In instructions to Google, Judge Rossignoli says that the company must “adopt the necessary technical means to immediately uninstall from Android systems that report IP addresses in the territory of the Argentine Republic (which can be verified by the IP addresses assigned to this country), the application named Magis TV.”

"What was achieved is an unprecedented court order, which is in the process of being analyzed by Google – we understand that they cannot deny it – which is to uninstall, through the Android operating system update, the application on all devices that have an IP address in Argentina,” [prosecuter Alejandro] Musso says.

  • Emerald@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    14 hours ago

    What will be achieved once this is completed is that the installed app disappears and cannot be downloaded again, thus breaking the cycle of digital piracy

    You can’t break the cycle of digital piracy. Information wants to be free. Going against digital piracy is going against the grain of technology. But I guess if the copyright trolls got their way, there would be no general purpose computing.

    • pedroapero@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I guess if the copyright trolls got their way, there would be no general purpose computing.

      Exactly. These kinds of statements are so naive.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s not, but it seems Argentina doesn’t think people should be allowed to own their phones.

    • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      because they are in full control. and because they are the only ones. thats more than good enough.

      one should not use google in the first place.

  • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 days ago

    ICC Arbitration coming in 3 … 2 …

    Honestly, I hope Google just stops doing business in Argentina. Let their courts tussle with phone manufacturers that sell Android devices until they do the same. Not the end of the world if your citizens have to buy such things grey-market or keep using what they already have, or buy devices with other operating systems.

    Before you say Apple, Apple would have to handle it pretty much the same as Google if/when they get sued/prosecuted like so.

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      Its just that Apple doesnt allow sideloading and thus can demand a takedown which could result in an automatic uninstall.

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        Wasn’t recently a resolution in the EU to allow apple to have alternative app stores and thus allow side loading?

          • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            It’s not separate builds, but the App Store already checks your location when you access it, and it uses that location data along with other hints you are under EU jurisdiction to decide whether to allow you to sideload or not.

            Or you can use the developer tools to perform a more limited form of sideloading in any country.

          • Localhorst86
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Even if you are a EU citizen, apple will remove your ability to sideload if you leave the EU for an extended period (I dont recall if it is 30 or 90 days)

    • GrindingGears@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction over civil matters. The ICC only has jurisdiction over the most egregious of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, on a voluntary transnational basis (you have to be a signatory country, which I believe Argentina is).

      • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        There’s the International Criminal Court, yes, but there’s also the International Chamber of Commerce.

        The confusion gives them(the Commerce peeps) a veneer of authority, although as a facet of the International Monetary Foundation that the US/EU requires countries to sign onto in order to do business, they do issue binding decisions versus member countries. That, or the US get’s more hands-on with its meddling.

        • GrindingGears@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Ah I get you, sorry, I stand corrected. Surely such a claim would come forward through the WTO though, would it not? Would the ICC (the Chamber of Commerce) have enough teeth as the forum for what’s surely a monumental case?

          • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            The WTO is probably right. I couldn’t remember earlier, did some googling, and went with what I found. The WTO and IMF together are a global juggernaut. The ICC is … the one that sticks out in my memory, for some reason.

            • GrindingGears@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              I believe the ICC does have a dispute forum. But when you get to these IGOs, it’s unbelievable how many there are. Could probably bring the complaint forward in multiple other forums too.

  • MajesticFlame@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Is google even able to do it? They are unable to push os updates directly in most cases, sinco those go through phone vendors. Idk if they already have the ability to remotely uninstall apps. Maybe through the appstore?

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Even that is pretty limited since it can be disabled, and even if they changed it to not be officially able to be disabled by users, ROM makers can still disable it in various ways, and since their problem is TV boxes, including those shady unlicensed ones, I’m betting those would simply disable the feature via their unlicensed Android Roms.

        Edit: Clarification, when I said unlicensed I didn’t mean Android itself, I mostly meant their use of Google play store and services which Google does require permission to use legitimately in your own Android product. Obviously it’s super easy to get them without google’s permission, it just won’t be licensed by them though if a company does that. And many TV boxes you buy cheap these days do indeed do that.