Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
"they generally have not been held liable" isnt a valid excuse or a valid legal argument..
In most old cases the focus is on search engine listing that by themselves dont constitute cp. But this is a whole new area.. google images , actually copies the images..
If google knowingly let cp images on google images they would be held liable i'm sure of it , just as a forum owner or website owner would, so i dont see how they suddenly would be exempt from providiing 2257.
If i make a replica of google images for adults , then it should be 2257 exempt if google is..
A spider that searches through fhg's with my code on them , just as google does.
|
Seriously Smokey - you are correct! :-)
The fact that an corp handles large volumes of data is not an excuse under law. It is entirely up to that corp to manage their own data and comply with whatever laws apply.
Google images could get contentious. Google put that package together - no one else, - and they are publishing it and should have full control over it or at least be monitoring it.
On a constructive side, if they do monitor images and were to report clear violations of children, - that could be a more effective way of reducing CP than any US Civil Code. Tho that raises still more shit that would end up another "issue" in the US.
But sure, there are mitigating factors and a decent defense lawyer helps :-)