In the offline world, there's a statute of limitations for libel cases. The length of the term depends on the jurisdiction but it's relatively easy to figure out when the statute starts running - it starts upon publication.

But online, a defaming publication easily lives forever. Even if the original publisher removes the article from her site, a juicy libelous piece will be copied by others, archived in Google News, republished via RSS, etc. Do any or all of these online republications restart the statute of limitations timer?

Nope, a Texas judge ruled today; the statute of limitations starts on initial publication. USA Today reports:

In dismissing the suit against The Dallas Morning News, personal finance columnist Scott Burns and parent company Belo, Godbey wrote that he "sees no rational reason for distinguishing between the Internet and other forms of traditional mass media."

That's good news for publishers but doesn't the plaintiff have a decent point?

Nationwide is considering an appeal. Its attorney said the one-year statue doesn't take into account how Internet search engines can make an article written several years ago easily available today.

"It's not sitting in a library — it's staying on the Internet," said Barbara Bison Jacobson, Nationwide's lawyer. "How do we as a society deal with that?"

I don't think so. This is an issue of statute of limitations - how quickly you have to sue. It doesn't address the remedies for removing defamation from the net - an infinitely harder task.