What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
31 Comments
- frieddonuts, on 07/20/2009, -1/+58Honestly, I am surprised by this shocking display of sanity on the part of the British courts. Well done!
- DismantleRepair, on 07/22/2009, -1/+43Haters are gonna hate. Google just finds them.
+1 for common sense. - alpha88, on 07/22/2009, -1/+23Isn't this... oh, I dunno.. common sense? There is no universe where this should be a landmark ruling.
- Domthedude001, on 07/22/2009, -0/+21Google being liable for indexing defamation is like Google being liable for indexing copyrighted content.
- BuenoCabra, on 07/22/2009, -1/+19You Brits have such frivolous law suits. Nothing like here in America. We treat our legal system with dignity and respect.
- Nenja, on 07/22/2009, -1/+16"Google was not a publisher of the comments, only a facilitator through automated results and therefore could not be held responsible for them."
So this same logic applies to sites that index bittorrent files, right? ...Right!? - Mascots, on 07/22/2009, -1/+15IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE IT'S SO NOT TRUE.
- fangor, on 07/21/2009, -2/+13"What happens if they insert defamatory remarks into the search results for companies that don't advertise with them?" - Then they would be making a defamatory statement, not indexing one.
"What happens if they filter out potentially defamatory remarks in the search results that could damage the name of companies that do advertise with them?" - Hasn't happened yet, but filtering defamatory remarks of any kind isn't against any laws, also, they'd have to be some extraordinarily noteworthy and popular remarks to be indexed on a google page anyone would pay attention to.
"There is great potential here for Google to do some very, very unethical things. Will they do these things if a big enough company threatens to pull out because they don't like the things that turn up in a search?"
I'm pretty sure people have tried to sue them before based on the hits returned by their search engine and lost. If they aren't going to back down from a lawsuit, I don't think they will back down from someone merely refusing to do business with them. - iamacyborg, on 07/22/2009, -0/+11"Mr Justice Eady did add that Google has a duty to block or remove content if it is notified with a legitimate complaint about libellous[sic] material."
Now, this I don't agree with. The options this gives Google are:
1) Handling complaints manually, attempting to determine their legitimacy at massive expense.
2) Allow some sort of automated removal process, which - given the internet's status as an engine of free speech, is a revolting option ripe for abuse.
Hopefully, it was not a binding or official order, "duty" implies it was not.
God, I hope the government doesn't ***** Google up one of these days on some retarded legal grounds. Google is one of like, 3 things this country has going for it right now. - Mascots, on 07/22/2009, -1/+9Chances are, they will be ruled the exact same way as Google was.
It's a lead by example world, once a (high) courts decision is set as a standard, it is mostly followed. Not to mention is is common sense. Holding one company liable for others' content is a joke. - Deepmist, on 07/22/2009, -0/+8Yah, Google indexing defamation is like some other site indexing torrents. Who would be stupid enough to convict somone for that?
- maddprof, on 07/22/2009, -0/+7How about a Library?
A Library keeps copies of newspapers, books, etc etc etc all in a convenient searchable 'database'. Are you going to sue a library for having a magazine or newspaper that bashes your company? Probably not. That's all google is; a library search index, a high-tech dewy-decimal system. - Atario, on 07/22/2009, -0/+5I believe there was precedent, in the case of Google V. Duhhhhhhhh.
- mikeabundo, on 07/22/2009, -0/+4Never mind the shocking show of sanity by the British High Court. I'm just amazed a case this stupid even *got* to the British High Court.
- ZombieSociety, on 07/22/2009, -0/+4"The American version" of Parliament?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Funk ... - inactive, on 07/22/2009, -1/+4Why cater to the retards. If you feel the need to add /s then maybe you should consider moving to a site with a higher IQ.
- iridesce, on 07/22/2009, -1/+4Too bad the Swedish courts couldn't apply this type of logic to its recent Pirate Bay trial
- phogasmic, on 07/22/2009, -0/+3I cannot believe this was even a case. Governments, Movie Studios, Banks, and Record labels have no clue about technology.
- undetected, on 07/22/2009, -0/+2Chances are, no one will sue them. Smaller companies don't have the gazillions of dollars that Google has, which is what makes it attractive to lawyers and their clients.
- rezivor, on 07/22/2009, -1/+3This is like deciding to sue the Dominos delivery guy because the pizza you ordered made you sick. Don't shoot the middle man! must be the oldest saying in the books. Can someone find me Train2Game's email address so I can make fun of them?
- HellyK, on 07/22/2009, -0/+2How can one expect Google to monitor & filter search results? That's just stupid and unrealistic. Anyone defaming someone, should be directly liable and sued.
- AdmiralAcbar, on 07/22/2009, -0/+2ADAM L GOLDSTEIN.
- buckrogers1965, on 07/22/2009, -0/+1You need it because there are idiots that actually believe this to be true, and they are on digg too.
- buckrogers1965, on 07/22/2009, -0/+1Exactly. Google is helping you by allowing you to find those people defaming you quickly and easily.
- buckrogers1965, on 07/22/2009, -0/+1If all you are doing is reporting and providing a link to another site then that is a completely neutral action. It is neither good nor bad, no matter what it is you are linking to. Even if what you are pointing to is illegal in and of itself. In fact, pointing to illegal activity on the Internet would actually be helpful to the police, allowing them to shut down the sites that you are linking to quickly.
- kdmkdmkdm, on 07/22/2009, -2/+2You mean lower IQ
- scrotumbrau, on 07/22/2009, -4/+4You forgot the sarcasm tag...
- Rotzooi, on 07/21/2009, -7/+6So, how does this translate to smaller companies who index files on the internet but don't have a gazillion dollars and an army of lawyers?
Let me take a guess: they still get sued into oblivion. - maddprof, on 07/22/2009, -3/+1I don't know why people are digging you down, that's a very valid question (if your unfamiliar with the workings of a legal system). Now IANAL, but here in the states, Mascots is very correct. Prime example: Roe vs. Wade
No matter how many breeders (that's my own personal insult for anti-abortionists) try and fight against it, they lose every time. - Swivelstick, on 07/22/2009, -3/+1Who's example?
- FredFredrickson, on 07/20/2009, -18/+4I agree with this, but we shouldn't forget that Google is an advertising company - 99% of their revenue comes from ads.
What happens if they insert defamatory remarks into the search results for companies that don't advertise with them?
What happens if they filter out potentially defamatory remarks in the search results that could damage the name of companies that do advertise with them?
There is great potential here for Google to do some very, very unethical things. Will they do these things if a big enough company threatens to pull out because they don't like the things that turn up in a search?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 