No, Google, you can't argue both sides of a situation apply to you

[Black Aeronaut]

Kinda siding with Nemo here. Observe this bit of qouted text:

Along the way, it rejected Google's undue censorship argument that "URLs not specifically reviewed and identified may be used for any number of innocent purposes and a complete removal could result in possibly numerous URLs being blocked without Google having had the opportunity to review them and determine if a departure from its usual indexing process is necessary or warranted in the circumstances."

Justice Fenlon noted that Google already filtered its search results to comply with the law to remove child pornography and hate speech in certain countries. The potential threat of accidental, innocent blocking didn't mean Google could do nothing.

First off, this isn't hate speech or child pornography. This is a copyright infringement suit, and something we've already beaten a dead horse over. In fact, I've seen nothing in the article about the case between Equustek and Datalink other than a ruling has already been handed out. Who the hell are these people and does Equustek really have a legitimate claim?

Secondly, Google is already attempting to comply. If anything, I would like to applaud their efforts to not censor sites needlessly. Evidently, all they ask is to be given a chance to review the webpages in question and determine if they are linking to said product. If the Canadian courts REALLY want Google to act to their satisfaction, then they need to submit a complete list of webpages they want Google to censor.

Sorry, but in this case the pot is calling the kettle black - the courts can't blame Google for their ambiguity.

Besides, if distributors generating new URLs is the problem, then why don't they just stop them at the source: the IP Address System.