The second issue was whether Google

The second issue was whether Google Inc was a publisher according to common law principles. The judge remarked that there was yet to be a definitive decision establishing how web publishers fit into the traditional framework. He referred to Davison v Habeeb, 3 in which H.H. Judge Parkes QC found that there was an arguable case that Google was a publisher and liable post-notification. He suggested that the position “may well be fact sensitive”, pointing to the differences in law in the position in law of ISPs in Godfrey v Demon Internet 4 and of Google Inc in Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Design Technica Corp. 5
On the question of whether Google Inc could be liable after notification, and on its policy that it will not remove the offending material as a matter of practicality and principle, the judge referred to the fact that the Blogger.com platform contains more than a half a trillion words, with a quarter of a million new ones added every minute. He held that accepting responsibility to notify the offending bloggers did not necessarily change Google's status, as he remarked:
“The fact that an entity in Google Inc's position may have been notified of a complaint does not immediately convert its status or role into that of a publisher.”6
The technical ability to take material down does not make it an “author or authoriser” of that material. The lack of any requirement to take a positive step in enabling continuing access to the material is crucial:
“The situation would thus be closely analogous to that described in Bunt v Tilley 7 and thus in striving to achieve consistency in the court's decision making, I would rule that Google Inc is not liable at common law as a publisher. It would accordingly have no reason to rely upon a defence.”8

Results (Thai) 1:

The second problem is that Google Inc is published in accordance with general principles of law , the judge said there was a decision which determined that publishers web fits ancient , he cited Davison v Habeeb, 3 which Judge HH Stokes QC. found that the case is arguable that Google is a publisher and alert the responsible , he suggested that the "may well be true that the" point of difference in the law for the law of Isp in Godfrey v 4 Demon Internet and Google. International Inc in the city National School v out Technica corp. 5 questions that Google Inc is not responsible for the alert. And Policy Will not be material as a matter of practicality and core. The judge cited the fact that the Blogger.com platform consists of more than a half a Million. With four million new every minute he is. Accept the responsibility to let bloggers aggression does not necessarily change the status of Google, as he said: "The fact that. Entity in the Complaint for Google Inc may not immediately transform the status or role of a publisher to " 6 technical ability is not material to make. "The author or authoriser" of the material is the lack of pace to enable the continuation of the material plus is important: "The situation is so similar to that described in other Bunt Tilley 7 closely and so committed. To achieve consistency in judicial decision making, I would not like the common law rule that Google Inc publishes it as there is no reason to prevent the " 8.

Results (Thai) 2:

The second issue is that Google Inc is the publisher of the common law , the judge noted that there has not been a final decision on the creation of web publishing fits Traditional he talks Davison v Habeeb 3 which. HH Judge Sparks factory found a case that proves that Google is a publisher and post notifications liable as he says. "There may well be true that the" point to the differences in the laws in place in the law of ISPs on the Internet Godfrey v Demon 4 and Google Inc in the Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Design Technica Corp. 5.
On the question of whether Google Inc may be liable after notification policy not to remove the offending material as a matter of practicality and the judge referred to the fact that the Blogger.com platform, with more than half a million words. A quarter of a million people are being added every minute he is regarded as the responsibility to inform the blog writers offenders do not need to change the status of Google, as he noted:
"The fact that. the position of Google Inc may be notified of the complaint was not immediately convert the status or role is that of a publisher. "6
technical ability to use a material that does not make it down. "The author or authoriser" of material that lacks the need to take steps positively to enable continued access to any material that is important:
"The situation will be similar closely. as described in the v Tilley 7 and so the commitment to achieve stability in the decision of the court, I would rule that Google Inc is not responsible for the Attorney General who had made ​​it to be a reason. is based on the defense. "8

Results (Thai) 3:

The second issue is that Google Inc is published by the common law. The judge said there But deciding how to create a Web publishing in traditional frames are a great tool V habeeb 3, in which the judge Rowlett QC found that there is a case to prove that Google is a publisher and is responsible for the notification , he pointed out. position "may be true, the delicate" point in the difference-in-law in the law for the isp in Godfrey v Demon Internet 4 International School. Bangkok Google Inc's technical design Corp Ltd v 5
, when asked Google Inc may be liable after notification , and the policy will not remove the offensive as a matter of practicality and a concept that refers to the fact that the blogger. .com platform with over half a million words, with four million new every 1 minute, he said, have a responsibility to identify the perpetrators of the Google blog is not required to change the state , he noted:
"The fact that the organization. Google Inc's position may be notified of the complaint was not immediately convert the status or role in publishing the "6
technical ability to use the material down. Did not make it, "the author or authoriser" of material without any requirements. People who take a step in a positive way to help reach critical material:
"the situation closely, it is analogous to that described in other Tilley 7 V, so in striving to achieve consistency in court. decisions I would rule that Google Inc is not responsible for the law is the publisher. It is therefore not unreasonable to rely on the defense. "8.