Rajesh is a poet and maintains a blog 'poet.blog.com'. He occasionally published his work on websites. He claims copyright infringement due to google's alleged copying and distributing one of his work. Google defend and

Caching involves storage of an entire site or other complete set of material for a source for later use. It is a process used by internet browsers of storing "browsed" material in the browser computers' RAM or cache memory. The purpose of caching is to speed up repeated access to data and to reduce network congestion resulting from repeated downloads of data. Caching is an efficiency tool. It is something that a browser programmer does independently of the user. Cached copies are incidents of using the browser programme. Section 52 (1)(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 deals with the caching and categorise this as a fair dealing. 'Transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy: Provided that if the person responsible for the storage of the copy has received a written complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that such transient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for the storage shall refrain from facilitating such access for a period of twenty-one days or till he receives an order from the competent court refraining from facilitating access and in case no such order is received before the expiry of such period of twenty-one days, he may continue to provide the facility of such access.' There is no case of direct infringement on the part of Google since the entire process of displaying the search results and then viewing the cached page was a non-volitional act on the part of Google. As a side note, it must be mentioned that 'safe harbour' provisions relating to copyright infringement always mention that there can be no liability if the act was an automated process and not volitional. In the given case, the reproduction of copyright work is happening due to caching memory which is essentially a technical nature of the computer. Therefore, it falls under the fair dealing. In the case of Field v. Google , Blake Fields, who is an attorney and a poet, published certain poems on his blog. Google, in the course of indexing this blog, created a cached copy of his poems. In September of 2004, he filed a copyright infringement suit against Google claiming that caching of his poem "Good Tea" involved the unauthorised copying and distribution of his work. He claimed that when Google served, and users clicked on the cached copy of his poems, Google was not only 'distributing' unauthorised copies of his work, but 'creating' an unauthorised copy as well. It is also relevant to note that Field registered his poems with the Copyright Office before publishing them on his website and he did not employ the feature that prevented Google from caching his website. The court framed two issues to decide the matter: (1) Does the creation of a cached copy constitute unauthorised copying? (2) When Google serves the cached copy to the user as a search result, does it amount to unauthorised distribution? The court found that no copyright infringement had been occurred and delivered the judgement under the following broad heads: Direct Infringement: There was no direct infringement since the entire process - starting from the display of search results and the subsequent viewing of the cached page - was a non-volitional act on the part of Google. This is consistent with the prevailing law on intermediary liability, which states that service providers cannot be held liable if the allegedly infringing act was an automated process. Bear in mind that Field did not accuse Google of infringement for creating the cached copy in the first instance or that users who viewed the cached copy were violating his copyright, and therefore Google was thereby liable for secondary infringement. Field appears to have taken the most tenuous defence that the 'creation of new copies', when a user clicked the cached link, constituted copyright infringement.