Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Wins a Court Battle

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the justice-served dept.

272

Gosalia wrote to let us know about an article which opens with: "In a legal win for Google, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a writer who claimed the search giant infringed on his copyright by archiving a Usenet posting of his and providing excerpts from his Web site in search results." Thankfully, we can all still read Usenet articles on Google as well as other archive services.

cancel ×

272 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gtalk (5, Interesting)

skaet (841938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939653)

Can't wait until people try to sue Google for saving their Gtalk conversations....

Re:Gtalk (5, Informative)

publius_jr (808330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939794)

According to their Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/talk/terms.html [google.com] ), by using GTalk:
You agree that Google may access or disclose your personal information, including the content of your communications, if Google is required to do so in order to comply with any valid legal process or governmental request (such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court order). [Emphasis added]
According to their Privacy Policy (http://www.google.com/talk/privacy.html [google.com] ):
When you use Google Talk, we may record information about your usage, such as when you use Google Talk, the size of your contact list and the contacts you communicate with, and the frequency and size of data transfers.
But regarding to the content of your chats, their Privacy Policy only says:
You may choose to store the contents of text chats as Gmail messages in your Gmail account.
Note that it does not say whether Google saves or does not save the content of your chats elsewhere on their computers (i.e. not as Gmail messages). I suppose their right to access the content grants them the right to save it, although it is a bit odd that they don't flat-out state this (or deny it) on their Privacy Policy.

Re:Gtalk (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939954)

So... email them about it?

I mean, if you don't contact them about this issue, I don't see how you could possibly complain about it. Though given how many geeks work for Google, maybe you'll get lucky and one of them will read your post and fix this possible issue.

Re:Gtalk (3, Informative)

Crizp (216129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940030)

However, you always have the possibility of going "off the record" which prevents chats from being saved. It's right there in the preferences and well explained.

Re:Gtalk (5, Insightful)

publius_jr (808330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940089)

The explanation (http://mail.google.com/mail/help/chat.html#offrec ord [google.com] ):
We know that sometimes, you don't want a particular chat, or chats with a specific person, to be saved. Most existing IM services give no indication of whether the person you're chatting with is saving your conversation. But when chatting in Gmail or Google Talk, you can go "off the record," so that nothing typed from that point forward gets saved in anyone's Gmail account.
Unless I am missing something, this is a perfect example of the ambiguity of their Terms of Service/Privacy Policy. The user may wrongfully infer from the user interface that "off the record" means "no one, whether a user or Google, can save this chat." Yet nowhere have I seen any promise that Google will not save the content of your chat, whether any option is selected or not.

Re:Gtalk (4, Insightful)

Crizp (216129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940130)

You're right, the chats might still be stored on their servers somewhere... just flagged as hidden. I thought about that before starting to use the service, but came to the conclusion that I don't care. Mostly because
1) US paranoia-legislations and assramming-acts do not apply here, thank FSM, and
2) Norwegian laws regarding information extraction by police/etc from service providers are reasonably strict, i.e. they need to have a case. Also,
3) Should I ever want to discuss something illegal I would either use GPG through email or encrypted IM anyway.

T+C's (1)

solarbob (959948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940241)

Of course they are legally covered but people will still try to sue as they didn't read them and then get upset after the fact

Cash Grab Suit? (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939656)

He sued over Google indexing and achieving a USNET post of his, so this means he isn't that technologically ignorant. To me, his suit smells like a cash grab. But it's also good he lost because it sets a useful precedent.

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939686)

It sets no precedent. Rambling, incoherent lawsuits that get dismissed do not constitute precedent.

50,000 John Does?
Racketeering?
Civil conspiracy?

The guy sounds like a nut job.

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (4, Insightful)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939920)

If nothing else it helps to show lawmakers some actual case law (in their lanugage) to say "store and forward" doesn't always imply the same thing, its the content that is of interest.

I hope if nothing else this case helps focus more on the content, and less on the delivery method. A parallel being torrents that bring you linux Distributions vs torrents that bring you copyrighted media.

Just shows, we really *dont* shoot the messenger these days :) At least not this time.

However you're right, its frivilous and sets no real precedent. But makes way for some perhaps :)

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (2, Funny)

Matilda the Hun (861460) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940211)

Actually, I wouldn't mind a "dismissing total fucktards" precedent being set by this. Not much chance, but I can dream.

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (1)

mctk (840035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939775)

I'd hate to see other people achieve my dreams before me, sure, but it's just plain petty to sue over someone achieving your USENET posts! Goodness!

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (5, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939957)

Cash grab? I dont know his motivations but these are real questions that need to be answered. The legality of google's cache was always in question. For instance a person could delete a webpage but still find it in the cache. That person can ask a valid question about copyright, control, republishing, etc, etc.

The courts so far have ruled that these caches are legal and the search engine people are not doing wrong. This suit along with another one builds precendce over these types of concerns. So its been a long time coming.

Now people concerned with privacy can get educated about how to block robots/spider, how public the web/usenet is, and how to work around this.

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14940109)

Maybe the cache has been in question, because it's not like your webserver calls up another server and says, "here have this, and give a copy to all of your buddies and tell them to do the same" but how can you go after a network which is designed to automatically do just that?

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14940204)

You can't unpublish a book... call all the libraries and tell them to throw the book away... how's a cache any different?

You publish or you don't.

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (2, Interesting)

onedotzero (926558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940219)

Perhaps. But with regards to Usenet, that's exactly what X-No-Archive [wikipedia.org] is for.

--
onedotzero
thedigitalfeed.co.uk [thedigitalfeed.co.uk]

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (4, Informative)

pomo monster (873962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940248)

Not that I have any sympathy for the joker, but do realize that X-No-Archive is useless if someone replies to your post.

--
On 17 March 2006, onedotzero (926558) wrote:
Perhaps. But with regards to Usenet, that's exactly what X-No-Archive is for.

--
onedotzero
thedigitalfeed.co.uk

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (2, Interesting)

solarbob (959948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940233)

If the caches do become illegal what happens to http://www.archive.org/ [archive.org] Surely it would just collapse?

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14940259)

Cash grab? I dont know his motivations but these are real questions that need to be answered. The legality of google's cache was always in question. For instance a person could delete a webpage but still find it in the cache. That person can ask a valid question about copyright, control, republishing, etc, etc.

The Internet is not a book, a movie, or a CD. As soon as people recognize that fact, half of the stupid legal issues and lawsuits will go away. All (sane?) copyright law was written and all the major cases were heard before the Internet existed, but now that routers and switches make copies of information as they forward it, proxies and internet browsers cache information, RAM and swap files store information, and there is very, very little practical difference between forwarding a URL and forwarding the content it points to, a lot of copyright law sounds like nonsense.

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14940268)

See recent case of Field v Google. Court said Google's caching is protected by section 512(b) - which was added under the DMCA.

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939991)

The real stupiud thing is that if he used USENET, he would have almost had to understand how the USENET network works... i.e. that you read and submit articles to one server that comminicates in turn with other server peers, eventually copying your article all throughout the world, and doing the same for everyone else's, and it all happens automatically. This is the way it was designed. It's supposed to do that! By using the service you pretty much concent to the fact that this is going to happen! Going after Google for saving copies of articles is like suing your ISP because their UUCP server "freaked out" and magically distributed your "original works" all over the globe.

The fact is, if you're uncomfortable with the fact that your articles get copied to other computers automatically, as *a design feature*, then you shouldn't use that service! Shall we remember that it was a pair of fucking *laywers* that started this whole commercial spam bullshit? This guy's a paralegal, just as worse.

The judge should have had this asshole thrown in jail for a few days, for contempt of court, just because he's a fucking moron wasting everyone's time and money!

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (1)

Stephan Schulz (948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940144)

The real stupiud thing is that if he used USENET, he would have almost had to understand how the USENET network works... i.e. that you read and submit articles to one server that comminicates in turn with other server peers, eventually copying your article all throughout the world, and doing the same for everyone else's, and it all happens automatically. This is the way it was designed. It's supposed to do that! By using the service you pretty much concent to the fact that this is going to happen! Going after Google for saving copies of articles is like suing your ISP because their UUCP server "freaked out" and magically distributed your "original works" all over the globe.
While I agree that this lawsuit is bogus, your reasoning does not hold up. When I post to usenet, I implicitely agree that my posting is distributed via NNTP and is stored for some variable time on news servers all over the world. I do not agree that someone stores these messages for all eternity, indexes them, and offers them over another protocol to the great unwashed masses of the future.

What might let Google out is that they honour the X-NO-ARCHIVE header, i.e. I do have a way of stop them from collecting my postings.

Re:Cash Grab Suit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14940257)

Some groups in USENET used to be inundated with posts from AOLusers - so posting on USENET should not be taken to mean tech savyness.

Good for Google! (5, Informative)

those.numbers (960432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939663)

I may not agree with every decision Google makes, but all in all, I believe they're the closest thing we've got to a big business with a conscience. I mean they've got great potential to do some good, as this article points out. http://tcal.net/archives/2006/02/23/google-charity -plans/ [tcal.net]

But without getting too off track, I'm glad they won this battle. Because of their line of work and the innovative new steps they take, they're bound to step on a few toes. I just hope we don't smother them in too many lawsuits, both as indivduals and as a government.

Re:Good for Google! (2, Interesting)

solarbob (959948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940162)

prehaps the innvoation is what is scaring people as I know you can go out there now, google someones name and come up with a lot of info and its putting it in easy reach of all users. Of course the argument would be that if you didn't want it to be out there you shouldn't of published something in the first place but when it comes to 3rd party information at least google gives you the option to ask to have it removed, even if it does take a few weeks,months,years

They won the battle ... (4, Interesting)

arrrrg (902404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939670)

but the war is still to come. It's interesting to contrast this with their recent loss against Perfect 10. Compared to the lawsuits from the publishers and the US government, this one seems like an easy victory.

Re:They won the battle ... (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940073)

Yeah, that was my take too. They didn't gain much by winning, but it was certainly a "must win".

Strange Decision (3, Interesting)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939679)

However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on Friday that under case law, Google's activities, akin to those of an Internet Service Provider, do not constitute infringement.
"When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its users, the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing," the court said.

Strange. While Google Groups provide a valuable service, I don't see how creating an archive of billions of copyrighted works makes Google immune from individual lawsuits. Could I compile and serve a complete archive of everything available from the Pirate Bay and get the same protection? I wouldn't think so.

Re:Strange Decision (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939702)

I don't see how creating an archive of billions of copyrighted works [...]

You left out "that were submitted to a store-and-forward global distribution system with the intent of disseminating them as widely as possible, knowing full well that they would be archived, folded, spindled, and mutilated".

In other news, every public mailing list in the known universe does the exact same thing. Gonna sue Yahoo! Groups because they're publishing the email that you deliberately sent to 1,500 strangers?

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939716)

Archiving and redistributing aren't the same thing. What if I posted a licence with my content stating that only nntp servers and individuals could redistribute what I have posted?

Re:Strange Decision (5, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939749)

Archiving and redistributing aren't the same thing.

Sure they are. Google just happens to run an NNTP server with a pretty interface and a long expiration time. There're tens of thousands of messages stored on my own server, reader for public distribution, at this very moment.

What if I posted a licence with my content stating that only nntp servers and individuals could redistribute what I have posted?

As long as we're throwing out goofy ideas: what if I scream into a restaurant that no one is allowed to tell anyone else what I'm about to say?

When you contract with a carrier of a wide-open public medium to deliver your message to the world, you have no right to expect that another carrier of that medium won't deliver to someone you didn't expect, or in a form you didn't anticipate.

Re:Strange Decision (1, Interesting)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939792)

Wow, the google fanboys are out in force tonight. Storage and redistribution are not the same thing, no matter how much you'd like it to be. For instance, I have a very large archive of MP3s from CD's I've bought. I cannot legally redistribute them without the copyright holder's consent.

When you contract with a carrier of a wide-open public medium to deliver your message to the world, you have no right to expect that another carrier of that medium won't deliver to someone you didn't expect, or in a form you didn't anticipate.

Of course, this is why redistribution of NFL telecasts is perfectly legal. Because the NFL doesn't have the right to dictate the terms of their content's redistribution. Indeed, they wouldn't sue you for redistribution without written consent of both the NFL and the television station broadcasting the content. A similar example can be made with reference to radio, music, and the RIAA.

Sorry, you're wrong. As a copyright holder, I do have the right to dictate how my content is distributed.

This is in fact why google got burned for images.google.com, as mentioned in the article.

Re:Strange Decision (3, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939834)

I think I'm being trolled, but I'm waiting for Quickbooks to fire up inside Qemu and I've got some time to kill.

Storage and redistribution are not the same thing, no matter how much you'd like it to be. For instance, I have a very large archive of MP3s from CD's I've bought. I cannot legally redistribute them without the copyright holder's consent.

But when storage is one of the primary design requirements, they're close enough to the same thing for gov'mnt work. This isn't like SMTP, where servers are expected to delete messages after they've passed on. Rather, NNTP servers are required to store their traffic for a while - that's how the system works.

So, Google just happens to have an undefined expiration time on their NNTP server, and have provided a web interface to it. What else are they doing that every other NNTP server in the world is not?

Sorry, you're wrong. As a copyright holder, I do have the right to dictate how my content is distributed.

Not always. I'd be interested in hearing you explain to the judge how you released your message with the explicit goal of unlimited worldwide distribution, but don't want it distributed. It's not like you can accidentally post to Usenet; you had to jump through hoops to put your words out there. What would a reasonable person expect to happen to them once they've entered the global network of computers designed to spread them around?

Re:Strange Decision (2, Interesting)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939880)

I'm sincere.

To answer your question, there is no law or document that I know of that says that usenet posts are automatically part of the public domain, which is what would be required for "unlimited" distribution. Feel free to point me to an authoritative source if you know of any.

In the meantime, I'll give you the example that motivated my comments. Parts of the Linux kernel are stored in the Google Groups archive. Does this mean that the GPL for Linux has been invalidated? Of course not. It means that Google must respect the GPL vis a vis the messages containing GPLed code. Before this case, the precedent was that if Google didn't, and Linus was feeling unrealistically cranky, he could sue for copyright infringment.

(If you really must, think about a different usenet service provider offering binaries of Debian or something)

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939889)

My mistake. Being in the public domain is not required for "unlimited" redistribution. But I still don't know of a law or policy that says that everything on usenet must be released under a license which permits unlimited redistribution.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940050)

It DOESN'T, what google does ISN'T unlimited distribution. They're doing pretty much what every other newsgroup server does, it is a very limited form of distribution and one pretty much like the original (a newsgroup server hosts the message and viewer can access it, just that in this case the viewer is on a web page).

If they published it as a book, THEN they'd have a problem however they're not.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940093)

You're saying that giving out copies of, say, my work to anyone who cares to search isn't unlimited distribution? This sounds off to me.

The problem I'm trying to point at applies equally well to anyone who archives usenet posts. Google is simply an easy target for lawsuits and the obvious subject of discussion.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940111)

You're saying that giving out copies of, say, my work to anyone who cares to search isn't unlimited distribution? This sounds off to me.

Of course it's not, unlimited means "without limits." What google does have a fuck load of limits on it, specifically those inherent in any newsgroup server. As I said, they're not making a copy in another medium and so on.

Let me state this clearly: Every fuckin newsgroup server and Slashdot and most forums and half the fuckin internet shows your work to anyone who wishes to search for it. Just because I post somewhere doesn't mean I get to sue the website to which I psoted for showing my content.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940125)

Just because I post somewhere doesn't mean I get to sue the website to which I psoted for showing my content.

Indeed. But Google isn't my usenet provider. They are a third party redistributing material without my consent.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940150)

Indeed. But Google isn't my usenet provider. They are a third party redistributing material without my consent. ...are you really that dense or are you trying really hard. Shut up and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet [wikipedia.org] then post. Key words include servers (note the "s"), distributed and exchange.

If you post total shit with seemingly no fuckin knowledge of how usenet works and is supposed to work then I will simply be forced to keep insulting you.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940166)

Uhm, why don't you try relaxing a little bit? I'm perfectly aware of how Usenet works. And how the web works. And I'm perfectly aware that the same arguments that apply to the Google Images case applies to the Google Groups case. Google lost the first and won the latter. The point is, Google is a fucking third party, distributing work without the author's expressed, written consent, and as such, should be liable for copyright infringement under current copyright law.

I don't like it either, but that's how it works.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940225)

The point is, Google is a fucking third party, distributing work without the author's expressed, written consent, and as such, should be liable for copyright infringement under current copyright law.

Which I may say isn't what you said in the last post, you said they're not YOUR newsgroup server. Neither is every other damn newsgroup server in the world to which your message gets sent.

Re:Strange Decision (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939927)

In the meantime, I'll give you the example that motivated my comments.

I don't think that's a good analogy, though. If Linus himself posted that code or those binaries, then he gave his explicit permission to distribute them. If the messages were posted by someone else, and their posting violated the terms of the GPL, then Linus could petition Google to pull them - just as the RIAA could petition Google to remove their artists' songs (if put there by someone other than the copyright holder).

I think a better analogy is Slashdot itself, which is basically a limited-scale Usenet workalike. Posters own their messages (read the message at the bottom of each page), but they post here with the clear and obvious knowledge that their message will be read by thousands of strangers. I truly can't imagine that any judge would support a lawsuit against Slashdot by a reader who claims that Slashdot doesn't have the right to display their message. Of course they do! That's the entire purpose of the system. And because the poster knew that before they sent their message, I don't think they'd have much recourse against Slashdot doing exactly what they were asked to do.

But again, you don't have the right to post content you don't own, and the legitimate owners would have every right to ask it to be pulled. That's an entirely different issue than this lawsuit, though.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940057)

I really don't understand how you keep getting insightful karma when you completely miss the point. Please find an authoritative document stating that anything posted on usenet must be issued under a license that provides unlimited distribution to all. Otherwise, you're talking out of your butt, and I've got Federal law in my corner.

Re:Strange Decision (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14939754)

Thats not how NNTP works. You don't get to dictate how your messages are stored and distributed on usenet. This is like submitting a poster for an art contest and then suing after you found out that all entries were going to be displayed for the public, even though it was explicity stated that this is what would happen.

Google Groups is just nothing but a web-based usenet reader.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939812)

You say I can't, and give me an analogy. Fine, I get it. Now tell me why I can't. Copyright law says I can.

Re:Strange Decision (4, Interesting)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940042)

Check court cases, there is the concept of implied license. For example, web browsers are given an implied license by web site owners to copy content for viewing purposes.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940084)

Thanks. I plagiarize:
An implied copyright license is a license created by law in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties. Implied licenses arise when the conduct of the parties indicates that some license is to be extended between the copyright owner and the licensee, but the parties themselves did not bother to create a license. This differs from an express license in that the parties never actually agree on the specific terms of the license. The purpose of an implied license is to allow the licensee (the party who licenses the work from the copyright owner) some right to use the copyrighted work, but only to the extent that the copyright owner would have allowed had the parties negotiated an agreement. Generally, the custom and practice of the community are used to determine the scope of the implied license.

That doesn't let google off, unfortunately.

Suppose my (fictional) license says "This post cannot be distributed by Google, Inc." Then they go and archive it. No implied licence will save Google.

The point being, if I'm not willing to let Google serve my content, they aren't allowed to under this doctrine.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940138)

No, if your license says something totally arsine then the implied license may override it. For example if you put the following on the bottom of a webpage (well written better and so on):

No one may cache or make copies of this site, including into the ram or hard drive due to a web browser. Any such behavior is copyright infringement and liable to prosecution.

you will get laughed out of court if you try to sue people who viewed your website.

Law isn't black and white, and is based on past cases and probably dozens of other things including social norms and views. That is a damn good thing although it does force a lot of lawyers to exist.

This of course assumes someone actually had such a license in their post and google refused to remove it (I'm sure there are court cases about how automatic systems are not liable right away within some sane limits).

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940173)

You sound much more reasonable over here than in the other thread. I'll do more research on implied licenses.

Re:Strange Decision (2, Insightful)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939813)

Thats not how NNTP works. You don't get to dictate how your messages are stored and distributed on usenet.


If he didn't want his posts archived, all he had to do was have the following line at the top of his post...

x-noarchive: yes

As for some of his site being quoted in Google's search results? That sounds like a classic case of fair use to me.

And further into the article...

In his lawsuit, Parker also claimed Google was liable for defamation because the search company archived allegedly defamatory messages posted by Usenet users and that Google was invading his privacy by creating an "unauthorized biography" of him, the court said.


I can't access Usenet (or Google Groups) from the base network here, so I can't look into this further. But if he was being some sort of asshat (spamming, trolling, etc), then the other users would have every right to call him on his bullshit, short of threatening him or commiting libel.

I'd comment more on this, but I need my sleep.

Re:Strange Decision (3, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939757)

What if I posted a licence with my content stating that only nntp servers and individuals could redistribute what I have posted?

I've got a much simpler idea: If you don't want something to get freely archived and redistributed by countless 3rd parties outside your control, why don't you just try not posting it on Usenet?

Re:Strange Decision (-1, Redundant)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939807)

Because as a copyright holder I have the right to dictate the terms of redistribution of my content, and I want to? Why are Google's rights so sacred while mine are being trampled on?

Here's a happy little example: some parts of the Linux kernel are stored in google groups. Does that mean that the GPL is invalidated? Or does it mean that Google has to comply with the GPL vis a vis the messages containing it? (Hint: the answer is the latter)

Re:Strange Decision (2, Informative)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940008)

Because as a copyright holder I have the right to dictate the terms of redistribution of my content, and I want to?

Sure. Now, if you read the fine print of you agreement with your ISP or news server provider, you'll find that you almost certainly agreed to let them redistribute any of your usenet postings without restriction. Those are the terms you chose.

I suggest next time you just follow my suggestion and simply don't post your dubious opinions on usenet if you don't want them automatically reproduced.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940029)

Is the Linux kernel a "dubious opinion"? I don't appreciate your ad hominem, especially when I've given examples grounded in law.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940039)

Furthermore, when I entered into an agreement with my ISP, granting them redistribution rights, I entered into no such agreement with Google.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940086)

Here's a typical snippet from Yahoo's ISP agreement:
With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, you grant SBC and Yahoo! the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

Google doesn't need to enter into an agreement with you. In this case, if you post it via Yahoo, they 0wn it. By transmitting it to other news servers, Yahoo is sublicencing it as they see fit under terms of their choice, which they are entitled to do under this agreement. Most any ISP is going to have very similar terms.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940104)

What's your deal with the Linux kernel on usenet? Posting it in source form would be a GPL-compatible distribution, so that's fine. Maybe a modified binary wouldn't be, but the person making the post would be infringing copyright by putting it into such a system. There is no practical way to unpost it once it has automatically propagated to thousands of news servers.

If you have a problem, it's with the guy who made the post, not with Google. Google is simply operating a news server as it was designed to work, the same way news servers have been working for 3 decades.

It's not an ad hominem attack. Your opinions on this topic are dubious, and you don't understand how the law actually works in the real world. It's not as one-dimensional or simple as you seem to think.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940156)

For fucks sake, Google isn't a common carrier or an ISP. Google got fucked over for doing the same thing with Google Images. I simply want to know why this ruling was different from the Images case, when the same arguments apply to both. And I got blind-sided by a shitstorm of Google fanboys defending Google stomping on the little guy with no regard for the facts.

The kernel is a good case, because it shows that posting on usenet is not in and of itself enough to invalidate the license under which material was released, regardless of the medium. Google, and every usenet host outside of the one(s) Linus has uploaded binaries to, are third parties redistributing the kernel, and, as such, must abide by the GPL. The fact that they haven't is more due to the fact that Linus doesn't really care.

Do you understand the words coming from my fingers and onto your screen?

Re:Strange Decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14940217)

What if I posted a licence with my content stating that only nntp servers and individuals could redistribute what I have posted?

You're welcome to do that. But I'm not sure what would be the point: since you'd be explicitly allowing individuals to distribute your content, any person who distributes your content would not be infringing. That leaves non-NNTP servers. Which begs the question, what're they going to do? Sentence your computer to 35 to life in a maximum security prison?

Re:Strange Decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14940101)

I don't even get how an average usenet post can be even considered to fall under copyright laws, because certainly the quality and originality (or any higher cultural value for that matter) seems to be completely lacking.

Re:Strange Decision (1)

yppiz (574466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940205)

You left out "that were submitted to a store-and-forward global distribution system with the intent of disseminating them as widely as possible, knowing full well that they would be archived, folded, spindled, and mutilated".

There are several things missing here. First, for most of the history of Usenet, it was not archived (or at least, not well known to be archived). Users of Usenet, up until around 1995, expected news postings to be ephemeral.

Second, the fact that a technology allows for something to happen, in this case the possibility of archiving information forever, does not alter the copyrights of a creator. The author of a work has received no consideration from Google for their copyright (that is, Google hasn't paid them anything), and there is no way I know of for an author to put something in the public domain just by their choice of the medium by which they spread their ideas.

Even when express something in a way that is likely to be recorded, you still hold the copyright to that work. Consider Greatful Dead concerts and the tapers. The Dead did not magically forfeit the copyrights to their songs when they allowed fans to archive and forward their recordings to others.

--Pat

Uh Huh (1)

alcmaeon (684971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939857)

"When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its users, the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing," the court said.

Right. So I set up a machinegun outside my house to fire automatically at anyone who passes by on the street and it works and kills a few people. I haven't committed murder becuase I set up an "automatic" gun so the requisite "intent" is missing?

Whoever this judge is, he needs to take a refresher course on the law.

Re:Uh Huh (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940004)

Right. So I set up a machinegun outside my house to fire automatically at anyone who passes by on the street and it works and kills a few people. I haven't committed murder becuase I set up an "automatic" gun so the requisite "intent" is missing?

You stated your "intent" was "to fire automatically at anyone".

Interesting Products... (3, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939681)

According to the ZDNet write-up, he does business as the Snodgrass Publishing Group, who have some interesting offerings at a site they own called "cybersheet.com". This is the top result from a Google search for "Snodgrass Publishing Group" [cybersheet.com]

Re:Interesting Products... (2, Funny)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939780)

According to the ZDNet write-up, he does business as the Snodgrass Publishing Group, who have some interesting offerings at a site they own called "cybersheet.com".
The Elite Player's Guide to Getting Laid.

1) Sue Google.
2) ???
3) Get laid!

Re:Interesting Products... (2, Funny)

publius_jr (808330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940023)

I own this classic, and seminal, guide and happened to notice that you only gave the concise form of the `genius plan' (as the author frequently calls it). The plan branches into two detailed versions based on frequency of occurence. I figured the Slashdot crowd (of all crowds) could benefit from the detail.

The uncommon form, but `the one most guys, idiots, anticipate' (69) is:

  1. Sue Google.
  2. Win
  3. Profit!
  4. Get laid!
This is the uncommon form because rarely do you ever win the lawsuit. If you should happen to win, however, we can explicitly extract `Profit!' from `???' in the concise form to get the uncommon form just above. In this case 4) is a corollary to 3); everyone knows that `when you've got the riches you can lay the bitches' (138). But we really do not expect to win the lawsuit, so the above information is included mainly for completeness.

The common form, the `one you paid $43.95 to see' (inside flap), is:

  1. Sue Google.
  2. Lose.
  3. Get Laid!
The main gem of this classic work is the knowledge that `hotties love losers' (207).

So, to sum up, hotties love money and hotties love losers. By suing Google you are destined to either lose or get rich. In either case, you will get laid!

Re:Interesting Products... (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940077)

The Elite Player's Guide to Getting Laid.

1) Don't use the navigation computer to handle the docking sequence...

Re:Interesting Products... (1)

solarbob (959948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940269)

and I think we've found his level...I'm sre a dig on groups.google.com would be fun :)

What was he thinking ? (3, Interesting)

this great guy (922511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939697)

I have always wondered what those guys suing for anything _really_ think ? For example, does this guy honestly thought Google was violating his copyright ? Or did he sue just to give a try and maybe obtain easy money via financial compensation ?

Re:What was he thinking ? (2, Funny)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939851)

I have always wondered what those guys suing for anything _really_ think ? For example, does this guy honestly thought Google was violating his copyright ? Or did he sue just to give a try and maybe obtain easy money via financial compensation ?

He's in the porn business. He sued for publicity.

Re:What was he thinking ? (1)

solarbob (959948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940275)

As the mantra goes there is no bad publicity..

Content isn't that special...get over it (4, Insightful)

doubledoh (864468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939710)

That's the way it should be. I'm tired of people trying to undermine most of the good reasons the web exists because they are worried about losing "control" of their content. Content in the context of 6 billion people (and growing) just isn't worth as much as it once was. Think about it. When you were a kid, getting a new CD (or tape/LP) was a pretty special event because the low-tech cumbersome delivery system limited the supply and frequency of new content. Now it's as easy as clickity click on your web browser (or p2p app) to find millions of different ways to entertain yourself. We have a growing sense that content is meant to be disseminated more freely...because it IS disseminated more freely...and exponentially so. Just the idea of being able to read newspapers from around the world for FREE would be crazy just 10-15 years ago...now it's a given. Same goes with content on people's web sites. Everyone's got a freaking webpage now (hell, I've got dozens...half of which I don't even remember exist)...so unique and special and limited content is being dwarfed by voluminous amounts of content in every possible variety and quality one can imagine.

The bottom line...your damn content isn't that special anymore! Stop suing people! Get over it...we probably already forgot about the content we "stole" or archived long before you remembered to call your lawyer. We moved on to the next thing before you could look up "cache" for FREE on dictionary.com.

Re:Content isn't that special...get over it (3, Insightful)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939872)

I hate DRM/copyright/etc as much as the next /.er.. but...

I think that the easy availability of 'content' has also cheapened it*. Sure, there are 6 billion or so people, and maybe they can all (one day) make content. The truth is, 99.99% of it will be complete crap.

Is it possible for people to sift through 10000 pieces of crap to find one useful/good item? No. People will do what they've always done - go with the crowd. One could argue that this is the 'service' that a centralised distribution system (currently known as a 'record company') provides, but I think even in the future these things will be useful.

For example, how would you find a good jazz album on p2p or bittorrent - if you don't know what it's called? both are really geared to shareing known material - if I made an album and posted it on either, there'd be bloody few downloads!

Sure, there are systems like last.fm, and to a certain extent they *can* replace current distribution systems, when coupled with p2p/BT/etc, but essentially people will still want some review process - that's why Google Scholar isn't putting academic journals out of business.

(*) Just on a side note - I was walking along listening to my ipod the other day, and I started thinking about how little attention I usually pay to the music that its playing. This is very different to our grandparents, who would've given total attention to music. Now, it's just another background noise (not always, of course). We're damn lucky - 4 to 5 generations ago there was *only* 'live' music, now, music's ubiquitous...

Re:Content isn't that special...get over it (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939928)

Okay, one last post before finally going to get some sleep. For real this time...

For example, how would you find a good jazz album on p2p or bittorrent - if you don't know what it's called? both are really geared to shareing known material - if I made an album and posted it on either, there'd be bloody few downloads!


I'm not sure how to do it with BitTorrent, but with the stories I have written and shared via p2p (and I do this on Gnutella), I just add a few keywords to the end of the file name, prefaced with - keywords -

Since I started doing that, I have had quite a few downloads of my entire library of tales I have written thus far. I also have a couple of text files that also have the appropriate keywords. One of the files explains what the entire series is about, and the other is just a plain simple list of each story chapter and the specific file name to search for.

And that is how an unknown can gain new readers (or viewers or listeners) via p2p.

Re:Content isn't that special...get over it (2, Insightful)

doubledoh (864468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939990)

I agree my original point was a bit of a stretch. But really, it's about technology allowing the quality content producers the ability to disseminate their material to a much wider audience for alot less money. Almost anyone with 10 grand can easily produce their own album, film (digitally) a movie and edit it, and even make a tv show and distribute it globally (with bitorrent) for next to nothing. While yes, 99% of people won't produce anything (or at least nothing of great value), 1% of 6 billion is still alot of damn people (60 million?). 60 million people producing content and being able to distribute it globally...that's just nuts and its fantastic...but yes, inevitably it does dilute the value of content as it was spoon fed to us in the past by relatively few mediums. Today, almost any blogger can review almost anything. Hell, anyone can do their own "reviews" by using google. You can "browse" online and discover music just by using the "people who bought X also bought Y" feature on Amazon and other sites. In general, the overall masses of information that help you buy new products also dilutes the value of content in general by reviewing so much of it. It's like water. Water is damn valuable in the middle of the desert...but once you get to Seattle...you have so much damn water you get tired of it! Or at least, you don't appreciate your water (however good it tastes) quite as much because it is so plentiful and available compared to the desert. You made a good point about music being background music. I used to memorize the lyrics to every single album I owned when i was younger...now I couldn't even tell you the song titles of most of the tracks I listen to because I have so much music at this point because of its easy availability that I don't spend nearly as much time getting intimate with the tracks. Or, maybe I'm just getting older and less idealistic about music?

Regardless, content creators need to remember that whatever the reason, the consumer is definately being bombarded with massive amounts of content and no one piece of content can become supremely valuable anymore. We don't give it time to become valuable...we move on to something new before it even has a chance. The whole "MTV generation" attention span cliche is really kind of true. We want lots and lots of content, fast, and frequently. It's not that content was more valuable before, it's just that content creators used to have less competition because it was so expensive and/or difficult to distribute content in the past. Today, it's as easy as "Share this folder" or "post this blog" or what have you. The trick is to just keep creating exciting content constantly. The content providers that realize this instead of filing absurd lawsuits that pine for yesterday's paradigms will win.

wtf (2, Insightful)

fftl4life (961774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939747)

the way i figure it, if you put it on the net and people wanna look at it, they will find a way, if you cant deal with it dont put you s**t on the interweb

Of course... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14939771)

All Google had to do was buy a million monkeys, give each a computer, and let them type on them for about five minutes in order to reproduce all of the Usenet archives without "stealing his work".

Thankfully? (3, Interesting)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939815)

Thankfully, we can all still read Usenet articles on Google as well as other archive services.

Web-based reading of USENET is fine; the problem is with archiving: USENET was originally not intended to be archived, and the fact that it is being archived has greatly changed it. Anybody who, these days, makes a controversial contribution to a USENET forum under his real name is a bloody fool. There is no point debating this anymore: unrestricted archiving of USENET news has become de-facto accepted. But that doesn't make it right or a good thing.

Your Choice (X-noarchive) (2, Interesting)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939903)

USENET was originally not intended to be archived

You always had a choice in the matter via the "X-noarchive" flag. It would have made an interesting case if he had set "X-noarchive: yes" in his posting and Google (and DejaNews before them) had ignored it.

Re:Your Choice (X-noarchive) (3, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940201)

Usenet was around a LONG time (1980 was the announcement of "A" news) before X-noarchive came along (1996? I can't find an earlier reference but I thought it was earlier). By now it's really unclear what a Usenet poster in, say, 1983 "intended". You certainly didn't "always" have that choice.

Parker doesn't have that excuse though.

Re:Your Choice (X-noarchive) (3, Insightful)

pomo monster (873962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940230)

"You always had a choice in the matter via the 'X-noarchive' flag" ...unless someone quotes your post in a reply.

Re:Thankfully? (3, Insightful)

jgardner100 (559892) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939924)

I disagree, Usenet was always store and forward, Google are simply using a ridiculously long expire time in this case. There was never any restriction on how long a site could keep the postings for, they were/are simply constrained by available disk space.

Re:Thankfully? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940011)

USENET was originally not intended to be archived

Really? And this was stated in which RFC or other authoritative document?

Archiving was certainly never required, but conversely it was never forbidden, as far as I know.

disturbing asymmetry (2, Interesting)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939827)

Well, I generally like Google, but this is a disturbing asymmetry to me.

When an individual posts something to USENET, then apparently it's OK for companies like Google to archive and republish that stuff, even making money from it if they put advertising on the same page.

But how is that different from broadcasting? It seems to me that if what Google is doing is OK, then I should be able to record, archive, and republish any music or other programming broadcast over the Internet or airwaves.

But try to copy the USENET posting from Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14939831)

And they will sue you.

Geez, what a headline (1)

Crazen (615089) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939833)

Slashdot = Google Marketting? Nevermind what the trial was about...

Google is in the right. (4, Informative)

atomic-penguin (100835) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939861)

There exists several legitimate ways to keep your web content out of google's indexes.  They respect all of the following methods.  Google even has a page titled "Google information for webmasters" which documents most of these.  On what grounds does one have to sue?

* E-mail header that prevent google groups from archiving your message: "X-No-Archive: Yes".
* Meta tags: <META NAME="Googlebot" CONTENT="nofollow">
* Hyperlinks <a href="http://google.com" rel="nofollow">
* robots.txt file with proper syntax
* Google's link removal page: http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html

Re:Google is in the right. (1)

DavidpFitz (136265) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940112)

There exists several legitimate ways to keep your web content out of google's indexes. They respect all of the following methods. Google even has a page titled "Google information for webmasters" which documents most of these. On what grounds does one have to sue?

* E-mail header that prevent google groups from archiving your message: "X-No-Archive: Yes".
* Meta tags:
* Hyperlinks
* robots.txt file with proper syntax
* Google's link removal page: http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html [google.com]
Just because they offer a method of telling their robot not to do something, doesn't mean it is OK that it is doing it in the first place.

would it be OK for me to post a leter to everyone in my apartment block asking them to reply if they don't want me to break in to their home and take all their stuf. If they don't reply, I'm doing nothing illegal by breaking in and taking it all, right?

Re:Google is in the right. (3, Insightful)

Beolach (518512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940207)

would it be OK for me to post a leter to everyone in my apartment block asking them to reply if they don't want me to break in to their home and take all their stuf. If they don't reply, I'm doing nothing illegal by breaking in and taking it all, right?
I can't believe how often people make that argument. That's a horrible analogy. Browsing, spidering, indexing, or caching a publicly accessable website is nothing like breaking and entering. It's more like picking up a flier off a stack under a sign saying "TAKE A FLYER". If you don't want people taking your flyers, don't stick them under a sign saying "TAKE A FLYER": if you don't want people accessing your website, don't make it publicly accessable on the internet.

Re:Google is in the right. (1)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940213)

The difference is that anybody putting material on the web is doing so in the knowledge that others will be accessing the material.

Troll (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14939866)

My jaw dropped when I started reading this article... I was surprised that this guy has made the news.

Gordon Roy Parker is the resident troll on various Usenet groups. He has been around for years, and alternates between posting nonsense disguised as an informed opinion and accusing other posters of plagiarizing his writing. I think he may also sell an e-book about seduction.

Here are some references [google.com]

"Ray Gordon" discussing his loss (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940047)

Hope this link works [google.com]

DejaNews (1, Offtopic)

rm999 (775449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939873)

I miss DejaNews - i used to use it all the time, but then they were aquired by google (very early on) and competely destroyed into the monstrosity that is now google groups. Google can be evil and ruin things too. I was actually amazed that they became a good search engine after that fiasco.

Suegle (5, Funny)

JRGhaddar (448765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14939901)

Google should just start "Suegle" so we all can set up our own personal lawsuits against google.

Features include:

-the ability to blog about the lawsuit and how much of google's money we are trying to get.

-RSS feeds of the latest filings & verdicts

-Lawyers oncall via GTalk

feel free to add any I'm missing

.htaccess anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14940049)

.htaccess file would stop some of this. You can stop a spider (who followd rules) like the google bot, by placing the appropriate code to block certain information, in reality this guy should be mad at Usenet for not blocking such access from spiders or bots. This is defantly someone looking to make a buck that just spent thousands of dollars to get ready for a case that fell through.

Re:.htaccess anyone? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940127)

Sure you don't mean robots.txt ?

Now he's gonna sue /. too (1, Funny)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940061)

The following words were posted to various groups on Usenet by Ray
Gordon (aka Gordon Roy Parker) in the hours following the terrorist
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:

"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
a one."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got
from GOD today.........."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"Now you know what it's like to see your horrors mocked the
way mine have been. That's not mental illness, that's a political
message, apparently delivered quite brilliantly."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"I am expressing my lack of sympathy for the loss
of a bunch of self-centered, asshole New Yorkers"
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"I'm not the one who blew them up, am I?
I just laugh at the poetic justice of it all."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"Pretty damn good day at the office if you ask me,
especially since I'm not the one who hijacked the planes."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"May those who died today rot in the hell they deserve."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"A bunch of asshole New Yorkers died...don't grieve.
No significant loss of life in those Towers...not a one!"
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"It is so PATHETIC how we are making angels out of some of the
worst corporate criminals in America just because they suffered
a little bombing."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"Do not mourn the trader trash."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"All I have said is that most of the victims who worked in that building
were not moral creatures. In fact, many of the very powerful types who
died in that blast used to say 'let God deal with them.' I did. God
has."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"It's not my fault that Bin Laden unwittingly took out a large segment
of American TRASH, and while I'd never do something like that, I have
to say those victims were anything but angels. They were greedy,
capitalistic employment discriminators with no regard for the
civil rights of anyone but themselves. Looks like GOD wanted me around
and not them. Who am I to question the lord?"
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

"Once again: no significant loss of life in those Towers."
  - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon)

no other thing to do... (0, Flamebait)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940107)

It seems there are more and more people who don't have or don't want anything else to do but sit home and think about who and how they could sue for some money. Then they buy some fastfood and sit down again to think on their next target.

Ignorance (1, Offtopic)

syrion (744778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14940169)

It seems that many people who use the Internet, even extensively, are ignorant of its necessities. Back in the mid-Nineties, there were very few competent search engines, so finding anything of use was difficult. You needed to know good "link lists" for any topic you were interested in, and good link lists were hard to come by. If the technologically illiterate manage to make the basic search functions of a search engine illegal, what do they expect to happen? I suspect that this plaintiff would be unhappy to find that all of his traffic suddenly vanished.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>