[kdeenanauth]

Caching can be disabled 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[pbhjpbhj]

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

[LoSboccacc]

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

[d2wa]

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.