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.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get rich quick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This jerk
Now, if that guy reads this, he'll sue TechDirt, not Smacky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Know what you are talking about...
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Know what you are talking about...
And the guy and the internet. He's an idiot looking for a quick buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Know what you are talking about...
Well, whaddaya know, a shyster reads TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Know what you are talking about... by Eric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Know what you are talking about... by Eric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pimptology Professor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Know what you are talking about... by Anonymou
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking abou
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't give a link to a story that refutes it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gordon Ray Parker "Ray Gordon"
-Andy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]