[acadien]

Does it go something like this?

Content creator posts content on their site that they own and pay to operate. Mega-3rd-party shares links of this content, sometimes posting blurbs from this content, driving traffic to Mega-3rd-party site and (to a much lesser extent) boosting traffic to content creator's site. However, Mega-3rd-party site also derives revenue from this by extracting information from user behavior and user interests, enabling them to improve ad-sales.

Am I misunderstanding something? Why is everyone here so pro mega-3rd-party?

Another question is this similar to remixing in the music industry? Feels like royalties in a twisted kind of way.

[michaelmrose]

Me bringing Tacos to a party may bring people to the party and I may parlay the social experience into a profitable new job but I'm not going to pay a portion of my income to taco bell.

Taco bell's defined benefit in the situation is selling 100 tacos.

The content creator's benefit is 100 clicks.

People are pro facebook because allowing someone to force others to pay to link to you presupposes controlling interpersonal communications for the purpose of monetization.

It would be such an ill turn that removing copyright entirely would be preferable.

It's like if someone was planning on murdering Zuckerberg they would suddenly be the bad guy even if you hate him.