Google Fails To Blink

Re:Google Fails To Blink by mynameishere on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @01:11PM (#18443)

Of course, everyone is rooting for google because they love their free content, but when you seat people on a jury, then tend to take things seriously.

The law says "don't do X".

Google does "X".

...15 minutes of deliberations later...

Google is found liable for doing "X".

It's really straightforward, and arguments about information wanting to be free don't really work in a courtroom setting.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Fails To Blink by willarson on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @03:06PM (#18472)

My understanding of the DMCA is that as long as sites promptly remove copyrighted materials they are not in violation of the law. Rather than arguments about "information wanting to be free", I think we'll see a lot of obtuse arguments about what engenders "prompt removal", etc.

On the topic of copyrights and the web, what I'd like to know is how Pandora was so successful in getting licenses for all the music they use.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Fails To Blink by rms on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @06:03PM (#18504)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Fails To Blink by mynameishere on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @10:50PM (#18561)

Geez, pick another name.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Fails To Blink by rms on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @02:43AM (#18629)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Fails To Blink by mynameishere on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @08:32AM (#18672)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

[ Parent | on HN ]