One interesting thing jumped out at me from this article: "Google argued that the users of Google News were responsible for the acts of reproduction and communication, not Google. It contended that it only provided users facilities which an enabled these acts and so was exempt from infringement..."
Interesting that Google's defense is basically the same as P2P website hosts. "We're just indexing, it's the people who download that are responsible for any breach". I can't decide if this dismissal is reassuring (shows they are consistent between big sites and smaller ones how the legal knots are tied) or worrying (because of the severity it implies) in copyright terms...... FT2 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:28 PM, ???? <[email protected]> wrote: > One might want to factor in a Google News Case in Belgium that dealt > with which laws apply where: > http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/05/17/is-google-news-legal/ > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
