[Pahalial]

I had to stop at the 'hate' for cached pages. He doesn't really expand on it at the linked article, either: http://daggle.com/search-engines-permissions-moving-forward-...

In fact, he does not put forth any argument at all. There is talk of the fact that it was indeed ruled 'fair use', and he essentially just disagrees and considers it evil, and expects that to have some weight.

I fundamentally disagree: it is fair use, I have personally found the feature useful more than once, and I really just don't see it as evil. As he mentions, publishers extra-concerned about their content and copyright can opt out; for everyone else, it has let the web be a little more stateful. Letting people disappear controversial content from pages early on in a public backlash just does not strike me as having any benefit.

[sullivandanny]

I don't believe it is fair use to make an entire copy of someone else's material, if you've made no transformative change to it.

I understand there is an opt-out. My post on daggle.com goes into great depth about that. However, I don't think that's the way Google should operate.

Google just assumed that it was OK to reprint material through its cached pages; many have felt that was presumptuous. So far, they've been OK with it -- but it remains something that colors them as evil in some quarters.

I get you don't agree with that, but others do view it that way. And it sure jumped out to bite Google when it levied allegations that Bing was copying Google.