[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> 2) Caching a copy locally (as Google does) probably does constitute
> copyright infringement -- witness the standard copyrights in
> books that
> prohibit electronic copying. My guess is that this hasn't been
> prosecuted because (a) it is useful and (b) Internet law is
> still in its
> infancy.
I've heard the argument that bits while in transit between publisher and
reader do not constitute a copy, and that a cache is purely a holding area
for bits in transit. I don't know whether m'lud would accept that, or even
understand it.
It certainly doesn't cover any kind of syndication, though, where the simple
rule is that you can link to content but you can't copy it, or present it as
your own. I'm sure a lawyer would give you a much more complicated
explanation (and a more expensive one, and probably far less clear-cut).
Mike Kay
|
