[Alupis]

Even if it were subject to copyright, you violate no laws (in any country I know of) by simply re-posting the information and providing attribution to the original author/creators of the content. If true, any news aggregator and most websites would be getting sued every day for regurgitating information.

[schrijver]

You’ve posted this further up as well, but it is simply not true. The whole point of copyright is that no-one can re-publish (‘copy’) a copyrighted work without permission. News sites pay for the right to republish Associated Press reports, for example, as ‘hueving’ points out.

Aggregators like Hacker News and Reddit don‘t copy content as a whole, they just provide links. Providing a preview of the content, as Facebook does, might be considered either fair use or citation—but in neither case they’re copying and republishing the entire content.

Attribution does not magically remove copyright.

[luka-birsa]

I agree.

If I'm not mistaken, Google got sued for providing short excerpts of news from various news outlets and decided to settle out of court.

[Canada]

I could be wrong, but based on what the article claims the copyright information is not re-posted anywhere. It's displayed from the original source on demand.

The schools position is analogous to claiming that someone is pirating your freely downloadable PDF document because they used Nitro instead of Adobe Reader to view it.