> perform actions that were illegal First, copyright is a civil issue, not a crime. While recent law may[1] have made specific types of mass infringement a cri

> perform actions that were illegal First, copyright is a civil issue, not a crime. While recent law may[1] have made specific types of mass infringement a crime, in general copyright infringement isn't "illegal". It only makes you liable for actual and statutory civil damages. I suspect this is even true in most jurisdictions. > it probably did invite people [...] This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright aw and how the Betamax case affected it. The case wasn't about "inviting" improper actions. There was no disagreement that people could use Betamax to violate copyright. Just like how you believe Google should be guilty of something[2], the movie industry believed Sony should be guilt of copyright infringement. The allegation was that they had a right to effective protection of their copyright monopoly which video tape technology could undermine. However the court disagreed after Sony proved there were "significant non-infringing uses" for a Betamax tape recorder. From the majority opinion: >> "The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use..." The fact that some people might use technology (Betamax, Google's button) to infringe copyright or break a contract isn't relevant, because that was not the primary, intended purpose of the technology. Because other, legitimate uses exist, the manufacturer of that technology is not liable. I strongly suggest educating yourself a lot more about copyright and contract law actually work, because your arguments demonstrate a lot of misconceptions about copyright and fundamental errors about law in general. > Google, on the other hand, should have known better The only people that "should have known better" are the people that design their businesses to fundamentally rely on products they do no control or even have any contractual influence. Google will always be changing Chrome; expect that or find a way to remove that dependency. [1] I'm not sure if it has been tested in court. [2] Also, adding a save button to videos isn't tortious interference of a contract about renting videos either. Adding that button wasn't a tort ("wrongful act"), nor was it intended to affect a video rental business.