AT&T Tech Support 360
March 16, 2006 2:01 PM PST
Google wins a court battle
Last modified: March 16, 2006 3:31 PM PST
- Related Stories
-
Judge to help feds against Google
March 14, 2006 -
American Airlines subpoenas Google, YouTube
March 9, 2006 -
Are Usenet fans vulnerable to copyright lawsuits?
February 24, 2006 -
Nude-photo site wins injunction against Google
February 21, 2006 -
Newspapers want search engines to pay
January 31, 2006 -
Publishers sue Google over book search project
October 19, 2005 -
Authors Guild sues Google over library project
September 20, 2005
The lawsuit was filed by Gordon Roy Parker, also known as Ray Gordon, who publishes his writings under the business name of Snodgrass Publishing Group. Parker, of Philadelphia, also posted a chapter of one of his e-books on the Usenet bulletin board network, a collection of thousands of discussion forums called newsgroups.
In his 2004 lawsuit against Google, Parker alleged that the search giant violated copyright law by automatically archiving a copy of his posting on Usenet and by providing excerpts from his Web site in search results.
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 (click for PDF of court documents).
"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 is missing," the court said.
The ruling cited a January decision in the Field v. Google case in federal court in Nevada that concluded that cached versions of Web pages Google stores and offers as a part of many search results do not infringe copyright.
The ruling comes after a decision last month in which a federal judge in Los Angeles said that portions of Google's image search feature, which displays thumbnail versions of images found on adult photo site Perfect 10 and others, likely violate U.S. copyright law.
The search engine also faces copyright lawsuits filed last year by authors and publishers groups over its controversial Library Project book-scanning plans, and a lawsuit filed by Agence France-Presse and threat of litigation from the World Association of Newspapers for aggregating headlines and photos without permission or compensation.
In a legal blow to Google earlier this week, a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., said he would grant federal prosecutors at least part of their request for excerpts from Google's index of Web sites. Google is challenging a subpoena from the Department of Justice for a random sampling of Internet addresses and search queries that the DOJ says it needs to help defend a measure designed to hold Web sites liable if minors can access pornography on them.
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. However, the court said Google is immune because it either archived or provided access to content that was created by a third party.
Most of the 11 claims in the lawsuit, which also included racketeering, negligence, abuse of process and civil conspiracy, were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Others were dismissed because Google was found not to be held liable under certain statutes.
The ruling also complained about the "rambling" and "unwieldy" lawsuit, which named "50,000 John Does" as defendants. Parker, a former paralegal, said he wrote the complaint himself and does not have a lawyer.
Parker said he will appeal the decision. "The court is confused about what cache means," he said in a telephone interview. "Google really is a third-party republication."
"Google takes my content, uses it to bolster its search engine and attracts traffic to which they pitch advertising from my competitors," Parker complained.
"The Parker decision is one of several recent rulings finding that Google's services are consistent with principles of copyright law. Indeed, Judge Surrick relied in part on Judge Jones' decision in Field v. Google," Michael Kwun, litigation counsel for Google, wrote in an e-mail. "We are very pleased with this decision."
See more CNET content tagged:
Usenet,
excerpt,
lawsuit,
federal judge,
Google Inc.
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
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
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
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
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.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 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