Automated Content Access Protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:08, 23 August 2024

Revision as of 09:34, 29 December 2024

Line 48:

As an early priority, ACAP is intended to provide a practical and consensual solution to some of the rights-related issues which in some cases have led to litigation<ref>[http://www.out-law.com/page-7427 "Is Google Legal?" OutLaw article about Copiepresse litigation]</ref><ref>[http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/comment/0,,2013051,00.html Guardian article about Google's failed appeal in Copiepresse case]</ref> between publishers and search engines.

The Robots Exclusion Standard has always been implemented voluntarily by both content providers and search engines, and ACAP implementation is similarly voluntary for both parties.<ref name="Paul 2008">{{cite magazine |last=Paul |first=Ryan |title=A skeptical look at the Automated Content Access Protocol | workmagazine=Ars Technica | date=14 January 2008 | url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/01/skeptical-look-at-acap/ | access-date=9 January 2018}}</ref> However, Beth Noveck has expressed concern that the emphasis on communicating access permissions in legal terms will lead to lawsuits if search engines do not comply with ACAP permissions.<ref>{{cite web | last=Noveck |first=Beth Simone |title=Automated Content Access Protocol | website=Cairns Blog | date=1 December 2007 | url=http://cairns.typepad.com/blog/2007/12/automated-conte.html | access-date=9 January 2018}}</ref>

No public search engines recognise ACAP. Only one, [[Exalead]], ever confirmed that they will be adopting the standard,<ref>[http://www.exalead.com/software/news/press-releases/2007/07-01.php Exalead Joins Pilot Project on Automated Content Access]</ref> but they have since ceased functioning as a search portal to focus on the software side of their business.