What is Digg?27 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've been trying to get my very first webpage out of Google Cache for a long time. While learning HTML, I was following a tutorial in a book and it involved building an order form that calculates the price when you change fields. Well I put my full name, address, and phone on there. I was just following the tutorial! The website doesn't even exist anymore, hasn't for years.
- mogebier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The pressing question is... WHY would you want to cache the latest Britney Spears song on your ipod??
Glutton for punishment?? - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Darkness123
I'm not sure caching and indexing are the same thing. The robots.txt file can be used to control what gets indexed, but I don't know if it applied to caching as well. That having been said, I'm not sure whether this decision is good, or bad. As a web site owner, if I decide to remove my site from the internet, my intent is to *remove it from teh internet". I don't know if I agree that with the idea that fair use implies that someone else as a right to keep my site (or portions thereof) available, despite my intent to have it no longer accessible. - krum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It may not be legal to cache it on your ipod, but according to this, I could cache the songs on my web server if I provide a service to allow people to stream the cached songs to their media player. I believe, however, that when Michael Robertson was running MP3.COM, he did this exact thing, and lost the suit over it. That part of the ruling interestingly enough contradicts the mp3.com ruling in which I believe he tried to pull the "it's a cache" argument.
- usergentoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good question
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the wayback machine been sued for that after a company didnt like it's archives being used against them in court.. they won too.
robot.txt works for all scrupolous search sites.. and if it isnt indexed it wont be cached.. even if it was.. you wouldnt be able to find the cache as the site isnt indexed.
it would be nice if google would give you an easy methods to control the cache above the robot.txt file..to either request a cache update/delete
it's mostly good with just robot.txt, just i can imagine times when people would want more controll. - NJank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Can I cache the lastest Britney Spears song on my ipod?"
From TFA:
"The Google Cache qualifies for the DMCA's 512(b) caching "safe harbor" for online service providers."
my guess is no - Thorpe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why is everything aimed at Google? MSN Search caches pages and other search engines too.
- seaner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They have to allowing chaching for else we will never have a history of the internet.
- cwcentral, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Internet 1, Lawyers/Politicans 0
Only way their going to 'win' is change the laws--that's how the EU got Microsoft. - hobbesOSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While having a cache system probably is legal, Google making their cache available to the public with their own header probably isn't.
Could I make a copy of a book, put my own cover on it and give it away? If the book in question is in the public domain, then the answer is probably yes. Otherwise, I would guess that the answer is no.
Are all webpages that don't have their robot.txt files set to no-archive auto-magically put in the public domain? I would hope not.
Can I make a copy of the entire Internet, put my own header, strip the ads, change the font, highlight a few keywords and call it a cache? I'll change all the backgrounds to black and the text to white, call it darkNetCache.
The option to have your website copied and served from a third party where the third party adds their own header should be opt-in, not opt-out. - stcredzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's only millions?
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All it means is that Google cache does not violate copyright law in Nevada.
Should this go up to appeal at the 9th Circuit, then whether Google cache violates copyright law will bind the Western states - California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Only when it goes to the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit's ruling, if there ever is one, will the decision become binding on all the states. - flashmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Imagine a device that would automatically cache all the TV shows and store them on a 80GB hard drive right in your home whether or not the shows displayed a copyright notice, and then suggest them to you based on your viewing habits.
- usermac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Use "Safari Enhancer" for Mac OS X to change your default search from Google to anything else.
- ColdDimSum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would say the judge smacked that one down.
- spamdies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0digg effect may no longer be a problem, use the google cache link .....
- flashmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Why is everything aimed at Google? MSN Search caches pages and other search engines too."
Because nobody uses those search engines anymore. Google is #1. - MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That makes everything else ***** illegal.
- kday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While we bring the evil Google to the ground, we should bring down other useful websites too... such as the Wikipedia!
- MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0whoops, read the title wrong.
- Darkness123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If the guy didn't want his website cached all he needed to was make a robot.txt and add in the details its not like it will kill him. The guy properly wanted to make money. But Google had lost this and had to make a payment you know for sure other websites would of also tried the same and might of put Google out of business. lol
- kday, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I actually meant to say:
While we TRY to bring the evil Google to the ground, we should TRY to bring down other useful websites too... such as the Wikipedia! - ColdDimSum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0powercow, did you check http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html
I think googles goes to great lengths to give sites control over their content, including individual tags per page. - databyss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@5blocksfree
If I took a picture of your house, and then you remodelled it with the intention of changing the way it looked, does that mean I have to get rid of my old picture?
I could even take pictures of every house in the neighborhood since it's all publicly accessible. - serra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Hasn't Webarchive been doing that for years? Saving websites like that?
----------------------------------
http://fuh-q.com
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is