Judge Won't Blame Google For Usenet Postings
from the makes-sense dept
While some courts are still a bit confused concerning the liability of service providers online, it appears that one court had no problem at all dismissing a lawsuit against Google, concerning whether the company was liable for defamatory Usenet postings. As the judge quickly noted in dismissing the case, the Communications Decency Act pretty clearly carves out protection for service providers -- as it should. Google is simply providing a platform. If this guy is upset about the comments made about him, he should be going after those who made the comments -- not Google. You don't get to just sue the biggest or easiest company. You have a much better chance of winning if you actually sue those who did you wrong. Of course, the guy is vowing to appeal, so we probably haven't seen the last of this case.
22 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation





Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Idiot
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
get rich quick
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You know - they need a new law alright - how about one that says the ENITRE INTERNET is free-flow public domain information - any data posted in a public "forum" on the Web *is* public domain, period.
That would end all this BS.
If a site has a login or other access control - then it's not public and the information can be considered "property".
Right now, it's like leaving a copy of your book at the park and then bitching at the city because someone tore it up. Look, if you leave something open to the public - don't expect it to remain "safe".
Idiot - if he didn't want it copied, why did he post it on usenet? LOL, what a fool.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This jerk
Now, if that guy reads this, he'll sue TechDirt, not Smacky.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Know what you are talking about...
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Know what you are talking about...
And the guy and the internet. He's an idiot looking for a quick buck.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Know what you are talking about... by Eric
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Pimptology Professor
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Know what you are talking about... by Eric
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking about...
Mcdonalds had the responsibility, after so many incidents, to realize that human nature and coffee this hot was not a good combination, and to lower the heat to a less injurious, though no less enjoyable to drink, level. I myself have temporarily put a cup (not Mcdonalds) of coffee between my legs while juggling between drive up window and my car, and have been burned quite badly when, while lifting the cup, the top came off in my hand. It was a lessoned learned, but because the company had the coffee at a less than scalding temperature, that lesson did not include 8 days in the hospital undergoing skin grafts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Know what you are talking about...
Well, whaddaya know, a shyster reads TechDirt.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Know what you are talking about... by Anonymou
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking about...
It just seems that lawyers have trained the public that any accident can be someone else's fault even though the victim did something stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Know what you are talking about... by Anon
Well, if you want to maintain that illusion, don't give a link to a story that refutes it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking abou
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: don't give a link to a story that refutes it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
MIKE
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Gordon Ray Parker "Ray Gordon"
-Andy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment