I assume you're talking about Google re-serving cached content. I think Google's defense boils down to "Any site without a properly configured robots.txt file

I assume you're talking about Google re-serving cached content. I think Google's defense boils down to "Any site without a properly configured robots.txt file implicitly grants permission to be spidered, cached, and linked to.": http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35301&src=top5 http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answe... I don't know if this "opt-out" strategy has been tested in court, but I wouldn't assume that wholesale copying of user content is analogous to Google's situation unless the users have some similarly accepted way of opting out of the copying.