I hadn't heard of googlecache. Looked it up and found this relevant 2003 tidbit.
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html Google cache raises copyright concerns
By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 9, 2003, 1:28 PM PT
Like other online publishers, The New York Times charges readers to access articles on its Web site. But why pay when you can use Google instead?
Through a caching feature on the popular Google search site, people can sometimes call up snapshots of archived stories at NYTimes.com and other registration-only sites. The practice has proved a boon for readers hoping to track down Web pages that are no longer accessible at the original source, for whatever reason. But the feature has recently been putting Google at odds with some unhappy publishers. ...
Google offers publishers a simple way to opt out of its temporary archive, and scuffles have yet to erupt into open warfare or lawsuits. Still, Google's cache links illustrate a slippery side of innovation on the Web, where cool new features that seem benign on the surface often carry unintended consequences. ...
At the heart of Google's caching dilemma lies a thorny legal problem involving a core Web technology: When is it acceptable to copy someone else's Web page, even temporarily? ...
Google's cache, a feature introduced in 1997, is unique among commercial search engines, but it's not unlike other archival sites on the Web that keep digital copies of Web pages. Google's relatively little-known feature lets people access a copy of almost any Web page, within Google's own site, in the form it was in whenever last indexed by the search giant. ...
Unlike formal Web archive projects, Google says its cache feature does not attempt to create a permanent historical record of the Web. ...
Still, Google's cached pages have proven to be a treasure trove for investigators seeking to recover data pulled from public Web sites. In one high-profile example, security and privacy expert Richard Smith copied Web pages detailing the backgrounds of Dr. John Poindexter, head of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office (IAO), and other officials, from the Google cache days after they were removed from the IAO Web site. The pages were deleted after public reports surfaced on the office's development of a massive computer system to spy on Americans and potential terrorists.
Lawyers, start your search engines
As seemingly benign and beneficial as it is, some Web site operators take issue with the feature and digitally prevent Google from recording their pages in full by adding special code to their sites. Among other arguments, they say that cached pages at Google have the potential to detour traffic from their own site, or, at worst, constitute trademark or copyright violations. In the case of an out-of-date news page in Google's cache, a Web publisher could even face legal troubles because of false data remaining on the Web but corrected at its own site.
For this reason, search experts and copyright lawyers expect the issue to come up in a court of law, joining the leagues of copyright disputes that have surfaced because of technology innovation.
"It's very much an issue that has yet to be tested, and I fully expect that it will be," said Danny Sullivan, industry pundit and editor of Search Engine Watch. ...
The average lifespan of a Web site is 100 days, according to estimates by the Internet Archive.
Still, copyright lawyers and industry experts say that there are legally uncharted waters around a commercial caching service.
"Many of us copyright lawyers have been waiting for this issue to come up: Google is making copies of all the Web sites they index and they're not asking permission," said Fred Lohman, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "From a strict copyright standpoint, it violates copyright." ...
Even Google says people only "occasionally" click its cached links. If more people did, Web publishers might lose visitors--and potentially advertising dollars, which no one can afford to lose as Web publishing gets back on its feet. ...
Web sites can "opt out," or include code in their pages that bars Google from caching the page. A tag to exclude "robots" such as "www.nytimes.com/robots.txt" or "NOARCHIVE" typically does the job. And that's largely what's kept the cache feature from being controversial.
... other lawyers argue that Google's practice would be protected by fair-use laws. A judge might look at the market impact of Google's caching and find that it's valuable, given that it could ultimately drive traffic to the cached site. Or the reverse could be true, depending on the nature of the page. ...
In contrast with the priorities of some news publishers, Web archivists say preserving pages as they first appeared can offer important documentary records for historians and others. ...
/ snip -- see link for further discussion of legal issues and courtroom drama
Excellent articleGretchen! I figured it didn't make all website owners happy and am not surprised to see an article about it. (especially personal ones...because of faux pas, or comments made under anger that were later regretted and retracted)
While I hope webpublishers (I'm referring to official news agencies) don't use the code mentioned..that prevents the googlecache from being utilized..right now, to me, clicking on it is fair game for us the users. (cept for the paid sites...., I understand that dilemma) I wonder if there are any current updates to that article...or legal suits about it.
It may get google in trouble..I hope it doesn't. To me, it's the same as any of us saving a webpage to harddrive, and then sending it as an email attachment to friends.