Well it points out that Microsoft's internal processes are not well run. Presumably if Microsoft ever chose to sue Google over those contested links it would be a reasonable defense on Google's part that they were doing better than Microsoft's own search engine in complying. If you read Eric Goldman's excellent blog on the topic you can see that to keep your safe harbor status you have to be credibly trying to comply with requests. Being 'better' (as in more compliant) than Microsoft's own search engine would seem to be pretty good affirmative defense.
>Presumably if Microsoft ever chose to sue Google over those contested links it would be a reasonable defense on Google's part that they were doing better than Microsoft's own search engine in complying. If you read Eric Goldman's excellent blog on the topic you can see that to keep your safe harbor status you have to be credibly trying to comply with requests
You're assuming that their law firm sent Bing the takedown request of which there is no evidence. Also, they're completely within their rights to host links of which they own copyright on their own search engine.
>to host links of which they own copyright on their own search engine //
They don't own a copyright on the torrentroom link (for example). There is no copyright in a regular URL¹.
They apparently own the content linked to. But then I own the content of my house that the road network is linked to and that doesn't mean the local government is party to people taking my stuff without asking.
Links may be made unlawful but they're not copyright infringements. IMO they're not even contributory.
--
¹ It may be possible to craft a URL that has sufficient distinctiveness and artistic merit to acquire a copyright but I can't ever recall seeing one or hearing of one. A URL could be a trademark infringement of course.
Can you explain please? Do you mean like an image encoded in a URI? If so that's why I called it a "regular URL", so as not to be confused with a URI; to recapitulate I'm referring to a mere link to a resource and not the resource as contained in a link.
That's a valid point, although in the case of links pointing to 'cracked' versions of their tools or operating system it might look silly for Bing to continue to link to them.
