Slander from Google

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fcef015ndbjs7hfdkfib6uai3chgmb8gqc@4ax.com...
> He key part here I believe is:
>
> "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
> treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
> another information content provider."
>
> This doesn't save Google. Because the user involved holds a posting
> account directly with them (Google), so there was no other information
> content provider involved. They can't hide behind this.

How is Google not an interactive computer service?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Corporations like Google protect the criminal's own illegimate rights.
Ethical is absent when it comes to partake money and greed in this
world.
Society crumbles when it abandons universal cannons of ethics and moral
values.

For six years or so I have been stalked myself by an evil individual
from Asia by posting anonymous diffamatory messages and spreading lies
about me and posting my old personal home address along with it. Google
or Yahoo do not care at all!.. All they care is their profits and
corporate revenues. All they need to do is to ban the anon ids and have
filters that prohibit foul and offensive language.
You may think that law and justice are part of a so called civilized
world.But There is not much difference between the wild west and the
internet.

Lionel wrote:
> [Posted, & also emailed to Douglas McDonald]
>
> Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:
> >Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google
as the
> >> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> Great work, Douglas.
> Maybe a court case will convince Google to start enforcing their
> terms-of-service, & to assign a technical staffer to secure their
> service from abuse by their users.
>
> I would love to take you up on your generous offer. Would you please
> email me to tell me what I need to do?
>
> Given that you're already dipping into your wallet for a lawyer, one
> really useful thing you might consider doing would be to ask him/her
to
> draw up some form of legal notice that a victim could fax or
snail-mail
> (via registered post) to Google, each time one of us is forged or
> defamed by their user, asking them to cancel the posts concerned, &
to
> delete the originating account, per their terms of service. This
would
> either cause them to actually deal with the problem instead of
ignoring
> it, or would give us a huge pile of court evidence that Google have
been
> *knowingly* enabling defamation & forgeries by their users.
>
> >You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the
publisher
> >of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that
if you
> >are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that
being
> >the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally.
>
> I am not a lawyer, (nor do I play one on TV), but I imagine that
simply
> making a reasonable effort to enforce their TOS - rather than
ignoring
> it they way they currently do - would be sufficient to provide them,
(or
> any other news provider) with a 'good faith' defence against
defamation
> or libel suits.
>
> > Luckily, although
> >UK law is a bit silly about this,
>
> Actually, Douglas & I are both Australians, although it's true that
our
> legal system is very similar to the British system.
>
> > I doubt you'll be successful under US
> >law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.
>
> So far, both Australian & British courts have taken the attitude
that,
> for the purposes of libel / defamation law, website operators &
Usenet
> news services are considered to be worldwide 'publishers'. As I
> understand it, the argument is that (for example), if an Australian
is
> defamed or libelled via a website that's accessable to the general
> public in Australia, then an offence has, by definition, taken place
in
> Australia, & is consequently within the jurisdiction of Australian
> courts.
> As for enforcing any judgement we might obtain from an Australian
court,
> I suspect that the solution would be to track down any corporate
> presence that Google Ltd might have in Australia, & make the initial
> case against them, as representatives of the American parent company.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda
est
>
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:

>
> If you want to be known as "The Guy Who Sued Google© And Won", vain
> hope; if you don't mind being "Another Nice Guy Who Flirts With Reality
> But Not Very Seriously", carry on. More power to you, but mind your
> health. You're on the road to Ulcer, Stroke, and Heart Attack Country.
>
> Resp'y,
>
>

You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all
those posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups.
This, I'm told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

Doug

 

[horace]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net...
>
> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all those
> posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups. This, I'm
> told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.<

----


You would do well to consider the matter thoroughly before wasting the cost
of yet another motor car on this futile pursuit.

Google most certainly do *not* publish anything on newsgroups - all they do
is maintain a web presence that harvests and/or forwards the Usenet posts of
others.

In fact, if you're going to sue Google for anything, make it an action for
copyright infringement - since this post (like millions of others) is
destined to end up on their web server without my permission being sought or
obtained.

Usenet itself is a barely tangible thing - where does it exist?, on the
servers of your ISP?, or mine?, or in the downloaded posts contained on
millions of computers world-wide?

If Google allow you access to this ethereal network they cannot, by any sane
definition, be accused of publishing martial - any more than a bus company
could be accused of publishing pornography if you hopped on the number 22 to
pop into town in order to purchase a copy of 'Readers Wives -Hot, Hot
Hot!!!' (don't buy the February issue, btw - it's disgusting!)

FWIW, my own thoughts are that any man who lavishes the cost of new car on
pursuing a Usenet troll has far too much spare cash, and [ii] far too
much spare time - and any lawyer with an ounce of integrity would point that
out to you.

 

[Charles]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net>, Ryadia
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all
> those posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups.
> This, I'm told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

I think that is an interesting theory. What the heck if you have the
money and a lawyer to test the theory I think it will be an interesting
test case, even if you lose it.

--
Charles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net...
> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all those
> posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups. This, I'm
> told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

Google provides access to Usenet and it archives Usenet postings. It is not
akin to a newspaper.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charles wrote:
> In article <36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net>, Ryadia
> <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
>> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish*
>> the work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web
>> forum as just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They
>> recompile all those posts made on their service and then publish it
>> on news groups. This, I'm told makes them as libel for slander as
>> any newspaper is.
>
> I think that is an interesting theory. What the heck if you have the
> money and a lawyer to test the theory I think it will be an
> interesting test case, even if you lose it.

You aren't by chance a "QC" are you?

 

[Darrell]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QWVNd.20317$t46.12837@trndny04...
>
> "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net...
> > You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> > Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> > work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> > just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all
those
> > posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups. This,
I'm
> > told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.
>
> Google provides access to Usenet and it archives Usenet postings. It is
not
> akin to a newspaper.
>
Google makes it too easy for people to post. If they (Google) made use of a
verifiable e-mail header in the post headings there would be next to no
abuse. The determined will find a way via anon remailers and mail2news
gateways, but they would be using Google.

 

[Charles]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <mLKdnfY_2YOndprfRVn-ig@giganews.com>, Frank ess
<frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> You aren't by chance a "QC" are you?

Nope. I think he is wasting his time and money on this suit. I don't
think he should do it, but since he seems intent on doing it, it will
be interesting to see how far it gets.

--
Charles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> I was just making the example as simple as possible. Airing tapes is,
> as you say, an editorial decision and usually made with more than one
> source of information. (There was a similar case here where a newspaper
> quoted something said on air by a former Premier (provincial first
> minister). The Premier sued the radio station and the newspaper. He
> lost against the newspaper as it was just reporting what the radio
> station said (and attributed it to the radio station)).
>
> As to 'slander' v. 'libel', it could be argued that the broadcast of a
> recorded utterance is the broadcast of a 'document' and thus libel. (If
> "live" then it is slander.) But that's just my opinion ... I have no
> idea how civil courts interpret it.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
a newsgroup host.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
> electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
> a newsgroup host.

That's idiotic.

The difference between Google and a Usenet provider is that Google provides
a web interface. They provide the newsreader as well as the service. That's
it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> to the court date.

Since the case will probably get decided under U.S. law, even in
Australia, you might want to look at 47 USC 230 before spending your
money.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/47usc230.htm

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
> electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
> a newsgroup host.

"Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward posts to usenet
and/or store messages in Google-groups for retirieval. There is nobody
involved. The material is originated by someone not associated with Google.
Those are the people you need to track down. Your lawyer should get a court
order to get Google (or better, the offenders ISP) to reveal who they are.

I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should persue the
originator. Google is just the messenger.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:20:43 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>I get it. The individual is an 'information content provider'

In the context of Google, yes. So you can't sue Google because _they_
didn't make the statement, it came from one of Google's 'information
content provider's (a Google user).

>
>So, he as a 'user' of the interactive computer service is also
>protected by claiming that another 'information content provider'
>(anyone on the internet) provided the libel.

Not unless that user had some mechanism in place to perform "blind",
indiscriminate reposting of the information from that provider (i.e.
someone who has set up an automatic digest-posting to a newsgroup from a
mailing list). If a user _chooses_ to make a deliberate post, even if the
information came from another source, they have "published" that info. (As
a later respondent comments, posting "The XYZ Media Corp reported that
'...<some contentious comment>...'" _might_ be a different case).

The key concept (as I understand it) is _control_: if you/an organisation
has no control over the information, then you can't be held liable for its
content (though you might be held liable for not _having_ control, but
that's probably a different question).

>
>This must make it virtually impossible for a celebrity to bring about
>a liability case relating to the internet... I can always find
>*someone* else that said that nasty thing about Michael Jackson before
>I did. Another 'information content provider' that I'm just repeating.
>
>Cool.


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:50:44 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
>electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
>a newsgroup host.

I'm appreciative of the position you're in, and of your desire to "do
something about it", but, as others have said, I do think you're getting
possibly unreliable advice about "going for" Google.

What you see as a "Google forum" is really nothing more than a web-based
interface to the news groups of usenet. It isn't "something separate", the
contents of which are "republished" to usenet: it is just another way to
read from/post to usenet. They are no more "republishing" than is my copy
of Agent when it sends this post to my ISP's news server.

Almost certainly usenet would be a better place if Google placed tighter
controls over who can post, and you'd probably get more encouragement from
others if you took them to task over this (I don't know what, if any, law
you would base an action on, but I'm almost sure it wouldn't be for libel).

<covering-my-back-disclaimer>
I am not a lawyer, just a drifter through usenet. The above opinion is
based on the situation as I see it, but is offered "for information only".
</covering-my-back-disclaimer>


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:00:00 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
<redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fcef015ndbjs7hfdkfib6uai3chgmb8gqc@4ax.com...
>> He key part here I believe is:
>>
>> "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
>> treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
>> another information content provider."
>>
>> This doesn't save Google. Because the user involved holds a posting
>> account directly with them (Google), so there was no other information
>> content provider involved. They can't hide behind this.
>
>How is Google not an interactive computer service?

Google is, but the law states the information has to come to them
(google) via *another* interactive computer service. Apparently the
human poster meets that description. This prevents the guys at google
outright libeling anybody just because they are a interactive computer
service - the libel has to come from somewhere else first to be
protected.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On 8 Feb 2005 05:12:15 -0800, "Rigo Muniz" <bengaltiger14@juno.com>
wrote:

>Corporations like Google protect the criminal's own illegimate rights.
>Ethical is absent when it comes to partake money and greed in this
>world.
>Society crumbles when it abandons universal cannons of ethics and moral
>values.
>
>For six years or so I have been stalked myself by an evil individual
>from Asia by posting anonymous diffamatory messages and spreading lies
>about me and posting my old personal home address along with it. Google
>or Yahoo do not care at all!.. All they care is their profits and
>corporate revenues. All they need to do is to ban the anon ids and have
>filters that prohibit foul and offensive language.
>You may think that law and justice are part of a so called civilized
>world.But There is not much difference between the wild west and the
>internet.

Well I don't care if they only go after you. It's when they start
screwing up the NG for *everyone* that I have a problem.

<hides under desk>

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:27:47 +1100, Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote to
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and news.groups:

>[Xposted to news.groups, where this is more on-topic. Followups set
>there as well, as I don't wish to contribute to the current swamp of
>sewerage.]

<snip>

Actually, this is off-topic for news.groups. It's on-topic over on
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet or news.admin.net-abuse.misc. If you have a
policy change to suggest, then news.admin.net-abuse.policy would be
better than either of those groups.

Followups left set to news.groups; I'll let the earlier poster re-set
them more appropriately.

--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Horace" <horace@sendmespam.com> wrote in message
news:36pofkF5414t6U1@individual.net...
> Ah, in the UK, 'QC' can either mean a Queen's Counsel (a Lawyer with
> considerably higher qualifications than a mundane 'Solicitor') or a brand
> of cheap sherry.

And, based on its merits, this legal action, if it exists other than in the
mind of the OP, will wind up in the WC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

[Posted, & also emailed to Douglas McDonald]

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:
>Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>> publisher of slander and defamation.

Great work, Douglas.
Maybe a court case will convince Google to start enforcing their
terms-of-service, & to assign a technical staffer to secure their
service from abuse by their users.

I would love to take you up on your generous offer. Would you please
email me to tell me what I need to do?

Given that you're already dipping into your wallet for a lawyer, one
really useful thing you might consider doing would be to ask him/her to
draw up some form of legal notice that a victim could fax or snail-mail
(via registered post) to Google, each time one of us is forged or
defamed by their user, asking them to cancel the posts concerned, & to
delete the originating account, per their terms of service. This would
either cause them to actually deal with the problem instead of ignoring
it, or would give us a huge pile of court evidence that Google have been
*knowingly* enabling defamation & forgeries by their users.

>You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the publisher
>of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that if you
>are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that being
>the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally.

I am not a lawyer, (nor do I play one on TV), but I imagine that simply
making a reasonable effort to enforce their TOS - rather than ignoring
it they way they currently do - would be sufficient to provide them, (or
any other news provider) with a 'good faith' defence against defamation
or libel suits.

> Luckily, although
>UK law is a bit silly about this,

Actually, Douglas & I are both Australians, although it's true that our
legal system is very similar to the British system.

> I doubt you'll be successful under US
>law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.

So far, both Australian & British courts have taken the attitude that,
for the purposes of libel / defamation law, website operators & Usenet
news services are considered to be worldwide 'publishers'. As I
understand it, the argument is that (for example), if an Australian is
defamed or libelled via a website that's accessable to the general
public in Australia, then an offence has, by definition, taken place in
Australia, & is consequently within the jurisdiction of Australian
courts.
As for enforcing any judgement we might obtain from an Australian court,
I suspect that the solution would be to track down any corporate
presence that Google Ltd might have in Australia, & make the initial
case against them, as representatives of the American parent company.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On Tuesday, in article
<c2nh011a863rc3i71e7nrlfhpqs0v685o1@4ax.com>
nomail@hotmail.com "Owamanga" wrote:

> Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
> work?
>
> ...eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
> Australian Bailiffs on board.
>
> Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?

It seems to have escaped your notice that google.com.au exists, and
certainly appears to be located Down-under. As such, it could be
bankrupted; what would the SEC think about /that/ (they already seem to
have a rather circumspect attitude towards Google)?

Ditto for google.co.uk.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com>
stated that:

>"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>> to the court date.
>
>Since the case will probably get decided under U.S. law, even in
>Australia,

Sorry, but no. Australian courts have /already/ ruled against an
American company for defaming an Australian citizen on their website, &
the verdict held:

[Defamation on the Internet: Joseph Gutnick v Dow Jones]
<http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113_text.html>

Coincidentally, Mr Gutnick lauched, & won, his case against Dow Jones
right here in my home city. Maybe I should give him a call & get the
name of his laywer...

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:04:05 +1100, Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:

>Kibo informs me that "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com>
>stated that:
>
>>"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>>> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>>> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>>> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>>> to the court date.
>>
>>Since the case will probably get decided under U.S. law, even in
>>Australia,
>
>Sorry, but no. Australian courts have /already/ ruled against an
>American company for defaming an Australian citizen on their website, &
>the verdict held:
>
>[Defamation on the Internet: Joseph Gutnick v Dow Jones]
><http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113_text.html>
>
>Coincidentally, Mr Gutnick lauched, & won, his case against Dow Jones
>right here in my home city. Maybe I should give him a call & get the
>name of his laywer...

Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
work?

....eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
Australian Bailiffs on board.

Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mr. MacDonald,

I'm not sure how to respond to such a poorly-worded message.

Your charge that Google has "sought to ignore common courtesy" is a
bit defamatory in itself, since I really don't think you'll ever be
able to prove that their board of directors sat around a table and
said "Okay, we need to find a way to ignore common courtesy, so let's
come up with something."

Also, it is called a "lawsuit," not a "law suite." (By the way, "news
groups" are usually referred to as "newsgroups" these days.)

And it seems spurious that you are motivated by the notion that
they've been doing this "for too long now." Shouldn't you be more
bothered by the idea that they are doing it AT ALL, or perhaps the
fact (which you would have to prove) that they've been given fair
warning and a reasonable time period to take their own corrective
steps? You should be more specific.

Lastly, to give any credibility to this whatsoever, you should publish
the name of the law firm that is assisting you -- not your personal
Hotmail address. Otherwise, it's just another empty rant.

HD



On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>publisher of slander and defamation.
>
>For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>to the court date.
>
>Douglas MacDonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
> "Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward posts to
> usenet and/or store messages in Google-groups for retirieval. There is
> nobody involved. The material is originated by someone not associated
> with Google. Those are the people you need to track down. Your lawyer
> should get a court order to get Google (or better, the offenders ISP) to
> reveal who they are.
>
> I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should persue
> the originator. Google is just the messenger.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
(according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
communicating information.

Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to find
out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.

I dare say the ongoing research my lawyers are doing will sooner or
later turn up some identity of who actually controls Google. So far it's
a garden path waltz through many countries, local corporations and
holding companies. You can't just sue "Google".

They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
expensive to stop this little Aussie.

I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.

Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to conceal
sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a process for
complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9 months to
contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my store before I
took it down. I really don't care if it takes another 9 years to find
the bastard, it'll happen.

Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is fortunate
in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do exist which can
be used by individuals to defend themselves and the Free Trade Agreement
we have with the USA makes it easier to cross national legal boundaries.

Doug