ToadyCensored

5 ms·

1.
by ToadyCensored 15y ago
See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was. It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites". Or am I just reading that wrong? You're reading it wrong. It w
2.
by ToadyCensored 15y ago
You failed to provide quotation supporting your statements, and there were quotes saying otherwise :-) The lawsuit is public knowledge, with plenty of articles written and a decision published online. I think we both know that I was getti
3.
by ToadyCensored 15y ago
Your post demonstrates a misunderstanding over what the lawsuit was about. Publishers weren't suing to make Google stop linking to them. Google News was displaying full excerpts from copyright articles, sometimes entire paragraphs, and on t
4.
by ToadyCensored 15y ago
The lawsuit was over the use of copyrighted excerpts from articles in the Google News aggregator and cache, such as lead paragraphs. Google is trying to pretend that the court ruled all hyperlinks to be illegal. Google was defiant before ov
5.
by ToadyCensored 15y ago
That's incorrect. The court's ruling specifically pertains to the use of article content in the Google News aggregator and its storage in Google's cache. There is no mention of simply linking to articles in the search engine, nor would ther
6.
by ToadyCensored 15y ago
* EDIT: Oh good, my Google fanboi-ness is not in vain. The court ruling actually ordered that links be removed from "Google Web [sic]" as well. Oh well, the joke's on the newspapers then, as it appears they asked for it! (see roel_v's comme