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

[Krixano]

He didn't have a case because courts rule on multiple things, not just one thing.
Stop trying to twist information. This is what the court ruled:

--------------------------------------

The District Court, Jones, J., held that:

    1.) Operator did not directly infringe on author's copyrighted works;
    2.) Author granted operator implied license to display "cached" links to web pages containing his copyrighted works;
    3.) Author was estopped from asserting copyright infringement claim against operator;
    4.) Fair use doctrine protected operator's use of author's works; and
    5.) Search engine fell within protection of safe harbor provision of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Summary judgment for operator.

The court held that "Field decided to manufacture a claim for copyright infringement against Google in the hopes of making-money from Google's standard practice." The court then went on to rule in Google's favor on all of its defense theories.

--------------------------------------

What does this tell us? It tells us that even if he won the implied license,
he would have lost the case anyways because Google had Fair Use.

Anyways, you're the one who brought up this court case, not me. I don't agree with
the court, and I don't have to agree with the court, and neither does any other
gemini user. Mind you, the spec isn't for legality, it's for gemini users and what
they think. The gemini spec won't affect any legal things at all.


Christian Seibold

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Thursday, November 26th, 2020 at 1:41 AM, Robert "khuxkm" Miles <khuxkm at tilde.team> wrote:

> 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