Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Cache Ruled Fair Use

Posted by Zonk on from the covering-up-not-that-easy dept.

jbarr writes "An EFF Article states that: 'A district court in Nevada has ruled that the Google Cache is a fair use ... the Google Cache feature does not violate copyright law.' Notable is the basis that 'The Google Cache qualifies for the DMCA's 512(b) caching 'safe harbor' for online service providers.'" From the article: "The district court found that Mr. Field 'attempted to manufacture a claim for copyright infringement against Google in hopes of making money from Google's standard [caching] practice.' Google responded that its Google Cache feature, which allows Google users to link to an archival copy of websites indexed by Google, does not violate copyright law."

3 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. A new search engine is in order by imoou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So if someone created a search engine which automatically, randomly and non-volitionally searches and caches MP3 files from websites which do not have "no archive" metatag, it's not breaking the law?

    When those searched websites disappeared, this search engine may still serve those cached MP3 files for archival purposes?

    --
    Uncensored Google results requested and delivered by email
    1. Re:A new search engine is in order by Ninwa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe... but there's a difference. That difference is that the items cached were already in violation of copy right law, most likely. Interesting though... and doesn't archive.org archive files? I know they've archived several small programs I've written that were linked on my site at one point in time.

  2. I don't like this ruling. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Intellectually, I don't like this ruling one bit. "Fair Use" is broadly supposed to have minimal to nil financial effects on the copyrightholder and in general the "fair user" is doing the using for personal reasons. Google's cache is basically a large-scale financial transfer from the copyrightholders (who serve to benefit from the ads they serve and other interaction they get from end-users visitng their site) to google, who benefits directly by keeping people longer on google's site and thus, basically, shucks them more ads. Rememeber folks, in terms of the cache here, we're referring to google's ability to serve content IN ITS ENTIRETY to end-users - we're not talking about those tiny snippets needed to make search engine results useful.

    Those of you who do the "yesbutNOCACHEtag" dance have got it backwards to: it's not the responsibility of the copyrightholder to sing to the tune of whatever the latest fad is. Rather, it's the other way around - google should convince people that it's in their interest to put a "CACHEME!" tag.