To cache or not to cache

[koan]

I've always let Google (and other search engines) cache my pages, as they are sending me traffic and I myself use the cache feature often when the server of a page is down, or just irritatingly slow. I figured it was a good netizen thing to do. But now I'm wondering if it doesn't open a can of worm.

I've alerted some "google answers" type of web site, where users are paid to answer questions, that one of their users was copying my content in some places and used it as if it was their own.

They've replied to me that they would make sure the user would attribute the content to my site, but they emphasized that they couldn't just delete it as I was already letting google cache my pages without having them request my written permission, so it was a precedent where I let some sites copy my content as long as attribution was given without prior written permission. They said I couldn't discriminate (my word, I'm paraphrasing) who could and who couldn't.

I'm no lawyer or anything, and a link to my site usually satisfies me when others copy my content, but I don't like being cornered like that and I'm reconsidering disallowing search engines to cache my pages just so I don't find myself in the future in some other weaker position regarding the protection of my copyrights.

What do you think?

[tedster]

That's a pretty offensive justification for not deleting the content. It's certainly never been tested in court, that's for sure, and the DMCA would seem to be on your side. Still, I also would usually be happy with the backlink.