[LivinLOS]

I think you got it the wrong way round.. your files might be 0.01% legal...

As for the Google image issue I wonder if you brought that up due to the recent lawsuit against google for using (cant remember which one) either AP's or Reuters news wires.. The news service is subscription based and googles spiders reprint a tiny exert and sometimes images.. they have recently been served a cease and desist order which they have violated and its now one for the lawyers of the world to rprofit from..

You mention something along the lines of Red Bull and branding, if the discussion is to be kept clear you need to be careful not to confuse trademark law with copyright law.. I could also point out that copyright asserts the authors terms as the author (or its publisher in reality) see fit.. If an author publishes for free on the internet then there is no loss of earnings in reproduction or archival of that article.. If the author is publishing (for example) a song and charges a 99c cost for that song each download is a 99c theft against the author.. Its entirely up to the content creator to decide how and under what terms to publish..

Unfortunatly one very worrying thing that is happening thanks to the download culture is the arrival of DRM.. Its an insidiuos problem and will screw the consumer and leave all control in the hands of the media giants.. They are slavering over this concept and microsoft is writing some pretty effective tools to give them the keys to the city.. I have been working as a Microsoft MVP on the DRM associated with WMP10 and for the consumer its a very bad deal.