[rocqua]

It feels to me like this could be legislated based on profiting on others' copyright.

The issue here is one party making money, without consent of any form, based on another party's published materials.

[javagram]

> The issue here is one party making money, without consent of any form, based on another party's published materials.

So, google’s search engine business?

[cameronbrown]

That's an unfair comparison. A three line snippet is hardly the same thing as taking an entire page. Not to mention that all search engines do this.

[rocqua]

There is at least an opt out to Google, there is some benefit to showing up on Google search, and there is a significant transformative action both in aggregating and summarizing, and in providing web-pages based on a keyword search.

That said, there is an argument to be made here. One that's included in the disputed EU copyright directive in the 'link tax'.

[beatgammit]

The web server freely provides that content, it's not like the browser is stealing it. If they really want to protect their content, they can put it behind a paywall.

It shouldn't be illegal to not request certain parts of a site, and it shouldn't be illegal to choose not to render parts of a page. What should be illegal is taking credit for copyrighted material, and that's not what going on.

[rocqua]

I think it should be illegal to profit from showing other people's work neigh verbatim. For example, taking their content, stripping out some stuff, and placing ads there.

The issue here, as opposed to just stripping ads, is that a totally unrelated party is making money with ads.