Another examine of search engine "legality" is being addressed with a recent court case in the UK over a video search engine. Techdirt's description work over the long-standing tradition of how to evaluate contributory impingement claims for sites like search engines based on the highly subjective "I know it when I see it" test. "Take for example, the area going on in the UK, where Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman decided to do existence that makes a lot of sense: create a search engine for videos online, indexing a variety of unprecedented


copyrights:cite this source roget's ii: the new dictionary sites. This was as a part of their company Scopelight, and the search engine itself was called Surfthechannel. This is doubtless a useful product. But, of course, the search engine's algorithm has no way of knowing if that video has been put up by the copyright holder on purpose or if it's unauthorized. Even more tricky, how does it bound fair use? So, it did the affordable thing: it includes everything. Lots of the videos are legal. Plenty are potentially unauthorized. ostensively that wasn't good enough for a UK-based anti-piracy group UK-FACT, who had Scopelight's land raided, claiming the site is illegal, since people can find unauthorized content via it. Of course, you can find unauthorized content on Google as well. But you know who's liable for that? Whoever indeed put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

More: - Read More

Mark