I wonder how legal it can be for Google, Yahoo! and other search engines to cache web pages for later viewing...

I often use this feature when pages I want to see have been taken down, and it comes in handy when the webmaster has deleted the text that made the page relevent to your search.

It's obvious, though, that they did not go around asking every single webmaster if its 'ok' to do so...

The information provided to users with the cache section could be considered a violation of copyright, can it not? After all, that's my work they put on their servers...Without my permission. While they did attribute my URL, they didn't even list me as the author. What's more, that feature is making them money, as it's an additional feature of Google designed to "suprise and delite" the user. (Took a line from a business book of mine, there)

Here's my line of logic, assuming what Google is doing is LEGAL:
(1) Google can, and indeed does, cache articles, short stories, poetry, etc that could easily be copyrighted.

(2) There is no difference between copyrighted poetry, and copyrighted news articles

(3) It is therefore legal to make accessable on my site a news article, or a database of news articles from...let's say the New York Times....long after the publisher (New York Times) has taken it off the public domain.

(4) That means that I can begin offering archived news on my site....Made up of news articles, mind you, that the publishers have begun charging for. (After a certain point, certain members of the media begin charging for viewing of an older news piece)

In summary: It's ok for Google to post copyrighted information, written by your average Joe, on their servers for the public to view. It is therefore ok for me to post copyrighted information on my own site...As long as I give credit to the person who wrote it....(Hehe - Or the URL that it came from)

So: Why can Google cache a web page? Is there a metatag that Google will take into consideration, which will not allow its bots to store the site in the Google server? I would say that even if this were the case, that's not enough... We've already made the opt-out email system illegal. This is the same concept.

Discuss.

Andrew

So: Why can Google cache a web page? Is there a metatag that Google will take into consideration, which will not allow its bots to store the site in the Google server? I would say that even if this were the case, that's not enough... We've already made the opt-out email system illegal. This is the same concept.

Google, like MSN search, the Internet Archiver, and countless other sites that cache content, seems to be riding the copyright wave. Copyright law is so complex and messy, it would take quite a sum of money to prevail in a case against a search engine that caches content or images, or quite a lobbying effort to get copyright law changed to specifically clarify the rules on caching content.

These sites "get away" with caching so much copyrighted content because, unless you can prove damages, your best remedy is probably going to be removal of your content.

Google in particular plays it smart-- they make no direct revenue from cached pages, or their image search. Additionally, they do offer a way to remove your content (link). You can prevent your content from being cached by using <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE"> or <META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">.

Just my $.02.

Mike

Yeah sure fine but what the heck would we do with out google........

what the heck would we do with out google........

Use MSN Search.

You like Microsoft waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much Minaki...is there something your not telling us..... but what I ment by that previous comment would work for MSN aswell...in other words what would you do with out search engines....

go back to those internet phone books....

any of you remember those things I think you can even still buy them (why I have no idea)

Another thing....people want there stuff to be listed in search engines, which is probably the reason why they dont care.....

You like Microsoft waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much Minaki...is there something your not telling us.....

Nothing wring with liking Microsoft a lot They make some awsome software... besides, there's no feasable alternative...