Indexing Free-for-All - US District Court Issues Injunction against Canadian Supreme Court De-indexing Order

After the decision in the Canadian Supreme court in the Equustek case, many, including this writer, raised concerns about the possible abuse of the precedent set by the case. The de-indexing of online content, while well-intentioned in the removal of infringing content, could still be used as a sword more than a shield against legitimate infringement, including against free speech. This writer for one awaited the first application of the case, particularly in a jurisdiction that leans more towards free speech, and seems like the wish has been granted by the District Court of the Northern District of California only a few weeks ago.

The case of Google LLC v Equustek Solutions Inc. concerns the same subject matter as the Canadian case. In short, Equustek sued Google seeking to force Google to block websites selling infringing goods all over the world, not just in Canada where Google had blocked the websites selling the goods. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately issued the order, and forced Google to block access to the websites all over the world.

Google challenged this ruling in the United States, arguing that the order conflicts with the First Amendment right to free speech, and disregards the Communication Decency Act, which affords immunity to interactive service providers.

Justice Davila first looked at the CDA, which affords immunity from claims to "…providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties". This means that should another publisher, using these services, publish infringing content Google couldn't be sued for that infringement. Even so, to qualify for immunity three criteria need to be satisfied: (1) the company is a "provider or user of an interactive computer service"; (2) the information in question was "provided by another information content provider"; and (3) the Canadian order would hold it liable as the "publisher or speaker" of that information.

Looking at the first criterion, Justice Davila concluded that Google was a 'provider of interactive computer services'. This means that the company provides "…any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server", which encompasses Google's search facility, among other services.

As the content, i.e. the website and the information contained in it (including the infringing goods for sale), was provided by Datalink and not Google, the second criteria was also easily fulfilled. The provision of Google's search facility relies on the company 'crawling' websites on the Internet, which it then indexes and makes available through search results. This allows for users to discover the content, which Google does not post, clearly being provided by 'another information content provider'.

The First Amendment - the best kind of pop-up

Finally, the third criterion looks at whether Google would be held liable for the content provided by another under the order made by the Canadian Supreme Court as the 'publisher or speaker' of that content. According to the order Google has to "…de-index the Datalink websites [from its global search results]… [because it is] the determinative player in allowing the harm to occur".

Per the decision in Barnes v Yahoo!, "…removing content is something publishers do, and to impose liability on the basis of such conduct necessarily involves treating the liable party as a publisher of the content it failed to remove". This liability as a third party for the non-removal of content, should Google not do so when ordered, clearly treats Google as the publisher of that content rather than a mere intermediary with no liability.

Justice Davila therefore considered that Google was immune from the claim under the CDA.

The Court then turned to the question of free speech and irreparable harm. Justice Davila swiftly determined that the Canadian order restricts Google's activity protected by the CDA, and deprives of it of benefits given by US federal law. Similarly an injunction wouldn't serve the public interest, as free speech would be restricted if websites "…were to face tort liability for hosting user-generated content". This has been particularly legislated against through the CDA. As the Internet and other interactive computer services "…offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity", the legislature deemed it required protecting for that purpose to flourish.

Justice Davila issued the injunction against the Canadian order as it "…undermines the policy goals of [the CDA] and threatens free speech on the global internet".

The decision is a very interesting one, and strongly advocates for the protection of the Internet from blanket orders requiring the removal of content globally. This writer is very much a proponent of this approach, as, amongst its faults, the Internet is a bastion of freedom and dissemination of information (including this blog as a very example of that). Infringements should be dealt with appropriately, but blanket de-indexing orders might not be the best way; however, with this in mind, third-party service providers do have to take some responsibility on the removal of content when needed.

Tunneling Through the Internet - VPNs and IP Law

Today's Internet users are more savvy and capable than ever before, and many users' desires for "free" content often leads them to find ways through which to attain that content, even if it's potentially skirting the law using a variety of technological means. Although piracy by itself is a hot topic these days, and often misunderstood (the discussion of piracy and theft on this blog here), the discussion revolving around the subject matter can lead to hyperbolic statements or even the misunderstanding of technological means and their legitimate uses in light of online copyright infringement. One such technology is what are called "Virtual Private Networks", or VPNs, which allow you to create a secure connection through a network service to the public Internet at large, masking who you are and where you are through that service. These connections are also often encrypted and secured through a number of ways, which can be used for both legitimate and questionable uses. Even so, whether the use of VPNs is against the law is not exactly clear-cut, and merits some discussion.

Although sometimes stigmatized, much like in a recent statement by the BBC to the Australian government stating that: "...[suspicious] behavior may include the illegitimate use by Internet users of IP obfuscation tools [such as VPNs] in combination with high download volumes", VPNs do serve a legitimate and arguably useful function. Should an individual wish to mask their Internet traffic from potential government surveillance or the monitoring by any other third parties (irrespective of the nature of your activities online), VPNs handle this quite well. Such an example lies just with are friends in Australia, where new laws have been discussed giving certain bodies potentially free roam in the monitoring of Australians' Internet usage. The proposed law has flared up interests in such services, and one can argue that given such broad tools some level of obfuscation can be said to be reasonable, whether you infringe copyright or not online.

But at the heart of this lies the question of legality, and as said above, this is not wholly straightforward. VPNs enable you to view content which is often not available due to licensing issues beyond certain borders, of which a great example is Netflix, which's offerings vary quite drastically depending on where you are. As such you would not imagine, as a paying subscriber, that accessing said content could infringe any laws, especially since you are paying your dues. Yet those licensing agreements are there for a reason, and weaseling your way to see that content can be a moral and legal grey area.

Some networks are probably not worth accessing  

An argument as to the moral side of things was put forth by Simon Haupt, who argued that "[p]aying for the... service means your money goes to whoever holds the [local] rights for the shows on Netflix. If you're watching [for example] the U.S. service, the rights holders... aren't getting their fair share". This can be argued to be slightly misleading, and as proved by Michael Geist, is indeed disingenuous to an extent, as Netflix for example, pays the same amount for the shows it provides no matter how many times or where they are watched from. Although certain licensing issues can be argued, such as if a show is licensed exclusively to a certain company in country A, but people in that country watch it through Netflix from country B, which was not intended due to the exclusivity of that agreement. This could potentially deprive that party of the commercialization of that work, but is still a hard thing to argue, especially against the users themselves.

Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 296ZA, a company with an exclusive right to the copying or communication to the public of a work has the same rights of enforcement against a person who circumvents, or attempts to do so, any technological means through which said works are protected. Although, at least prima facie, it is quite hard to argue in terms of geo-blocking, one could potentially argue that VPNs and their use in the viewing of restricted content might infringe copyright through section 296ZA. This can be easily countered by the simple fact that it would only apply to the circumvention of exclusion through non-payment of a subscription fee for example, and not so much regional restrictions.

Similar provisions exist elsewhere in the common law as well. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 prescribes under section 116AN that the circumvention of protection measures infringes copyright, potentially including regional locking. The Australian position on whether regional locking is truly a 'technological measure' is still up in the air, but not an entirely impossible inclusion. In the US the old Computer Fraud and Abuse Act protects content from being accessed from non-authorized computers, potentially including geo-blocked content, although no case law has taken that notion on as of yet.

But as one can see the use of VPNs is a true pickle, and has no clear and easy answer as to its legality. Although mounting pressure is being put on the enforcement of regional restrictions on companies such as Netflix, this writer for one highly doubts it will be a legal battle worth waging unless there is a drastic change in the tides of copyright legislation. As for now we're all able to enjoy our forbidden fruit across the pond through services we enjoy and pay for, but be warned: you might experience restrictions on through the companies themselves eventually.

Source: Lawyers Weekly