|
|
|
|
|
by awesomeMilou
1044 days ago
|
|
In the case of Google, merely indexing content is not considered fair use.
It's a double edged sword, as media outlets have realized, after all Google is responsible for a larger part of the success of these publications. But in Germany for example, Google News basicially just copypasted articles into their service, and monetizing it without involving the publishers. That doesn't qualify as transformative even under their own rules (see the YouTube TOS and copyright enforcement system). |
|
Today, if you Google for a song lyric, that lyric appears in Google. You get a tiny grey source link to Musixmatch or whatever but why would anyone bother to go there if you have the complete lyric right there on the page you are looking at?
More and more content real estate has appeared on search engines' pages. Answer boxes answering questions, again with a source link few people will use, and of course the large Knowledge Graph panel filled with Wikipedia content (written by volunteers and monetised by the world's richest tech companies).
The result is that it's tech companies and their platforms that make most of the money off content (YouTube is another example). They are the oil companies of today, and like the latter use all sorts of lobbying to make sure things are organised to their advantage.
For all the ingenuity and usability they offer, they behave at least in part like parasites. They should be forced to spread the wealth round a bit more.