He is an easy-to-read version on my website:

http://www.rexxfield.com/EU_Directive_on_electronic_commerce.php

“The I.S.P.s’ point had been, ‘We’re not responsible, these are individuals communicating with individuals, we’re not responsible,’ ” he said, referring to Internet service providers. “Our point was that at some point, you do bear responsibility.”

I’m somewhere in the middle, I suppose, but the primary responsibility with keeping something unwanted content off the net should lie with the author that puts it on the net in the first instance. Google may take it off its cache, but there are loads of other internet archives — many of which would take the view that the archive needs to be a perfect archive and not subject to later manipulation by interested parties. (How many politicians would like to take their campaign promises off the internet at some later date? 1984: Boris never promised to eliminate the Bendy Bus - Boris always loved the Bendy Bus)

As to whether Google can be construed to be a publisher … I think we need to be careful how we stretch legal definitions. Google in most respects acts in the manner of a library (albeit a for-profit and much larger library) — I think they organise already-issued things rather than ‘issue’ them. (think about it: Google cannot index a novel that has yet to be published and made available on Amazon or Waterstones; Google cannot index a photo that has not otherwise been loaded on to the internet). Any liability that Google would face would be similarly faced by libraries. How many libraries would then stock controversial books and publications if they felt they might be responsible for libel? Do we really want that outcome? That’s the one great thing about Google — it’s content-neutral in many ways and its coverage is fairly global.

I think in the case of Ruth (who has a great blog, BTW), she works for a publication that issues news, sports and opinion. Her opinion was issued by the newspaper on its website — a website that encourages wide dissemination of its content by SEO and RSS, etc. So, this is not the case of private content that was long-lensed or door-stepped or stolen out of someone’s post. It was purposely put into the public by the author and her employer. Let’s always keep that context in mind.

Anyway, I’m sure the debate will continue. I would also expect Google to lose the occasional legal battle as it seeks to find that balance between organising the world’s content (or whatever it says its mission is) and traditional notions of publishing, privacy, etc.

Russ