"Further, his decision subscribes to the "no harm was done until it was published" position."
That's a completely reasonable take on defamation law. The entire point of defamation law is to protect people's good name, therefore the wider the content is spread, & the greater the credibility of the publisher, the greater the harm. In theory, an Australian could be sued for yelling defamatory insults at their neighbour over the adjoining fence, but in practice a judge would laugh it out of court. But publish the same stuff in the newspaper & it'd be very serious business.
Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
[Monitors displaying content] "Much like Google. It is an algorithm."
What? What have you been smoking that makes you think that monitors 'choose' which content to display? If you have a monitor that actually does that, return it & ask for your money back.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
They would be, but of course it'd be hard to enforce the judgement. This, by the way, is why it's pointless to directly sue defamatory foreign scam sites run by judgement-proof people like the owner of RipoffReport. Google's deep pockets are only part of the equation.
LOL, no. It's a state supreme court, & the judgement is completely in line with similar cases. I would be astounded if the federal Supreme Court overturned it.
The Goog returns snippets of text long enough to be defamatory, & they refuse to remove them when notified. Under Australian law, you don't get a pass on defamation just because you're merely repeating defamation that someone else says.
That's the risk you take when you gain power by joining a secretive cabal. If Cameron et al were decent people, there wouldn't be this kind of dirt on them in the first place. Personally, given previous scandals & hush-ups, I wonder if there isn't much worse dirt on Cameron & colleagues that we may never know about.
They are obeying the laws; that's why these moronic publishers are so butthurt, you moron. You should learn to read - it much the world so much easier to understand.
Re: Re: Things are as bad as they were proported to be
"claiming the FCC is INTENTIONALLY trying to ban all third-party custom firmware."
It doesn't matter in the slightest what the intention is. I'm sure that the people who framed the kiddy-porn laws didn't intend them to be used to prosecute 15 year old kids for sexting their boyfriends, & put them on Sex Offender registries for the rest of their lives, but that's how they're being used anyway. I doubt that the people who wrote the DMCA intended it to be used as a stick to bully small content-creators, or as a way to eliminate Fair Use, but there are stories every week on this site about it being used in those ways. With laws & regulations, 'intent' doesn't matter.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legally speaking, this is not actually nuts.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: The court has a reasonable argument.
That's a completely reasonable take on defamation law. The entire point of defamation law is to protect people's good name, therefore the wider the content is spread, & the greater the credibility of the publisher, the greater the harm. In theory, an Australian could be sued for yelling defamatory insults at their neighbour over the adjoining fence, but in practice a judge would laugh it out of court. But publish the same stuff in the newspaper & it'd be very serious business.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
What? What have you been smoking that makes you think that monitors 'choose' which content to display? If you have a monitor that actually does that, return it & ask for your money back.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: If I were Google...
You mean like they did in China? Or in some European countries? /sarcasm
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re:
When have Google ever apologised for that? But yes, your comment is on point.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Not that worried
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: Legally speaking, this is not actually nuts.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: Legally speaking, this is not actually nuts.
On the post: Senate Passes CISA, The Surveillance Bill Masquerading As A Cybersecurity Bill; Here's Who Sold Out Your Privacy
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: The court has a reasonable argument.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Legally speaking, this is not actually nuts.
On the post: Australian Court Orders Homeowners To Physically Alter Exterior Of 'Infringing' House
Re: Re:
That is very literally his motivation. It's a perfect example of how entitled rich assholes feel.
On the post: Australian Court Orders Homeowners To Physically Alter Exterior Of 'Infringing' House
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Australian Court Orders Homeowners To Physically Alter Exterior Of 'Infringing' House
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: As US Turns Away From Idea Of Backdooring Crypto, David Cameron Has A Problem
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: German Competition Authority Decides To Take No Action Over Google's Removal Of Snippets From Google News
Re: Its Just Passive-Aggressive Piracy
On the post: Judge Says Warner Chappell Doesn't Hold The Copyright On Happy Birthday (But Not That It's Public Domain)
Re: Re: Any refunds?
Don't be ridiculous. The people who had money fraudulently extorted from them with threats of legal action have obviously been harmed.
On the post: No, The FCC Is Not (Intentionally) Trying To Kill Third-Party Wi-Fi Router Firmware
Re: Re: Things are as bad as they were proported to be
It doesn't matter in the slightest what the intention is. I'm sure that the people who framed the kiddy-porn laws didn't intend them to be used to prosecute 15 year old kids for sexting their boyfriends, & put them on Sex Offender registries for the rest of their lives, but that's how they're being used anyway. I doubt that the people who wrote the DMCA intended it to be used as a stick to bully small content-creators, or as a way to eliminate Fair Use, but there are stories every week on this site about it being used in those ways.
With laws & regulations, 'intent' doesn't matter.
Next >>