This morning I was trying to look into the issue of Google's cache and the copyright issues it raises. I am surprised that no test case has yet been raised on the issue.

All I can find is a page at CNET discussing the points raised:
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html

The Google cache would normally be seen as a violation of electronic rights - but it's interesting to see that there's a reference to the DMCA claiming that there is a clear clause for the allowance of ISP's to store protected work regardless of the wishes of the owners of such rights.

However, is there really a clear issue on Google being exempt from violation of copyright?

Danny Sullivan is quoted in the article as expecting the issue to eventually be raised in court.

However, if Google were ever found in at least a US court to be in violation of copyright regarding its caching system, then how would that impact how Google operates as a search engine?

General discussion point.

What about:

Google stores many web pages in its cache to retrieve for users as a back-up in case the page's server temporarily fails. Site owners may block Google from returning cached versions of their pages by using the NOARCHIVE meta-tag. Site owners may also request immediate removal of cached page from the Google Search Service.

Source (http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html)

Doesn't this then place the onus back on the website publisher to implement the correct HTML to stop the cache occurring, hence the breach of copyright? Google provides a service, and provides you the website owner the option to opt-out as such at any time, in conjunction with the DMCA ruling, could be quite arguable!

I'm not sure how DMCA applies, but ordinarily, it is *not* alright to reproduce copyrighted material in entirety - and then expect the rightful owners to look to discover this issue for themselves and then demand it cease for specified instances.

That's why the entire cache issue is so interesting - but what allowances does the DMCA actually make?