[joering2]

perhaps bit OT, but read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google#Ruling

(1) Operator did not directly infringe on author's copyrighted works;

(5) Search engine fell within protection of safe harbor provision of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

wouldnt the same rules applies IF the government comes after The Pirate Bay? Or even the guy who is now being extradited to US for his linking website?

[chc]

1. The Pirate Bay's support of piracy is quite "volitional", to use the ruling's terminology. The Pirate Bay goes to great lengths to maintain its ability to enable piracy. Google will gladly exclude your entire site if you ask them to.

2. The purpose and character of Google's summaries and cached pages is quite different from The Pirate Bay's links. (In particular, Google has no intention of totally replacing the original site with an unauthorized copy, and its content is not generally useful as such.)

3. The Pirate Bay is not covered by the DMCA's safe harbor provisions (as, again, it isn't open to the idea of taking down content at the request of copyright holders).

[rabidsnail]

If the Pirate Bay were somehow construed as being in US jurisdiction, they would run into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_...