Why can the UK&#39;s Competition and Markets Authority tell Facebook to sell Giphy? The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) tells Facebook owner to sell GIF library Giphy. But since Facebook (now Meta) is an American company, what authority does the UK have to tell Facebook to sell Giphy?
My understanding is such: It doesn't matter where the company is incorporated (e.g. incorporated in the US = &quot;American company&quot;). It matters where the company does business. Companies must comply with the law in ALL countries that they do business in. Facebook does business in the UK, so they must comply with UK regulations, including those by the CMA, just like any other UK company. So, what can Facebook do? Comply Appeal Ignore and face legal penalties (fines, suspension of ability to do business in the UK, seizure of UK assets, etc.) Stop doing business in the UK (e.g. see Google News leaving Spain over their news aggregation law).
Can't we get a legal action about AdBlocker as web masters? No. I assume that by "web master" you mean a server admin who contracts with entities which are seeking to advertise their goods and services. An advertiser pays the server to transmit (or send(), in terms of a socket API) certain content to whoever submits a GET or POST request ("the client"). The scope of the contract ends there, and the end consumer or client is not a party to that contract. Any point beyond the server admin's routers, it is perfectly lawful for end users to run some program on the client side where the purpose of that program is to (1) parse any packets received in the client socket, (2) filter out some of it, (3) and forward the rest to a browser. Bringing legal action against AdBlocker would be somewhat akin to suing producers of TV remote controls under the allegation that the mute button functionality blocks advertisement content.
By posting an image (or any other content) on an openly accessible page, a person such as Alice is implicitly giving permission to anyone to view or read that content, although not necessarily to make copies of it. A link from a page operated by Bob to such content is not making a copy, nor is it any other form of infringement. However, there are other possible cases. For example, if Alice sells access to her pictures, placing them behind a paywall, so that only those who have paid have a valid ID/PW set to gain access, then if Bob provides a link that bypasses the paywall, that may well be contributory infringement (CI). When Bob builds a business model on encouraging or facilitating infringement, that will be CI. If Alice does not post her pictures, but Charlie gets copies and posts them without permission, a link from Bob's site to Charlie's may be CI, particularly if Bob gets per-click revenue or other benefits for increased traffic.
A document can be distributed under more than one license. Just because it has been made available under a CC license for free, doesn't mean that IEEE can't negotiate a different license with different terms that allow them to sell the content. (This is similar to the way that a software library can be available for free under a license that permits non-commercial use, but also be made available for a fee for commercial use.) If you want to know whether IEEE is legally selling Aaron Swartz's manuscript, you can contact Morgan &amp; Claypool, the publisher that owns the copyright, and ask them whether this use by IEEE has been authorized by them. For the other documents you mention, contact MIT Press. Etc.
Very simply, they aren't selling genuine titles. There are two limited exceptions: Note that there is considerable difference between Scottish and English law in this area. You cannot purchase a genuine British title, with one exception, the feudal title of a Scottish baron; and certainly cannot buy a peerage title. Scottish Feudal Baronies fetch a mighty price; the Barony of MacDonald was up for sale at over £1 million. Richard, 7th Earl of Bradford, at http://www.faketitles.com/ For Scottish feudal baronies, For centuries baronies conferred important commercial benefits and legal privileges, but they are now personal titles with no powers or responsibilities. Holders are able to sell, gift or bequeath them, as ‘incorporeal’ property separate from the ownership of land, and there is a small but active market for them. https://www.lindsays.co.uk/services/for-you-and-your-family/scottish-barony-titles We generally estimate legal fees between £2,000 -£3,000 for the acquisition of a barony and £3,000 -£4,000 for an earldom. The barony itself will cost in the region of £75,000 or more in the case ofalordship, earldomor marquisate. https://www.lindsays.co.uk/assets/downloads/Buying-a-Scottish-Barony-Title.pdf In England, it is possible you can purchase a Lordship of the Manor, which does not give you a title, but enables you to put after your name, Lord of the Manor of Lower Piddling-in-the-Trough or some such place. Richard, 7th Earl of Bradford, at http://www.faketitles.com/ When I acquire a barony title what will my name be? Let us assume that your name is John Smith and that you have acquired the Barony of Strathglen. You can then style yourself John Smith, Baron of Strathglen. But note, neither Baron Strathglen nor Baron Smith of Strathglen because both of these would indicate a peerage title and barony titles are feudal titles. https://baronytitles.com/frequently-asked-questions/
In theory, what Dale says. However, in practice: Nope, and that's why the trader is in Timbuktu. And I apologize profusely to the Malian people, I have every reason to think it is a fine country in which citizens obey international laws and honor claims, unlike certain other countries. In anglo/Five Eyes nations, Timbuktu tends to simply be used as a metaphor for &quot;a country far, far away and different in its ways than us&quot;. If Bob is regularly buying things in the USA or Timbuktu, then either Bob works for Aperture Science and is using portals, or more likely Bob is using mail order. And now, we get to the nut of it. Most mail order sales are done by mail-order sellers who deal in volume. Those people choose their jurisdictions and venues carefully. And they have help. Do European or British consumer rights legislations bind the American/Malian trader to protect Bob, as the GDPR would? No! That's WHY they're in Timbuktu! (or, wherever they actually are; generally behind what I'll call the Red Curtain.) The point of being there is to be untouchable by civil action or government penalty due to that government's non-enrollment in international agreements, and outright obstruction of such actions. Yes, they and their legal team have crunched the question of &quot;what happens when a European or Briton sues us? What happens when an Anglo or EU government tries to action us?&quot; Their companies are structured so they slough those off at minimal real loss. Ever notice how many sellers have a company name that looks like they rolled their face across a keyboard? That's a sockpuppet shell company, and they have thousands of them. If their other layers of defense fail, they simply fold that company and create another. Their government lets them do this, because they chose jurisdictions wisely. A huge fraction of mail order sales are done on this basis, typically through web sites which purport to be &quot;only a marketplace connecting buyers to sellers&quot;... even though some of those marketplaces also provide warehousing and shipping services to the third party (&quot;only a warehouse&quot; and &quot;only a drop-ship firm&quot;)... and even though they are known for selling their own products, and use the smallest text on the page to mention that this particular item is from a third party. Not mentioning any names. This type of &quot;be fully complicit in selling junk, while the seller of record hides behind the Red Curtain and uses arrays of shell companies to limit exposure&quot; has become systemized in much of the mail order world. Another scheme I've seen is to trick American consumers into being the seller of record; these people end up &quot;holding the liability bag&quot;, and are typically not insured and not collectible in any practical way. Of course you have lovely companies like Eaton, Midnight Solar, Harsco Rail, Roshel, ILSCO, etc. who will meet GDPR simply because it's the right thing to do, even if they don't have feet on the ground inside the EU or UK against which those governments might action. But nobody asks if they're subject to GDPR, do they?
That a company (C) has a website that can be accessed from a given county does not mean that the company operates in that country. If C is located in country A, markets and advertises to country A, offers products designed to appeal in country A, has its site only in the primary language of country A, uses servers located in country A, and has all its assets and physical offices in country A, it is not operating in country X, even if a few people from X do business with C over its web site. Country X may have laws which claim to apply to C or its web site. It will find it hard to enforce those laws, particularly if owners and officers of X do not travel to X. It will find it hard to extradite anyone for violations of the laws of X unless those actions are also crimes under the laws of A. If X is a major, powerful country such as the US, the UK, or the EU it may be able to get A to enforce its court orders, or to use its influence over the banking system to impose penalties on C. If X is North Korea, or even Brazil, it is probably out of luck. Thus the management of C needs worry primarily about the laws of A, and to a lesser extent the laws of major countries that make some effort to enforce their laws outside their own borders, such as the GDPR, or certain US laws. It probably has little reason to worry about the laws of other countries. If A is itself a major country that can easily resist any pressue from X, C has even less reason to worry. If C does significant business in countries D and E, and particularly if it opens physical offices in D or keeps assets in E, it will have much more reason to worry about the laws of D and E. If it does advertising in the D &amp; E markets, this also gives C more reason to be concerned with their laws. There is always some risk of X finding a way to enforce its laws, but the risk is small.
You might follow the Wikipedia links to the full holding. They did recognize that Google caches images, particularly thumbnails of images. Do a Find on &quot;cache&quot;. From the 9th Circuit Holding - That local browser caching is fair use is supported by a recent decision holding that Google's own cache constitutes fair use.