[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''



Again, Google is not _writing_ any of this stuff, they
are _reporting_ on what is out there.  It is a search
tool.  They are not responsible for what is found.

The "search service" that had a team of people scouring
the net to make an informed hit list ... they might have
been liable for the lists they produced ... but Google
has (or should not have) no human input and it is Sara
Glover herself who is responsible for what the search
returns.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott A Crosby [mailto:crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:26 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''
> 
> 
> Well.... The rampaging floodgates google takedown notices 
> have commenced,
> and they seem to be successful.
> 
> I was fairly sure after the Scientology case (and its 
> success) there'd be
> more. Lots more.
> 
> The most recent one is from 'Sara Glover', who appears to be 
> upset that
> upon a search for her name, her alt.sex.spanking story 
> 'Vivian's Vow' from
> about 4 years ago is the first search result. Her lawyer is 
> claiming that
> its copyright infringement to have her story in the cache, and also
> claiming that the link to the *publically published on 
> usenet* story is
> contributory infringement.
> 
> They claim 'irreparable damage'... After reading it, I can see why! :)
> 
> But seriously, what next? Google (and other search engines) 
> won't be able
> to survive these incessent letters, if anyone gets into their 
> mind that
> they can make the past dissapear at their whim. (How many 
> people have old
> usenet posts, mailing list flames, or mirrored copies of embarassing
> webpages they wish would go away?)
> 
>      http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=273
> 
> One wonders how one can require freedom of the presses and freedom of
> speech, yet allow easy regulation of what books can and 
> cannot be put in
> a card catalog index.
> 
> Scott
>