Brett_Tabke - 5:19 pm on Jan 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

> Don't lose context - this caching is
> done for billions of web pages, only
> a handful of people complain

A better statement is that only a handful of people understand it and how important this issue is to their website. I fundamentally believe, that without the google copied pages, Google would be just another infoseek flavor of the month.

> I don't see how that means it's open season on content.

What about all the vertical search engines that are caching?

> it is called "to publish your site"!

Exactly. Just as you publish a magazine. However, you can not make copies of Time magazine and sell them without breaking the law. It is the entire foundation that copyright laws stand on.

> that don't exert direct control over what content is posted against copyright liability.

Exactly again - search engines do not meet the standard to be called "Caching". Search Engines are not caching your page - they are republishing it with their banner advertisement on the top.

> the ruling would have to allow any
> copying for any purpose, and it doesn't do that.

Just meet the criteria for an ISP. As webmasters - you should have already registered as an isp.

Take a look at all the vertical search engines. They are caching stuff left and right. One of the reasons they do that is to end up in searchengine caches with their own cached page. So Yahoo/MSN/Google caches the cached serp! eg: that is all now legal. Lets all go start vertical search engines. Simply download Aspseek - fire it up, and seed it with the ODP database, and blam - instant legal caching search engine.