4 ms·

Caching can be disabled https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en But per the wording "

Caching can be disabled https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en But per the wording "noarchive - Prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page" - and it seems likes it is technically just avoiding showing the cached link.

comboy 8y ago
But we are in the f up territory. Does EU law says anything about meta tags? If not, then unless explicitly allowed you can't copy it. On so many levels.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Copyright infringement is a tort though, so it's down to content owners to sue Google if they feel damaged by this "caching". I think countries added workarounds for computer caching, allowing transient copies. But Google's "cache" or more of a short term archive, I'd guess they called it "cache" to semantically bypass the issue of it being an infringing copy.
- d2wa 8y ago
  Yes, actually it does. So does AU, US, and CA laws. Or, not expressly, but it does say a caching service must respect recognized industry standards for updating, removing, and excluding content from being cached. That covers HTML meta elements, HTTP caching headers, /robots.txt files, etc.
NullPrefix 8y ago
I'm pretty sure you can disable AMP for your site too.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  You can stop me copying all your works, just find me and ask nicely. So, I can never be successfully sued for copyright infringement now, because it's easy to "disable" my potential infringement. Yay. /s
  - vbezhenar 8y ago
    So we returned to the original comment: "Google also caches and serves everything else its robot finds, so if this was a problem it was already a problem long before AMP."
LoSboccacc 8y ago
that's not really a valid defense. the default state is copyrighted unless otherwise stated, this assumes the contrary.
- d2wa 8y ago
  This is where the caching exceptions in copyright laws comes into play. A service can automatically cache content passing through it and not be held liable. Caching is really broadly defined so just about anything can be considered caching.

comboy 8y ago

But we are in the f up territory. Does EU law says anything about meta tags? If not, then unless explicitly allowed you can't copy it. On so many levels.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Copyright infringement is a tort though, so it's down to content owners to sue Google if they feel damaged by this "caching". I think countries added workarounds for computer caching, allowing transient copies. But Google's "cache" or more of a short term archive, I'd guess they called it "cache" to semantically bypass the issue of it being an infringing copy.
d2wa 8y ago
Yes, actually it does. So does AU, US, and CA laws. Or, not expressly, but it does say a caching service must respect recognized industry standards for updating, removing, and excluding content from being cached. That covers HTML meta elements, HTTP caching headers, /robots.txt files, etc.

NullPrefix 8y ago

I'm pretty sure you can disable AMP for your site too.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
You can stop me copying all your works, just find me and ask nicely. So, I can never be successfully sued for copyright infringement now, because it's easy to "disable" my potential infringement. Yay. /s
- vbezhenar 8y ago
  So we returned to the original comment: "Google also caches and serves everything else its robot finds, so if this was a problem it was already a problem long before AMP."

LoSboccacc 8y ago

that's not really a valid defense. the default state is copyrighted unless otherwise stated, this assumes the contrary.

d2wa 8y ago
This is where the caching exceptions in copyright laws comes into play. A service can automatically cache content passing through it and not be held liable. Caching is really broadly defined so just about anything can be considered caching.