Quote:
Originally Posted by oblonsky
Parallels will be drawn by lawyers whether you like it or not, and worldwide courts have sided with the search engine's arguments.
|
Worldwide courts have done no such thing. There have been a number of cases which have done the opposite. Google Images had one case overturned on appeal but only because they only provided thumbnails as opposed to the actual images and linked directly to the site to see the actual image so it was determined as fair use.
Google rarely gets taken to court over caching or storing keywords not because the courts have judged in the favour but because most web sites want Google to spider them, they benefit from it and it drives people to their web site. The minority who do not what Google to visit them have the choice to take them to court or use robots.txt which is seen as a valid option because Google provide a unique user-agent string and have an established reputation for adhering to robots.txt. I don't recall any judgement ever being made in Google's favour over robots.txt opt out, if you know of one please cite it.
The -big- difference between Google and Phorm is Phorm uses your content to pull customers away from your site, not drive them to it (as eloquently explained on the BCS blog posted earlier today).
But to say there are worldwide court judgements favouring Google on this issue is "exactly not correct" </Kent>, unless of course as I said above you can cite this overwhelming support from the courts for Google with specific case law?
Internet Archive (archive.org) has also fallen the wrong side of the law on this issue.
This was discussed here about 2000 posts back maybe a bit further.
Alexander Hanff