654
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
654 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
18491 readers
5056 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They didn't claim it was respectable, they claimed it made them not liable? Where'd you get this idea?
Doesn't/shouldn't work for their liability either. Vocabulary fail on my part.
Why should a company be legally responsible for copyright infringement of its employees, if it wasn't something they did for work?
If you or I can be held responsible for such activities from our homes, why give google an exemption?
It would depend on jurisdiction of course, many of us live places that will give us(with help of a lawyer...) a bit of an out for guest wifi or TOR exit nodes, but ultimately, you know google is going to settle for little more(or less) than it would have cost them to buy these works at retail, whereas you or I would also get slapped with thousands of dollars extra(per item?) in fines and legal fees.
They can afford to pay for the porn, but they chose to go the "we shouldn't have to because its smut" route, and not bother trying to say their employees are responsible for downloading random books/movies/whatever for personal use. Do they get to use this out for CP?
Also, unlike you or I, they have logging in place, such that they know which employees did what. Not saying they should name-and-shame, but they could(and should) easilly eat the cost and pass it through to those employees, whether it also comes with HR disciplinary action ornot.