Feeds

Google cache not a breach of copyright

Use of material fair, says court

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup

"This ruling makes it clear that the Google cache is legal and clears away copyright questions that have troubled the entire search engine industry," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF senior staff attorney. "The ruling should also help Google in defending against the lawsuit brought by book publishers over its Google Library Project, as well as assisting organisations like the Internet Archive that rely on caching."

Caching in the UK

In the UK, the E-commerce Regulations protect search engines. They provide that a company like Google will not be liable in damages (or other remedy or criminal sanction) where the caching is "automatic, intermediate and temporary for the sole purpose of providing a more efficient service".

Relevance to Google Print dispute

Google is currently being sued by US authors and publishers over its Google Print project, an ambitious plan to digitally scan library collections so that books can be matched to internet search queries.

The company has been accused of copyright infringement on a massive scale because the scanning takes place without permission from copyright holders.

A user searching Google Print sees links on the results pages when there are books relevant to his query. Clicking on a title will deliver a page from which the user can either browse the full text of the work – if copyright has expired – or brief excerpts and/or bibliographic data where the work is still protected by copyright. Links to booksellers are also provided.

Google says this is a fair use, not infringement. It is, in effect, caching the books to assist with search activity. The company stops short of revealing any more than minimal information without express permission.

Google has invited any copyright holder to opt-out; but the upset copyright holders argue that Google's activities should be opt-in.

While only a district court ruling, Judge Jones's opinion supports the arguments that Google has asserted over Google Print, which have still to be tested in court.

Copyright © 2006, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
Founder (and internet passport fan) now says privacy is precious
TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit
Chocolate Factory hits back at firm for suing customers
Facebook, Google and Instagram 'worse than drugs' says Miley Cyrus
Italian boffins agree with popette's theory that haters are the real wrecking balls
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
You can try turning them off and on again
Sit tight, fanbois. Apple's '$400' wearable release slips into early 2015
Sources: time to put in plenty of clock-watching for' iWatch
Facebook to let stalkers unearth buried posts with mobe search
Prepare to HAUNT your pal's back catalogue
Ex-IBM CEO John Akers dies at 79
An era disrupted by the advent of the PC
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.