decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
But who alerted them? | 217 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
But who alerted them?
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 12:55 PM EST
And how do they know it was a legitimate request? The reason that response came
up was because a lot of people were Googling those terms in association (I
believe).

A bit of a sticky issue, but I still say Google has some leeway here.

---
I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg
100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100. Voting ends Dec 21.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Chilling effect
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST
As for a no-good asking for removal, they can always, remove, deploy the research resources and if they were right (provable in Court right that is), republish without the risk of serious penalties.
That's exactly why I have a problem with this. Too much of a chilling effect IMO.

Suppose company A or person B does some very bad things and bloggers comment factually on this. Company A or person B then contacts Google and says that the content is defamatory.

Should the onus be on the blogger to prove in court that it isn't defamatory? I believe in most jurisdictions that the onus would be on the one making the claim of defamation.

Should the onus be on Google to judge what is and what isn't defamatory?

This goes well beyond copyright ownership proof that comes into play with Youtube content. That is often much less difficult to demonstrate.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )