On 20/05/2011 23:14, FT2 wrote: > 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...... >
Central to that is the Viacom argument as to whether Google is a service provider or a content provider. http://www.copyhype.com/2011/04/is-youtube-a-service-provider-or-content-provider/ In the Belgium case Google were doing all the copying at their own volition. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
