I have to admit I totally agree with both decisions. It might seem like the court over stepped it’s jurisdiction but I think they did a job of justifying their decisions.
In the Facebook case the justices highlighted the fact that certain services, like Facebook, have become unavoidable if we want to be active participants online.
In the Google case, the court decided the inconvenience to Google was minimal and they already had mechanisms in place to handle it but the impact to the claimant was significant because most of their sales were outside of Canada - so limiting the link removal to Google.CA was not the point. And requiring the claimant to file against Google in every country Google operates would have been unrealistic.
That’s about the only thing I would take issue with. I don’t facebook and, quite honestly, never felt the need to communicate online with many of the same people people I dodge calls from in real life anyhow. Yeah, that was kinda insensitive, but it’s the truth nonetheless. Anyone I actually want to talk to knows to email me, call me, or pm me where I hang out.
This is happy news that should be a given for all nations. Also, thanks for adding Cancon
If this case is considered a precedent then others as well, like Twitter, Google, Netflix, etc could suddenly find portions of their click-wrapped contracts invalid and/or un-enforceable.
It will be interesting to see who is targeted by the next lawsuit. And what the impact will be. It would be unfortunate if services started to cut features in Canada rather than adapt their terms of service.
Y’know, I could actually see people like Dorsey using this as an “excuse” to push back against the corporate bean counters and sharks
cut features in Canada rather than adapt their terms of service.
Well…yeah…there are also sports bars out there where if you want a Saturday shift you better be damn good at giving head to get ahead (used to waitress, some mangers actually try that shit! :0). I feel the same way about that as I do my software Freedoms…I’ll just go without supposed benefit xyz and keep my dignity thankyouverymuch!
And here’s a dissenting opinion, noting that the Canadian Supreme Court took pains to point out the defendant was engaged in extranational intellectual property theft, and the extraordinary nature of the injunction was not only required, but also compatible (i.e. not in conflict with laws in other territories).
The opinion also points out that dictatorial nations won’t usually ask for permission to engage in censorship, and freer nations would be constrained from using this ruling as precedent due to the narrow nature of the decision.
Yeah, I totally agree with the judge’s decision in the Google case (and in the Facebook case but for different reasons).
And I hate the slippery slope argument people have made against the decision. The world always ends in flames when start down that path!
As you said, the judges were very specific with this decision - intellectual property is widely recognized and the theft of is almost universally condemned. There was nothing ideological about this case.
I didn’t have a chance to read the entire article you linked to, but I’ll try to get back to it.
Thanks,
Please respect our code of conduct which is simple: don't be a dick.
