NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan access toYouTube restored after "blasphemous"vid removed
The fact that states (or countries) assert that they have such "long arm" rights is a whole world away from being able to enforce them. Even within the U.S., such enforcement is often highly problematic, internationally much more so. Obviously if we're going to operate on the basis that everything that offends groups in any part of the world will be deleted globally from YouTube (or wherever), we could end up with a lowest common denominator of content where an old episode of "Leave It to Beaver" would be banned. As various groups see such successful take-downs, they will only become emboldened to make more demands. The primary issue for Google and other players in this space isn't international legal action, but international business and access. This is both understandable and explicit -- Google has been very clear that access considerations have driven its participation in the Chinese censorship system, apparently (judging from public statements) against their founder's own best instincts. I don't necessarily condemn such actions out of hand -- there is a valid argument to be made that having access -- even censored access -- brings significant longer-term benefits to these populations, but let's at least be direct about what's going on and what tradeoffs are involved. The Chinese case is very different from what we're talking about in terms of the Pakistan video take-down. The censored version of Google offered to the Chinese is not also forced upon the rest of the world as the only Google choice. The removal of a video from YouTube globally does force that choice on everyone, everywhere. That other copies are of course available from other sites isn't the matter of concern here, the question is the appropriateness of the action in the first place. In "Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments" ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000253.html ) I proposed a framework for the *carefully controlled and managed* insertions of "dispute notifications" on search results to help deal with such controversies on Google's main search engine. I will now propose that a similar concept could be applied to services such as YouTube, as a preferred alternative to global video take-downs. That is, instead of being able to easily demand that a video be expunged from YouTube (for other than DMCA-related reasons), a procedure would be in place to tag the associated video in a manner that would display the noted objections to that material, and could even be used by national authorities to impose regional or local blocking (distasteful as this is) without affecting the rest of the planet's rights to view the video in question if they wish. Actual global take-downs would be much more limited, e.g. to clear-cut DMCA and universally egregious materials such as child abuse-related videos and the like, which are far less likely to create value judgment dilemmas for the services involved. I am increasingly convinced that the careful and controlled tagging of videos, search results, etc. in such manners could be a useful compromise between "no action" and "global censorship" -- and while I understand that such tagging systems would be non-trivial to implement and manage, they seem on their face to be far more desirable and fair than any obvious alternatives. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - > ------=_Part_23566_26389270.1204086627061 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Disposition: inline > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com> > wrote: > > > Fred Reimer wrote: > > > > > Personally, I think Google/YouTube's response WAS appropriate. They ar= > e > > > just following the law. > > > > Google is a California corporation. They are legally required to comply > > with US and California law. They are under no obligation to follow the > > law in any other country, except to the extent that they find it to > > their advantage to do so. > > > > > > Not so. Many states employ "long arm statutes" which permit them to go > after entities that are not inside the territorial borders of thier state. > I would think other countries may see it the same way. > > Virginia State Code > > *=A7 8.01-328.1.* When personal jurisdiction over person may be exercised= > . > > A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts > directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's: > > [Irrelevant parts deleted] > > B. Using a computer or computer network located in the Commonwealth > shall constitute an act in the Commonwealth. For purposes of this > subsection, "use" and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as > those contained in =A7 18.2-152.2. > > C. When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, > only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be > asserted against him; however, nothing contained in this chapter shall > limit, restrict or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of any court of this > Commonwealth over foreign corporations which are subject to service of > process pursuant to the provisions of any other statute. > > What all that means is Virginia interprets this to mean that if Google > traffic transits AOL networks (AOL is a Virginia company) then it can > exercise personal jurisdiction over them, and haul Google into court for > violating one of its laws. > > http://www.jocs-law.com/long-arm_statute.htm (1999) > > A 2002 case in the appeals court has limited this somewhat, but the > principle is well and alive. > > http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2002/20021213.asp > > In a wrongful death suit, Georgia is going after a company that is in > Kuwait. > > http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=3D1203677143074 > > In summary, what Google did was probably prudent, but I don't have to like > it. BTW, IANAL, and this isn't legal advice. > > ------=_Part_23566_26389270.1204086627061 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Disposition: inline > > <br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Barry Gold = > <<a href=3D"mailto:bgold@matrix-consultants.com"; target=3D"_blank">bgold= > @matrix-consultants.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"= > style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.= > 8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > > <div>Fred Reimer wrote:<br><br> > > Personally, I think Google/YouTube's response WAS appropriate. &nb= > sp;They are<br> > > just following the law.<br> > <br> > </div>Google is a California corporation. They are legally required t= > o comply<br> > with US and California law. They are under no obligation to follow th= > e<br> > law in any other country, except to the extent that they find it to<br> > their advantage to do so.<br> > <br></blockquote></div><br><br>Not so. Many states employ "long > arm statutes" which permit them to go after entities that are not > inside the territorial borders of thier state. I would think other > countries may see it the same way.<br> > <br><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;">Virginia State Code<br></div><p style= > =3D"margin-left: 40px;"><strong>=A7 8.01-328.1.</strong> > > When personal jurisdiction over person may be exercised.</p> > > <p style=3D"margin-left: 40px;"> =20 > A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts direc= > tly=20 > or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's:</p> > > <blockquote style=3D"margin-left: 40px;"> > <p> [Irrelevant parts deleted]<br></p></blockquote><p style=3D= > "margin-left: 40px;"> =20 > B. Using a computer or computer network located in the Commonwealth shall= > =20 > constitute an act in the Commonwealth. For purposes of this subsection, &qu= > ot;use"=20 > and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as those cont= > ained=20 > in =A7 18.2-152.2.</p> > > <p style=3D"margin-left: 40px;"> =20 > C. When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon=20 > this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this= > =20 > section may be asserted against him; however, nothing contained in this=20 > chapter shall limit, restrict or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of any= > =20 > court of this Commonwealth over foreign corporations which are subject to= > =20 > service of process pursuant to the provisions of any other statute.</p><br>= > What > all that means is Virginia interprets this to mean that if Google > traffic transits AOL networks (AOL is a Virginia company) then it can > exercise personal jurisdiction over them, and haul Google into court > for violating one of its laws.<br> > <br><a href=3D"http://www.jocs-law.com/long-arm_statute.htm"; target=3D"_bla= > nk">http://www.jocs-law.com/long-arm_statute.htm</a> (1999)<br><br>A = > 2002 case in the appeals court has limited this somewhat, but the principle= > is well and alive.<br> > > <br><a href=3D"http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2002/20021213.asp"; = > target=3D"_blank">http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2002/20021213.as= > p</a><br><br>In a wrongful death suit, Georgia is going after a company tha= > t is in Kuwait.<br> > > <br><a href=3D"http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=3D1203677143074"; targe= > t=3D"_blank">http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=3D1203677143074</a><br><= > br>In summary, what Google did was probably prudent, but I don't have t= > o like it. BTW, IANAL, and this isn't legal advice.<br> > > ------=_Part_23566_26389270.1204086627061--