Comments on: Google wins a court battle
Judge rules in search giant's favor, dismissing copyright infringement lawsuit filed by e-book writer.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Kid gets Xbox 360, loses mind
December 30, 2009 11:10 AM PST
- Online holiday sales hit $27 billion
December 30, 2009 10:45 AM PST
- Aha! It's the iGuide, not iSlate--maybe
December 30, 2009 10:08 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
1. The amended complaint was filed in October 2004. The original judge in the case, James McGirr Kelly, died while presiding over the case in March 2005. Judge Kelly was more familiar with the facts that had been set forth in previous cases he had heard.
2. The judge likened Google to an ISP, which is okay when dealing with defamation, but for copyright infringement, what Google does is not the same thing as what AOL would do if I were, for example, to infringe copyright by e-mailing someone else a copy of a protected work. A true ISP is just a conduit for transmission. Google makes a wholly separate publication on its website, and uses that publication to generate advertising.
3. The defamation claim was dismissed due to immunity under 47 USC §230, which holds ISPs (and websites) immune for what their users do. Most courts have agreed with this, except for the California Superior Court, which ruled in Barrett v. Rosenthal that this immunity does not apply to "distributors" of defamation (the CA court did uphold publisher immunity). Barrett is currently before the CA Supreme Court, and if upheld, would mean that this exact same set of facts would prevail in California, and if the US Supreme Court were to uphold it, here as well. Congress may also revisit this immunity, given the potential for harm and how it makes libel law practically toothless on the internet. In Google's case, they take defamation from obscure places and serve it up to important people in the target's life, thereby causing most of the damage. Recently, a housing judge in NYC who was literally "put up for sale" on e-bay by a disgruntled litigant wondered "how can e-bay get away with this?" He should have asked his fellow justices!
I will be filing a motion for reconsideration and preparing to appeal this decision.
Ray Gordon, Author
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
He has filed one lawsuit against multiple individuals, including myself (see www.ChewOnThis.Org for details), for two BILLION dollars, claiming public comment about his online behavior amounts to defamation, libel, tortious interference, interstate racketeering, copyright infringement, and numerous violation of federal statutes such as Sarbanes-Oxley.
Mr. Parker has made documented claims that pointing a domain name to a website constitutes hosting the content on that website, that a domain owner controls any content at any website he points a domain name to, and that registering and pointing a domain name qualifies as a federal RICO violation (this is what he has alleged in my case). I look forward to final decision in Parker v. LTSC, Inc.
Thom E. Geiger
Domain name Owner, Ray-Gordon.com
Please also be aware that your comments on this forum are now being archived and cached aswell..does that mean you are going to sue C:net?
I like how you are more than willing to take 'free' advertising on this forum by posting your websites address in your commentary. Are you planing on paying for that or is it fair game when you use someones site and info (C:net) to promote your site...sounds like a familiar argument.
www.whattheheckisraysproblem.com
1. The amended complaint was filed in October 2004. The original judge in the case, James McGirr Kelly, died while presiding over the case in March 2005. Judge Kelly was more familiar with the facts that had been set forth in previous cases he had heard.
2. The judge likened Google to an ISP, which is okay when dealing with defamation, but for copyright infringement, what Google does is not the same thing as what AOL would do if I were, for example, to infringe copyright by e-mailing someone else a copy of a protected work. A true ISP is just a conduit for transmission. Google makes a wholly separate publication on its website, and uses that publication to generate advertising.
3. The defamation claim was dismissed due to immunity under 47 USC §230, which holds ISPs (and websites) immune for what their users do. Most courts have agreed with this, except for the California Superior Court, which ruled in Barrett v. Rosenthal that this immunity does not apply to "distributors" of defamation (the CA court did uphold publisher immunity). Barrett is currently before the CA Supreme Court, and if upheld, would mean that this exact same set of facts would prevail in California, and if the US Supreme Court were to uphold it, here as well. Congress may also revisit this immunity, given the potential for harm and how it makes libel law practically toothless on the internet. In Google's case, they take defamation from obscure places and serve it up to important people in the target's life, thereby causing most of the damage. Recently, a housing judge in NYC who was literally "put up for sale" on e-bay by a disgruntled litigant wondered "how can e-bay get away with this?" He should have asked his fellow justices!
I will be filing a motion for reconsideration and preparing to appeal this decision.
Ray Gordon, Author
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
He has filed one lawsuit against multiple individuals, including myself (see www.ChewOnThis.Org for details), for two BILLION dollars, claiming public comment about his online behavior amounts to defamation, libel, tortious interference, interstate racketeering, copyright infringement, and numerous violation of federal statutes such as Sarbanes-Oxley.
Mr. Parker has made documented claims that pointing a domain name to a website constitutes hosting the content on that website, that a domain owner controls any content at any website he points a domain name to, and that registering and pointing a domain name qualifies as a federal RICO violation (this is what he has alleged in my case). I look forward to final decision in Parker v. LTSC, Inc.
Thom E. Geiger
Domain name Owner, Ray-Gordon.com
Please also be aware that your comments on this forum are now being archived and cached aswell..does that mean you are going to sue C:net?
I like how you are more than willing to take 'free' advertising on this forum by posting your websites address in your commentary. Are you planing on paying for that or is it fair game when you use someones site and info (C:net) to promote your site...sounds like a familiar argument.
www.whattheheckisraysproblem.com
1. The amended complaint was filed in October 2004. The original judge in the case, James McGirr Kelly, died while presiding over the case in March 2005. Judge Kelly was more familiar with the facts that had been set forth in previous cases he had heard.
2. The judge likened Google to an ISP, which is okay when dealing with defamation, but for copyright infringement, what Google does is not the same thing as what AOL would do if I were, for example, to infringe copyright by e-mailing someone else a copy of a protected work. A true ISP is just a conduit for transmission. Google makes a wholly separate publication on its website, and uses that publication to generate advertising.
3. The defamation claim was dismissed due to immunity under 47 USC §230, which holds ISPs (and websites) immune for what their users do. Most courts have agreed with this, except for the California Superior Court, which ruled in Barrett v. Rosenthal that this immunity does not apply to "distributors" of defamation (the CA court did uphold publisher immunity). Barrett is currently before the CA Supreme Court, and if upheld, would mean that this exact same set of facts would prevail in California, and if the US Supreme Court were to uphold it, here as well. Congress may also revisit this immunity, given the potential for harm and how it makes libel law practically toothless on the internet. In Google's case, they take defamation from obscure places and serve it up to important people in the target's life, thereby causing most of the damage. Recently, a housing judge in NYC who was literally "put up for sale" on e-bay by a disgruntled litigant wondered "how can e-bay get away with this?" He should have asked his fellow justices!
I will be filing a motion for reconsideration and preparing to appeal this decision.
Ray Gordon, Author
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The distinction between AOL and Google is also weak. Google isn't copying the information, they only have information where the copy is found. It would be like suing a newspaper for placing ads by unauthorized seller of your materials.
user queries could be likened to what happens
when someone makes a statement in a public
context. That statement can be recorded and
repeated. There are instances where someone
might give a speech or right an article. In
these cases there is certainly a right to
content. If a performer performs on the street
there is some likelyhood that he may be recorded
and that the recording will in part or whole be
publicly available as the performance was. The
internet is a dynamic thing but there needs to
be some accountability in the form of site
tracking. Especially if liable and slander are
concern since investigators may not have any
other means of obtaining historical internet
documents.
The laws regarding copyright on the internet are
somewhat archaic and when a new one does come
along it tends to be reactionary. This is seen
in the instance of ftp server admins not being
responsible for the content that is provided.
This law was shelter for many p2p users who
where targeted by antipriacy legislation. There
is a difference between these two however, I
mean just using ftp does not make you innocent,
being unawares does.
Newsgroups have long been the internet
anticensorship paradigm. The retention on text
posts could easily be indefinite as they are
static media. The source is not (necessarily)
the same for one server to the next and old
posts could easily be reposted by users if not
automatically by the server. There are very
easy methods for posting content but none for
removing it. The only recourse that could
possibly solve this dilemma, unfortunately, is
for the poster to pay the full damage of the
defamation over the life of the post, as on all
servers, which would likely be 1000+ days.
user queries could be likened to what happens
when someone makes a statement in a public
context. That statement can be recorded and
repeated. There are instances where someone
might give a speech or right an article. In
these cases there is certainly a right to
content. If a performer performs on the street
there is some likelyhood that he may be recorded
and that the recording will in part or whole be
publicly available as the performance was. The
internet is a dynamic thing but there needs to
be some accountability in the form of site
tracking. Especially if liable and slander are
concern since investigators may not have any
other means of obtaining historical internet
documents.
The laws regarding copyright on the internet are
somewhat archaic and when a new one does come
along it tends to be reactionary. This is seen
in the instance of ftp server admins not being
responsible for the content that is provided.
This law was shelter for many p2p users who
where targeted by antipriacy legislation. There
is a difference between these two however, I
mean just using ftp does not make you innocent,
being unawares does.
Newsgroups have long been the internet
anticensorship paradigm. The retention on text
posts could easily be indefinite as they are
static media. The source is not (necessarily)
the same for one server to the next and old
posts could easily be reposted by users if not
automatically by the server. There are very
easy methods for posting content but none for
removing it. The only recourse that could
possibly solve this dilemma, unfortunately, is
for the poster to pay the full damage of the
defamation over the life of the post, as on all
servers, which would likely be 1000+ days.
1. The amended complaint was filed in October 2004. The original judge in the case, James McGirr Kelly, died while presiding over the case in March 2005. Judge Kelly was more familiar with the facts that had been set forth in previous cases he had heard.
2. The judge likened Google to an ISP, which is okay when dealing with defamation, but for copyright infringement, what Google does is not the same thing as what AOL would do if I were, for example, to infringe copyright by e-mailing someone else a copy of a protected work. A true ISP is just a conduit for transmission. Google makes a wholly separate publication on its website, and uses that publication to generate advertising.
3. The defamation claim was dismissed due to immunity under 47 USC §230, which holds ISPs (and websites) immune for what their users do. Most courts have agreed with this, except for the California Superior Court, which ruled in Barrett v. Rosenthal that this immunity does not apply to "distributors" of defamation (the CA court did uphold publisher immunity). Barrett is currently before the CA Supreme Court, and if upheld, would mean that this exact same set of facts would prevail in California, and if the US Supreme Court were to uphold it, here as well. Congress may also revisit this immunity, given the potential for harm and how it makes libel law practically toothless on the internet. In Google's case, they take defamation from obscure places and serve it up to important people in the target's life, thereby causing most of the damage. Recently, a housing judge in NYC who was literally "put up for sale" on e-bay by a disgruntled litigant wondered "how can e-bay get away with this?" He should have asked his fellow justices!
I will be filing a motion for reconsideration and preparing to appeal this decision.
Ray Gordon, Author
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The distinction between AOL and Google is also weak. Google isn't copying the information, they only have information where the copy is found. It would be like suing a newspaper for placing ads by unauthorized seller of your materials.
user queries could be likened to what happens
when someone makes a statement in a public
context. That statement can be recorded and
repeated. There are instances where someone
might give a speech or right an article. In
these cases there is certainly a right to
content. If a performer performs on the street
there is some likelyhood that he may be recorded
and that the recording will in part or whole be
publicly available as the performance was. The
internet is a dynamic thing but there needs to
be some accountability in the form of site
tracking. Especially if liable and slander are
concern since investigators may not have any
other means of obtaining historical internet
documents.
The laws regarding copyright on the internet are
somewhat archaic and when a new one does come
along it tends to be reactionary. This is seen
in the instance of ftp server admins not being
responsible for the content that is provided.
This law was shelter for many p2p users who
where targeted by antipriacy legislation. There
is a difference between these two however, I
mean just using ftp does not make you innocent,
being unawares does.
Newsgroups have long been the internet
anticensorship paradigm. The retention on text
posts could easily be indefinite as they are
static media. The source is not (necessarily)
the same for one server to the next and old
posts could easily be reposted by users if not
automatically by the server. There are very
easy methods for posting content but none for
removing it. The only recourse that could
possibly solve this dilemma, unfortunately, is
for the poster to pay the full damage of the
defamation over the life of the post, as on all
servers, which would likely be 1000+ days.
user queries could be likened to what happens
when someone makes a statement in a public
context. That statement can be recorded and
repeated. There are instances where someone
might give a speech or right an article. In
these cases there is certainly a right to
content. If a performer performs on the street
there is some likelyhood that he may be recorded
and that the recording will in part or whole be
publicly available as the performance was. The
internet is a dynamic thing but there needs to
be some accountability in the form of site
tracking. Especially if liable and slander are
concern since investigators may not have any
other means of obtaining historical internet
documents.
The laws regarding copyright on the internet are
somewhat archaic and when a new one does come
along it tends to be reactionary. This is seen
in the instance of ftp server admins not being
responsible for the content that is provided.
This law was shelter for many p2p users who
where targeted by antipriacy legislation. There
is a difference between these two however, I
mean just using ftp does not make you innocent,
being unawares does.
Newsgroups have long been the internet
anticensorship paradigm. The retention on text
posts could easily be indefinite as they are
static media. The source is not (necessarily)
the same for one server to the next and old
posts could easily be reposted by users if not
automatically by the server. There are very
easy methods for posting content but none for
removing it. The only recourse that could
possibly solve this dilemma, unfortunately, is
for the poster to pay the full damage of the
defamation over the life of the post, as on all
servers, which would likely be 1000+ days.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT PAUL J. ROSS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS GRANTED. THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT LEARN THE SKILLS CORPORATION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS GRANTED, THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT THOMAS E. GEIGER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS GRANTED, THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT,MATTHEW S. WOLF TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED IS GRANTED, THE MOTION DEFENDANT TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED IS GRANTED; AND THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF GORDON ROY PARKER TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY AGAINST DEFENDANTS ROSS. LEARN THE SKILLS CORPOARTION AND GEIGER IS DENIED . SIGNED BY JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE III ON 3/23/06.3/23/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (mac, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
Thom E. Geiger
Domain Name Owner,
ChewOnThis.org
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
- Parker vs. LTSC II dismissed
- by Tgeiger March 28, 2006 11:06 AM PST
- 2:05-cv-02752-HB PARKER v. LEARN THE SKILLS CORP. et al filed 06/09/05, has now been dismissed after the court agreed with defendants' jurisdictional objections.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(34 Comments)MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT PAUL J. ROSS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS GRANTED. THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT LEARN THE SKILLS CORPORATION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS GRANTED, THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT THOMAS E. GEIGER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS GRANTED, THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT,MATTHEW S. WOLF TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED IS GRANTED, THE MOTION DEFENDANT TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED IS GRANTED; AND THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF GORDON ROY PARKER TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY AGAINST DEFENDANTS ROSS. LEARN THE SKILLS CORPOARTION AND GEIGER IS DENIED . SIGNED BY JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE III ON 3/23/06.3/23/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (mac, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
Thom E. Geiger
Domain Name Owner,
ChewOnThis.org
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net