Re: Suing Google
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:18:00 +0000
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 04:04:06 +0000, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 02:21:46 +0000, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:35:05 +0000, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:47:21 +0000, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:29:56 +0000, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>I read the more interested I am becoming in the subject as far as
>>>>>google is concerned. I can see that if they have to monitor every item
>>>>>they 'hoover' up for free each day it will cost them a lot of money.
>>>>>However that is what they are making a lot of money out of
>>>>
>>>>You keep saying this, but frankly, it is ridiculous to suggest they
>>>>make a lot of money from hoovering up usenet posts.
>>>>
>>>>The only income they get from usenet is from advertising on the
>>>>display pages.
>>>
>>>And the libels against which I am objecting are there too. All google
>>>has to do is allow aggrieved persons to remove libel or even just
>>>nasty stuff about themselves. I cannot see why this would be so
>>>difficult or even worthy of notice.
>>>
>>
>>It wouldn't be difficult.
>>
>>But it is inconceivable that it might ever happen.
>>
>>It is a REALLY stupid idea.
>
>I think it is a straight forward idea that might go a long way to
>making usenet a more inviting place to many people who otherwise take
>one look and run.
But nobody who "takes one look at usenet" is looking at Google.
So it won't make any difference to them.
It will not make Usenet the slightest bit more inviting.
> I see many established posters to usenet who are
>afraid of using their own name
That is *your* assumption.
Do you have any shred of evidence for the reason why many people use
'nyms?
>and it is begging to be controlled the way it is going now. Even
>anonymous posters get to libel people on usenet and that is the wild
>west of the computer age when google even archives stuff like that.
>Maybe I have a mission in life after all. To clean up usenet or at
>least googles part in it;-)
>
You won't make the *slightest* difference to usenet by attacking
Google.
And the only possible effect of you winning (apart from on the very
narrow point of how quickly they react to notifications of potential
libel) would be the end of their archive.
Which won't affect usenet one whit.
>>>>>so it would
>>>>>not be a bad thing if they had to spend some of their immense fortune
>>>>>being responsible for what they earn their money out of, i.e. selling
>>>>>information and the right to advertise beside that information
>>>>>gathered freely.
>>>>
>>>>It would be a VERY bad thing.
>>>>
>>>>There is no possibility they could do it, even with what you call
>>>>their "immense" fortune, so they would simply close down their
>>>>archive.
>>>
>>>As the libels I complain of appear on a google web search too shutting
>>>down the archive would achieve nothing.
>>>
>>
>>Of course it would.
>>
>>If the archive isn't there, then Google can have no liability for
>>them.
>>
>>There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that they could
>>conceivably be held liable for libels on web pages that their search
>>engine happens to link to.
>
>I disagree. The libel I complain of can be seen through a google
>search.
>
So what?
If the libel is in usenet posts, then shutting down the archive would
remove them, and they would no longer appear.
If they appear on web pages, then it is the providers of those web
pages you would have to sue.
Google have NO responsibility for the content of web pages that show
up in their search.
>>And if some idiot judge decided otherwise, the law would be changed
>>PDQ to ensure that could not happen again.
>
>I don't think
Agreed.
>so. Usenet is a secretive place for a very few people
There is nothing even slightly secretive about it.
the fact that the vast majority have no interest is irrelevant.
But usenet is totally irrelevant to Google searches anyhow, so I don't
know why you are talking about it in this context.
>and the vast majority of the population do not understand it at all.
>However if it was described to a jury I do not think it would be long
>before it was regulated somehow.
No chance.
Who is going to "regulate" it?
There is no internationally agreed defamation law, and until there is,
there will be no international regulation of usenet regarding
defamation.
>How come you never argue that people
>such as those who posted the libel against me are in danger of
>destroying usenet Alex?
Because they aren't.
How might you think they could be?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Murphy's law needs to be repealed.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- References:
- Re: Suing Google
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Suing Google
- From: turtill
- Re: Suing Google
- From: Nobby
- Re: Suing Google
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Suing Google
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Suing Google
- Prev by Date: Re: Ripped from the Windscreen at Dead of Night
- Next by Date: Re: Suing Google
- Previous by thread: Re: Suing Google
- Next by thread: Re: Suing Google
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
