digitalghost - 10:14 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>Any questions?

Of course. ;) But suffice it to say that this case will be about interpretation of the laws. Basically stating that "the law is clear on this matter" doesn't quite cut it. Obviously, there are some folks out there that want to test the law.

This particular test of the law has been long in coming, although I don't think this may be the best case to use as a test. The issue with robots.txt is unlear. Seems there's a lot of what-ifs that I don't what to speculate on as I'd much rather be able to deal with the facts.

>>If you don't want it known, don't post it.

Personal rules are fine and well, but have no bearing on this case.

What I do see is an opportunity for legislation that will clear up some murky issues regarding copyright law, archiving, caching, robots.text, etc. Whether potential legislation would be good or bad, I simply don't know, the issues aren't at that stage yet.

I do believe that the opportunity for clarity on these issues may be the best thing to arise from this case. Let's hope the opportunity is used well.