One thing I just noticed after reading Struan Robertsons article again was this quote.
Quote:
|
There might be even more legal issues that Dr Clayton didn't mention. For example, our copyright laws allow temporary copies of a page – but not where there's an "independent economic significance" to the copying. Phorm copies web pages and examines the words. That's possibly an infringement – but once again, the breach is trivial.
|
This appears to make reference to the section (s28.a wasn't it?) that BT said they were relying on. The paragraph doesn't really make sense though as he says "the breach is trivial" but the section he refers to is something that "allows" for the making of a temporary copy under certain circumstances. If their use does not fall under that specific exclusion then it's not the exclusion they are in breach of but the act itself. Hardly trivial!