How can we interpret this?

[bitheeseo]

This statement revolves around the website that offers the files, not the company and not the webpage. Therefore, a commercial company could store and offer files non-commercially if they are on a separate website that is isolated from their other sites which might be deemed commercial. We interpret this as the originating host and those sites that present the files to users.

To broaden this definition, we could substitute “website” to “service” to cover a broader range of methods to find and retrieve information.

Subscription services: if only subscribers can get to the material, then список мобильных номеров в азии is deemed commercial use, even if this is done by a non-profit organization. If non-subscribers can also get equal access, then it is not commercial.



Ad supported websites that give away materials would be deemed commercial use. Therefore files offered from the AOL.com or NYTimes.com websites would be commercial use.

Catalog and navigation services, such as search engines, that help direct people to the non-commercial materials on non-commercial sites, we believe, do not violate non-commercial status, but navigation starts to look like re-hosting the materials (therefore possibly commercial use) when it is over a 2 line textual description, as common on Yahoo’s and Google’s web search result pages. There are also deep questions that arise when commercial companies, such as those that operate navigation services, keep and use the files pure navigation.