The Canadian Supreme Court believes it has jurisdiction over the entire Internet.

[Grand Mal]

It's not a question of we will see, but your ****ing border is right ****ing there and you will keep your ass in it.

Sorry, didn't mean to set you off. It's just a copyright question, being tested in the internet. We'll see how it works out.

Oh, wipe your chin.

 

[Harshaw]

If I search anything right now on Google Canada that is copyrighted you will see the number of results due to DMCA. The DMCA has nothing to do with our Copyright Act.

Google is an American company, situated in the US, which operates under US law.

 

[Henrin]

Sorry, didn't mean to set you off. It's just a copyright question, being tested in the internet. We'll see how it works out.

Oh, wipe your chin.

I'm hardly mad. The point remains that countries don't have jurisdiction outside of their borders. Any country that is saying they have jurisdiction outside of their borders or is acting like they have jurisdiction outside of their borders is wrong.

 

[Grand Mal]

I'm hardly mad. The point remains that countries don't have jurisdiction outside of their borders. Any country that is saying they have jurisdiction outside of their borders or is acting like they have jurisdiction outside of their borders is wrong.

We'll see.

 

[Carjosse]

Google is an American company, situated in the US, which operates under US law.

So it is not a violation of free expression when the US does it, but when Canada does it is a violation of free expression?

 

[Henrin]

Maybe the US should try ****ing doing it.

Agreed. The US acts like they rule the planet far too often.

 

[Harshaw]

So it is not a violation of free expression when the US does it, but when Canada does it is a violation of free expression?

The US has jurisdiction over Google. Canada does not have jurisdiction over the entire Internet.

 

[Mr Person]

A tangent, but still: that gets to one of the dangers inherent in our Democracy.

You could say the same thing about a Supreme Court order. How can they enforce it? They can't. They have no army. Their power resides only in everyone else playing by the rules. The only reason southern states had to desegregate - and they took their sweet time anyway - is that the chief executive issued orders that mobilized federal power to enforce the order. The Chief Executive could have said "**** it"; if state forces were of like mind, there would have been a constitutional crisis.

Democracy, like fate, hangs on a thread. It's a danger at rest. As always, might may not make right, but it does make reality.

_________________________

Because there's no difference between liberals and authoritarians. In fact it's easy to say Canadian liberals are more anti-freedom than the North Korean government.

I just farted, and the fart made more sense than that post.

I think it might have been a warning about an incoming prop plane or maybe someone screwing up the throttle on their lawn mower, though I don't see either outside.

:shrug:

'You could say the same thing about a Supreme Court order.'

But the executive will enforce an order by the supreme court. my point with the Canada ruling is they have no way of enforcing it, even with an army.

Interesting. Instead of replying to the post where I made my point to YOU, you chose to quote a post where I replied to reinoe. The first three quotes above this text indicate that you replied to my reply to reinoe. Yet you quote something from the topmost post, which was the response to YOU.

Why would you reply to my reply to reinoe's quote, but then quote me in my reply to you? I hope the answer is "whoops. Made a mistake"




The exchange should have looked like this:

How can Canada possibly enforce this anyway? they have no way of controlling how search results work in other countries. Even China and NK haven't had the huevos to do that.

A tangent, but still: that gets to one of the dangers inherent in our Democracy.

You could say the same thing about a Supreme Court order. How can they enforce it? They can't. They have no army. Their power resides only in everyone else playing by the rules. The only reason southern states had to desegregate - and they took their sweet time anyway - is that the chief executive issued orders that mobilized federal power to enforce the order. The Chief Executive could have said "**** it"; if state forces were of like mind, there would have been a constitutional crisis.

Democracy, like fate, hangs on a thread. It's a danger at rest. As always, might may not make right, but it does make reality.

'You could say the same thing about a Supreme Court order.'

But the executive will enforce an order by the supreme court. my point with the Canada ruling is they have no way of enforcing it, even with an army.

The point is pretty simple: a constitutional crisis is just one step away in this Democracy.

It's not 100% on point, but then, it's OK for there to be some asides in threads on DP.

It's quite obviously not off-point. The effect of the Canadian ruling depends on the willingness of people to enforce it.

 

[reinoe]

I just farted, and the fart made more sense than that post.



I think it might have been a warning about an incoming prop plane or maybe someone screwing up the throttle on their lawn mower, though I don't see either outside.

:shrug:

You need a new act, that's getting repetitive. You can't even address the topic at hand and resort to lame ad hom attacks. Typical of liberalism everywhere: you have no choice but to deflect.

 

[Mr Person]

You need a new act, that's getting repetitive. You can't even address the topic at hand and resort to lame ad hom attacks. Typical of liberalism everywhere: you have no choice but to deflect.

Farting? Yeah, well, I'm human. At least I turn off speech-to-text when I do it.

 

[Harshaw]

Farting? Yeah, well, I'm human. At least I turn off speech-to-text when I do it.

OK, props. That was an LOL.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Because there's no difference between liberals and authoritarians. In fact it's easy to say Canadian liberals are more anti-freedom than the North Korean government.

That's an extreme partisan statement that has no basis in reality.

If you if you think Canada is worse then North Korea, then you are not using logic.

Anyway, I think this is just some silly ruling that will go nowhere. I think in the end of the day, there may be higher IP protection in Canada on the internet, but that's about it. I think its a rather toothless ruling.

 

[Evilroddy]

The 7-2 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was very flawed as was the British Columbia injunction in the DataLink case. No court ever determined that DataLink was in breach of any law. The whole mess is based on allegations only and there has been no finding of guilt. It is profoundly dangerous to free expression and free access to information when courts apply orders based on unproven allegations. If commercial expression can be limited without trial then what about other expression like political expression, academic freedom or just plain old news from independent journalists? So this case and the subsequent appeals should never have happened before a proper trial occurred to prove that DataLink was in the wrong.

The second mistake was the argument that Justice Apella used regarding the scope of the remedy. He argued that since Internet commerce is a global commerce then any meaningful remedy ordered by the BC court needed to be global in scope too. That is daft. The jurisdiction of the BC court is limited to BC generally and all of Canada on only some matters. It is most certainly not global in scope so imposing global remedies is beyond its jurisdiction and power. What the court should have done is issue an international arrest warrant for the rather sketchy individual who fled BC jurisdiction when the case was first initiated and tried him.

The third mistake was not acknowledging the unenforceiblity of the BC court's injunction and thus bringing the whole Canadian and British Columbian legal systems into a state of disrepute by endorsing such extraterritorial overreach.

This was bad law based on no trial's legal findings but rather based on unproven allegations, which was unwisely endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Not a good day for the Rule of Law in BC and by extension Canada is this.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[ludin]

Worldwide.

Google Loses Supreme Court of Canada Case Over Search Results | Fortune.com



Look, I'm friendly to IP protection, but this is preposterous. Canada has jurisdiction over Canada.

There's very little difference between this and, say, following the recent case in Germany over hate speech on the Internet, a German court trying to shut down a website hosted in Pennsylvania because it runs afoul of German "hate speech" laws.

Of course, the Canadian courts are hardly the first to try to do this.

I would say good luck enforcing that elsewhere. they only have to comply with CA law in this case.
these judges have no power outside of CA.

 

[ludin]

I am not saying I support the ruling but it is incredibly hypocritical to not condemn the US for doing literally the exact same thing, on a much larger scale and scope.

which is a strawman.

it has nothing to do with the topic or the discussion. why can't you stay on topic.
the CA does not have the power to force google to do anything outside of CA.
let alone the rest of the world. same as in the US.

 

[SocialD]

_________________________











Interesting. Instead of replying to the post where I made my point to YOU, you chose to quote a post where I replied to reinoe. The first three quotes above this text indicate that you replied to my reply to reinoe. Yet you quote something from the topmost post, which was the response to YOU.

Why would you reply to my reply to reinoe's quote, but then quote me in my reply to you? I hope the answer is "whoops. Made a mistake"




The exchange should have looked like this:








The point is pretty simple: a constitutional crisis is just one step away in this Democracy.

It's not 100% on point, but then, it's OK for there to be some asides in threads on DP.

It's quite obviously not off-point. The effect of the Canadian ruling depends on the willingness of people to enforce it.

I participate on this website mostly when I'm at work Mr Person. I read stuff and get busy come back to it later.. sometimes don't get the time to come back to it at all. If I see something to reply to , and have time to reply to it then I will. If you want to whine about me replying to your reply to someone else instead of our reply to me then get over it I don't have time to mull over everything.