| 9:44 pm on May 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A disclaimer that you are not responsible for every other site on the interent besides yours?
| 1:18 am on May 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Yourdomain.com Copyright 2006 - All rights reserved and all external links on this web-site are not our responciblity"
| 2:57 am on May 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It may also be appropriate to redirect such concerns to Google and allow them to bear the brunt of such concerns. If they don't know that the public are worried about 'reliability' then they won't have it on their list of things to improve.
| 6:37 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I like teh idea of the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, Ill try that
| 8:21 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think this is an important issue.
For example I see so many : "Surf and get rich" ads , "Open emails and make money ads" on Google network that I wonder if Google is happy to promote these sites? Don't these kind of sites lead to 'click fraud'?
I read some writer writing a column somewhere, that if Google allows such ads - the sites must be legitimate ... I don't know whether to accept this logic or what..
| 9:36 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not a single sentence; think of anything you can be accused for.
| 10:30 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The bottom line is, disclaimer or not, you basically have to stand behind the content you publish on your website. If Google is linking people to lousy sites, it affects you.
| 12:58 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"Yourdomain.com Copyright 2006 - All rights reserved and all external links on this web-site are not our responciblity" |
You don't have that already on your legal page?
I've had that on every site for more than 10 years. It's easy enough to get a very good legal page:-)
| 3:48 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Curious optirex, how many times has that phrase on your site been relevant to your operations. I haven't had one for ten years, and never been impacted. Silly to me, but I can understand why others feel more comfortable disclaiming that they are not responsible for others.
Regarding checking, I wouldn't say that either as then you are implying that you back em up ... which is silly to me also.
| 4:47 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Curious optirex, how many times has that phrase on your site been relevant to your operations. |
Surprisingly my legal pages are read quite often.
The relevancy is that 10+ years ago many companies were, and most still quite rightly are, concerned that external links from a web site could possibly lead the site owner liable to prosecution for taking someone unexpectedly to an "inappropriate" site.
|but I can understand why others feel more comfortable disclaiming that they are not responsible for others. |
It's good corporate governance not to leave oneself open to possible legal action because of someone else's actions.
Why should I be held responsible for others? There is enough Big Brotherism and over-regulation without having to manually check thousands of external links on a regular basis.
| 4:58 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You seem to imply that you are responsible if you don't state so. I think thats where we differ, because I don't think you are responsible regardless of a statement like that.
| 5:30 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Funny thing is, Kaz, a laywer might say liability rights cannot be abrogated, and in some cases you may actually be responsible even if you do have a statement like that.
| 5:40 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|You seem to imply that you are responsible if you don't state so. |
Not at all, it's just being careful. Why should I be held responsible for the actions of others?
|and in some cases you may actually be responsible even if you do have a statement like that. |
If that were to happen then say goodbye to free speech and the Internet since only the mega Corps would be able to survive!
| 5:49 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Since when does google adsense allows gambling web-sites on its network BTW?
| 5:50 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Funny thing, not really, you can find a lawyer who will almost say anything. That doesn't matter though.
| 6:12 pm on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I find something a little off in this thread as the maker claims a gambling related site.
This is from the Program Policies
Site may not include:
Violence, racial intolerance, or advocate against any individual, group, or organization
Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia
Pornography, adult, or mature content
Gambling or casino-related content
Any other content that promotes illegal activity or infringes on the legal rights of others
Pop-ups, pop-unders or exit windows that interfere with site navigation, obscure Google ads, change user preferences, or are for downloads. Other types of pop-ups, pop-unders, or exit windows may be allowed, provided that they do not exceed a combined total of 5 per user session ---------