[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
Fri May 20 22:39:17 UTC 2011
On 20/05/2011 23:14, FT2 wrote:
> One interesting thing jumped out at me from this article:
> "Google argued that the users of Google News were responsible for the acts
> of reproduction and communication, not Google. It contended that it only
> provided users facilities which an enabled these acts and so was exempt from
> Interesting that Google's defense is basically the same as P2P website
> hosts. "We're just indexing, it's the people who download that are
> responsible for any breach".
> I can't decide if this dismissal is reassuring (shows they are consistent
> between big sites and smaller ones how the legal knots are tied) or worrying
> (because of the severity it implies) in copyright terms......
Central to that is the Viacom argument as to whether Google is a service
provider or a content provider.
In the Belgium case Google were doing all the copying at their own volition.
More information about the foundation-l