Comments on: Sites not liable for third-party posts, finds ruling

By: jonny662

jonny662 — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:03:35 +0000

jonny617

By: thedetroitchannel

thedetroitchannel — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:11:52 +0000

ed,

did i not say “this is the beginning”???

you chip away at precedent, not chop.

thanks, and enjoy your thanksgiving everybody!!!

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 03:13:56 +0000

I do. But you’re wrong.

This would cover you videotaping your self libeling someone.

There’s mountains of precedent having to do with copyright law already out there, and none of it looks good for the hosting site.

By: thedetroitchannel

thedetroitchannel — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:07:55 +0000

not really.

but that is what i luv about LR…put out the bait and someone will bite!

not apples and oranges at all.

the onus of guilt continues to burden THE POSTER, not the site. i’m fairly certain this is the spin youtube-like site’s lawyers will read into this ruling. if they, like craig, post guidelines and self-police to their ability, it will be the person uploading the content (whether it be opinion or not) who is ultimately responsible.

now you see my point?

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:29:04 +0000

not sure just what you are talking about here, but this ruling has to do with original content posted to a site/community. if you film yourself and say something inflamatory, then my site is not liable if you post the clip there. if you copy a tv show and post the video on my site, you are violating the copyright of the original producers of the show.

apples and oranges.

By: thelosangeleschannel

thelosangeleschannel — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:08:23 +0000

this is only the beginning!

this ruling will no doubt be ushered all the way to the us supreme court. its findings (at least in how you have presented them) will be looked at by the phalanx of youtube/google lawyers as a step in the right direction.

what’s the difference if i upload an insult to someone’s good name or a video clip?