Assuming disallow-all, and some research on robots.txt in Geminispace (Was: Re: robots.txt for Gemini formalised)

[Robert "khuxkm" Miles]

November 26, 2020 2:24 AM, "Krixano" <krixano at protonmail.com> wrote:

>> Google's "cached" pages system is essentially an archive under a different name. Is it truly a leap
>> of logic if even a court of law comes to the same decision?
> 
> Yes, the court clearly made a leap in logic. Courts don't always follow logic,
> because it's not efficient to do so.
> 
> Btw, the court case is only in the district of Nevada. And I'm honestly surprised
> by this, considering that you do *not* have to explicitly assert your copyright
> in order for copyright to apply. It seems this particular court thought caching
> was an exception, unfortunately. Pretty disgusting.
> 
> Anyways, if I find any site archiving any of the stuff from my server, I'll be
> looking into DMCA takedowns, because I don't tolerate utter disrespect for users'
> content like that. It's disgusting.
> 
> Christian Seibold

Obviously, Björn's counter-argument is correct. The courts follow precedent, and this precedent already exists.

The only thing I want to add is: notice how the plaintiff Field didn't appeal. If he truly had a case, like you seem to believe he did, surely he would have appealed?

Just my two cents,
Robert "khuxkm" Miles