquainted with a number of the European website laws. I comply with many and ignore some others as stupid. If someone makes a specific request to remove their information we have a procedure to do so and we have never received such a request. We also have every user acknowledge our cookie policy and we block them if they don't accept.

So we are left with your generality with no specific knowledge of THIS case.

Lafayette · Dec 28, 2016

AliHajiSheik said:
And I am saying that I have no idea what the content that was part of this case. You are saying that it is a portrait, but I don't understand the context. I'm also unclear from what website the "portrait" was indexed and whether the "portrait" was removed from that original site at the "owner's" request. I believe that context is extremely important to the case. Was the "portrait" of the person in a crowd of an accident scene, or was it a literal portrait taken at an individual seating in a studio.

I'm well acquainted with a number of the European website laws. I comply with many and ignore some others as stupid. If someone makes a specific request to remove their information we have a procedure to do so and we have never received such a request. We also have every user acknowledge our cookie policy and we block them if they don't accept.

So we are left with your generality with no specific knowledge of THIS case.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular web-site. It is just a matter of google not referencing the subject unless it has the express permission of the originator/owner of the whatever content. That period of time in which the work is protected is also dictated by French law, and it is not forever - just like any other patent-protection.

So, presume you are in France and you google "photo Pinko Palino" and nothing comes up because the photo is private-property. Google can do that very easily.

Go to Italy, google the same, and the photo will likely come up because the rules of privacy-protection are different. Moreover, there will be no photo nor any piece of work that the "owner" does not want on the Internet on a French server. And if the owner of the work does not want it shown publicly in Italy, they will have had to request the protection whenever the original publication was made.

This protection is normal for most works for which the copyright is protected initially for a given period of time.

If the work is on a foreign server then more than likely copyright protection existed already when the work was publicized and thus its internet restrictions were also set (on behalf of the author) by the editor. It is the same rule for all "creative work". (Even medicines.)

AliHajiSheik · Dec 28, 2016

Lafayette said:
It has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular web-site. It is just a matter of google not referencing the subject unless it has the express permission of the originator/owner of the whatever content. That period of time in which the work is protected is also dictated by French law, and it is not forever - just like any other patent-protection.

So, presume you are in France and you google "photo Pinko Palino" and nothing comes up because the photo is private-property. Google can do that very easily.

Go to Italy, google the same, and the photo will likely come up because the rules of privacy-protection are different. Moreover, there will be no photo nor any piece of work that the "owner" does not want on the Internet on a French server. And if the owner of the work does not want it shown publicly in Italy, they will have had to request the protection whenever the original publication was made.

This protection is normal for most works for which the copyright is protected initially for a given period of time.

If the work is on a foreign server then more than likely copyright protection existed already when the work was publicized and thus its internet restrictions were also set (on behalf of the author) by the editor. It is the same rule for all "creative work". (Even medicines.)

I have zero interest in your hypothetical. Court cases have evidence and facts and you have presented the law and none of the facts and evidence of the case. If you choose to not provide any, that is your business but If your choice, I request that you stop replying to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lafayette · Dec 29, 2016

AliHajiSheik said:
I have zero interest in your hypothetical. Court cases have evidence and facts and you have presented the law and none of the facts and evidence of the case. If you choose to not provide any, that is your business but If your choice, I request that you stop replying to me.

Enough is enough. Go bust someone else's you-know-whats.

Moving right a long ...