Jerk Sues Google, Gets the Boot, Gets

Rise Out Of Legal

Community, Women
By Anonymous
May 8, 2014
Reputation of
Profile

Publication, Genre, and Audience

National Enquirer has the reputation as being the original celebrity entertainment magazine
and is known for getting the stories first. Many claim that this is why the magazine sells more
copies on the newsstands than most of its competitors. Each issue is designed to give readers
stories they wont find anywhere else! (And thats for sure!)
The Enquirer is well-known for its practice of exaggerating and sensationalizing stories to win an
audience, embellishing stories in print, and spinning a good yarn, without much reference to
the facts. The paper, popularly called a tabloid, covers everything from blood and guts,
celebrities, self-help projects like diets, and more recently, politicians, politics, and criminal
cases.
The magazine has a total readership of roughly 7,396.000. Of that, 4,769,000, or 65%, are
women, and 2,628,000, or 35%, are men. The median age of readers is 49.7 years. Because of
the enormity of the popularity of the Parker story, one of our loyal patrons has repeatedly
attempted to contact us to get the latest scoop. For example, she writes, I've created a drop box
in Blackboard for your final assignment. . . I look forward to reading your [fabulous feature
story]. And again, [Please give me my] due . . . in Blackboard . . . on Thursday, May 8. Well,
here the story is. Hopefully she will like it.
Feature Article: Theres an interesting case that was recently settled involving a guy named

Roy Parker who sued Google. Parker lost at the federal district court level, and the Third Circuit
Appellate Court affirmed. Heres the complete cite: Parker v Google, Inc., 242 Fed. App, 833
(CA3 2007). Several law review journals also picked up the case, e.g., 2008 U. Chi. Legal F.
263 2008, and 35 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1003 2007-2008. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear
the case, so this is the end of all that.
Basically, Gordon Parker, a self-proclaimed Internet publisher, wrote a book titled 29 Reasons
not to be a nice guy which he says he copyrighted. Parker posted information about the book
on the internet through Google, an Internet service provider (ISP). In the book, Parker gives his
29 reasons on why being a nice guy is not the way to pick up the women they really want. The
1

book goes into great detail about the pitfalls of being a nice guy and why women go for the notso-good guysthe jerks. Reason #6 apparently drew the ire of (pissed off) some 500,000
women who posted messages of their disdain on his website. Reason #6, very salacious in
nature, states, Women are the scum of the earth. The best way to keep them in their places is to
keep them on their backs and their bellies full.
Parker alleges that Google, without his permission, provided its users with links to websites that
portrayed appellant negatively when they utilized the ISPs search engine to search archived online bulletin boards. As a result, he alleges claims of direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright
infringement, defamation, invasion of privacy, negligence, Lanham Act violations, racketeering
and civil conspiracy.
And then there was drama in the courtroom. Parker, who has vicariously been described as
being a Mr. know-it-all, a charlatan, a chauvinist, served as his own attorney. (We believe
theres an expression in the legal profession that describes people who do this.) Google was
represented by a team of attorneys of the likes of John E. Riley, Vaira & Riley, Philadelphia, PA;
Bart E. Volkmer, David H. Kramer, Wilson Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, who
would make O.J.s dream team look like little shots in a CANON. The likelihood of Parker
prevailing in this matter was as great as a camel successfully passing through the eye of a needle.
As Parker tried to present his case, objection after objection was raised by opposing counsel. It
was like a feeding frenzy. The dream team jumped to their feet each and every time Parker tried
to make a point. Likewise, women spectators in the audience were shouting, waving their hands
and under garments in the air as the Appellant fought for his legal life. When it was over with,
not very much was left of Parker.
The court held in favor of Google, Parkers allegations failed to assert any volitional conduct on
the part of Google. Parker at 837. Basically, since Google didnt post the item, it was shielded
from liability for the copyright infringement. In fact, the court compared Google to a company
providing copiers for use (and cited the Fourth Circuit.) A copy machine owner who makes the
machine available to the public to use for copying is not, without more, strictly liable under [the
Copyright Act] for illegal copying by a customer. 373 F.3d at 550.
So, Parkers second cause of action was for vicarious liabilitymeaning that Google was liable
because it allowed the posting. Parker lost because he failed to allege that Google had the
requisite knowledge of a third-partys infringing activity. Parker at 838.
So this opens up the questionwhat if Google had known? That type of case has to be coming
down the pipeline, and when we find it, well be sure and run another feature telling you all
about it. Or, TBA.
Parker also got his butt kicked on his claims for invasion of privacy, defamation and negligence
because Google has immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA is a
federal law Ill dig into sometime in the future. (Some of it has been struck down). Not today.
For today, just know that the CDA shields companies like Google if all the requirements are met.
2

Also, the court declined to award attorney fees to Google (often theyre awarded to the winner)
because the internet is new law and nobody quite knows the answers regarding it yet.

Very clever. And smart. 128/130