Graybeard - I haven't looked at the links that you have provided yet, but I guarantee you that if that news service had been deep-linking to the subscriber-only pages of these newspapers, the court would have ruled differently. Yes, I could see where the courts would allow someone to direct-link to a public web page - even if they make money from providing this link. But I can't see where the courts would allow someone to direct-link to a file that is copyright, when that can cause the owner of the file to lose money. At least I hope that is so, because if it's not - we've seen the end of freebies on the internet. Who's going to set up a web-site and offer freebies if it's costing them money every month? They would have to go subscription - as so many great formerly free sites have done - just to pay for their bandwidth. The person who is direct-linking to other people's downloads may not be making any money from it - but he can in fact cause other people to lose money by having to pay for extra bandwidth without their getting any benefit from his links. It's just plain wrong and if it's not illegal (and I think it is) - then it damn well should be.