Post Tagged with: "google"

Facebook by Franco Bouly (CC BY-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/6rk2Qf

B.C. Court of Appeal Rules Facebook’s Fine Print Trumps Privacy Law

One week after the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that it could order Google to remove websites from its global index, the same court (but different judges) ruled that a privacy class action lawsuit against Facebook could not proceed in the province because the Facebook terms and conditions provide that all disputes must be resolved in a court in Santa Clara, California. The decision should provide a wake-up call to users and policy makers because an absolute approach to terms and conditions not only means that Canadian courts may be unable resolve consumer disputes involving companies like Facebook, but that Canadian law will not apply either.

The current Facebook terms and conditions state:

You will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (claim) you have with us arising out of or relating to this Statement or Facebook exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of litigating all such claims. The laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as well as any claim that might arise between you and us, without regard to conflict of law provisions.

While this appears to be slightly different from the terms that governed the dispute before the B.C. courts (it referenced courts in Santa Clara county), the key takeaway from the decision goes well beyond a proposed class action lawsuit over a Facebook “sponsored stories” program that no longer exists. The trial judge rightly noted that the heart of the case is whether online terms and conditions override domestic legal protections (in this case, the B.C. Privacy Act).

June 22, 2015 — 9 comments — News

Google by Carlos Luna (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/5moCVF

B.C. Court of Appeal Upholds Global Deletion Order Against Google

The B.C. Court of Appeal has released its decision in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, a closely watched case involving a court order requiring Google to remove websites from its global index. As I noted in a post on the lower court decision, rather than ordering the company to remove certain links from the search results available through Google.ca, the order intentionally targets the entire database, requiring the company to ensure that no one, anywhere in the world, can see the search results. That post notes:

The implications are enormous since if a Canadian court has the power to limit access to information for the globe, presumably other courts would as well. While the court does not grapple with this possibility, what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database? Or if Iran orders it remove Israeli sites from the database? The possibilities are endless since local rules of freedom of expression often differ from country to country.

The B.C. Court of Appeal decision addresses two key jurisdiction questions: first, whether the court can assert jurisdiction over Google; and second, whether the court order can extend beyond Canada.

June 12, 2015 — 26 comments — News

Początek marszu by Piotr Drabik (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ocTafz

Canada’s Non-Commercial Copyright Fail: Why Did YouTube Mute a Holocaust Memorial Video?

Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom HaShoah) starts tonight with events planned around the world. Last year, my daughter Jordan participated in the March of the Living, an annual event that brings thousands of people from around the world to the concentration camps in Poland. The experience had a profound effect and since her return she has become increasingly active within the March of the Living organization including joining the Ottawa board of directors. As part of tonight’s Holocaust remembrance event in Ottawa, she was asked to create a video to commemorate last year’s trip including interviews with participants, pictures, and video. She spent hours interviewing 18 participants on their experience and worked through hundreds of photos and hours of video to create a five-minute snapshot.

Last week, she posted the video to YouTube in anticipation of tonight’s event. Within hours, she received a message from the event organizer’s wondering why so few interviews appeared on the video. When she looked into the issue, she found that YouTube had muted the audio track with interviews after a couple of minutes (at 2:14 to be precise). The reason? The video includes some copyrighted background music. YouTube’s approach when it matches audio to a copyrighted work is to mute the non-music track, though it provides an option to fill out a fair dealing/fair use claim. Jordan did that, pointing out that Section 29.21 of the Canadian Copyright Act provides specific protection for non-commercial user generated content. The provision states:

April 15, 2015 — 12 comments — News

Ignore Point by Daniel Kulinski (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/aPcRB2

The CRTC’s Right to Forget: Regulator to Ignore Netflix and Google TalkTV Submissions

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission backed down in its public spat with Netflix and Google yesterday, releasing public letters advising the two Internet giants that without the supporting evidence it was seeking, the CRTC will remove all Netflix and Google materials (including submitted documents and transcripts) from the public record. The Commission emphasized that it maintains the power under Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act to require disclosure of information and that participants cannot pick and choose the parts of the regulatory process they participate in. Yet rather than enforce that power, it has decided not to fight the Netflix and Google refusal to disclose information, instead opting for a regulatory right to forget.

September 30, 2014 — 6 comments — News

0 - Netflix image by thinkaholic_me (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ewj8CZ

CRTC vs. Netflix: Has Canada’s Broadcast Regulator Started a Fight It Can’t Win?

Canadian regulatory hearings are usually relatively predictable affairs with scripted presentations and well-rehearsed speaking lines to most questions. During the recent two-week Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing on the future of television regulation (dubbed “TalkTV” by the CRTC), Chair Jean-Pierre Blais expressed frustration on several occasions with the unwillingness of witnesses to veer much beyond their prepared notes.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that changed on the final day of the hearing, though it was Blais that seemingly departed from the script. Netflix, the online video giant that popped up in virtually every discussion, was one of the last witnesses on the schedule. The company had submitted comments to the CRTC consultation over the summer, but had not asked for an opportunity to appear before the Commission.

After the CRTC requested that it come to Gatineau to answer questions, the company came prepared to discuss the development of its business, but chafed at the prospect of disclosing confidential information such as subscriber numbers and spending on Canadian content. Blais took great umbrage at its reluctance to disclose the information, ultimately ordering the company to comply with the information request and implying that failure to do so could result in new regulation.

September 29, 2014 — 10 comments — Columns