Post Tagged with: "google"

Not Just Netflix: Google Challenges the CRTC’s Power to Regulate Online Video

The Netflix – CRTC battle has generated considerable attention, but Netflix is not alone in contesting the CRTC’s authority to regulate Internet video services. As I suggested in a post yesterday, Google has adopted a similar position, refusing to provide the Commission with all of the information it was seeking. While the Google and Netflix submissions have oddly not yet been posted by the CRTC (all others have), the Globe obtained a copy that confirms Google’s position that it believes it also falls outside the Broadcasting Act. According to the report (also not online), Google declined to provide some requested data, noting that “Google does not publish or otherwise disclose this commercially sensitive business information.” The company adopted the position that its disclosures were voluntary and that it is not part of the Canadian broadcast system.

The Google position is notable because it is presumably not based on the question of presence within Canada, since Google maintains a significant Canadian presence. Rather, the core challenge will likely focus on whether a service such as Youtube (which once went by the slogan “Broadcast Yourself”) can properly be characterized as broadcasting for the purposes of current Canadian law.

September 24, 2014 — 22 comments — News

The CRTC listened intently to the CFRO presentation by Robin Puga (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/8XhHm1

Does the CRTC Have the Power Regulate Online Video?: Internet Companies Set to Challenge Its Authority

Last week’s very public fight between the CRTC and Netflix escalated on Monday as Netflix refused to comply with Commission’s order to supply certain confidential information including subscriber numbers and expenditures on Canadian children’s content. While the disclosure concerns revolve around the confidentiality of the data, the far bigger issue is now whether the CRTC has the legal authority to order it to do anything at all. The response from Netflix states:

The Responses are filed voluntarily by Netflix to assist the Commission in this proceeding. The Responses are based solely on a review of the video archive of Netflix’s appearance on the CPAC web site, in view of the fact that the transcript from the hearing was not available.
The filing of the Responses is not an acknowledgment of or attornment to either the jurisdiction of the Commission by Netflix, or the substantive application of Canadian law (including the provisions of the Broadcasting Act) to Netflix. The Responses are filed strictly without prejudice to any future positions that Netflix may take.

September 23, 2014 — 15 comments — News

Obama in the Backseat: Rally to Save the Internet by Free Press (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/osRvjr

Ontario Government Asks the CRTC To Impose New Regulations and Fees on Internet Giants Such as Netflix and Google

This afternoon, the Ontario government appeared before the CRTC as part of its future of television hearing. The Ontario government issued a clear call for new regulation of so-called new media companies such as Netflix and Google. The government states:

In order to create a more level playing field, the ministry recommends decreasing this regulatory imbalance. The ministry believes the best way to accomplish this is to expand the regulation of new media TV, rather than by lightening the current regulation of traditional TV.

What does the expansion of regulation involve?

September 8, 2014 — 41 comments — News

What's on the blacklist? Three sites that SOPA could put at risk by opensource.com (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/aZhtRV

Should Canadian Courts Decide What the World Gets to See Online?

The challenge of jurisdiction and the Internet has long been one of the most contentious online legal issues. Given that the Internet has little regard for conventional borders, the question of whose law applies, which court gets to apply it, and how it can be enforced is seemingly always a challenge.

Striking the right balance can be exceptionally difficult: if courts are unable to assert jurisdiction, the Internet becomes a proverbial “wild west” with no applicable law. Conversely, if every court asserts jurisdiction, the Internet becomes over-regulated with a myriad of potentially conflicting laws vying to govern online activities.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that in recent years, courts in many countries have adopted a reasonable balance where they are willing to assert jurisdiction over online activities or companies where there is a “real and substantial” connection, but they limit the scope of enforcing their rulings to their own jurisdiction. In other words, companies cannot disregard local laws where they operate there, but courts similarly should not disregard the prospect of conflicting rules between different countries.

June 27, 2014 — 5 comments — Columns

Erasing history by Alan Cleaver (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/9a21aJ

Global Deletion Orders? B.C. Court Orders Google To Remove Websites From its Worldwide Index

In the aftermath of the European Court of Justice “right to be forgotten” decision, many asked whether a similar ruling could arise in Canada. While a privacy-related ruling has yet to hit Canada, last week the Supreme Court of British Columbia relied in part on the decision in issuing an unprecedented order requiring Google to remove websites from its global index. The ruling in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack is unusual since its reach extends far beyond Canada. 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. Note that this differs from the European right to be forgotten ruling, which is limited to Europe.

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. Yet the B.C. court adopts the view that it can issue an order with global effect. Its reasoning is very weak, concluding that:

the injunction would compel Google to take steps in California or the state in which its search engine is controlled, and would not therefore direct that steps be taken around the world. That the effect of the injunction could reach beyond one state is a separate issue.

Unfortunately, it does not engage effectively with this “separate issue.”

June 17, 2014 — 31 comments — News