How much revenue did Reuters miss out on because people in this thread just commented without clicking through? Do dang and pg owe money to Reuters now for foregone revenue?
The contents of the <url> tag of a page are metadata, and I think we can agree that authors don't have copyright derived monopoly over them. Anyone can share a list of titles without violating any copyright laws, and no revenue is lost because that intellectual property does not really belong to the author.
But if I start sending everyone small but different snippets of the article, as per their search term so they don't have to visit the website, I am no longer within the ambit of fair use of copyright. The intent behind the fair use clause is the same snippet is shown to everyone, so in a vast majority of cases there is no loss of revenue and we can ignore the edge cases. Here google has used the edge cases ignored by the law and turned them into a multi-billion dollar business (with at least some part of it lost by the owners of the copyright).
That's not what this law is about. Google isn't summarizing titles, and they offered to remove snippets. The Australian government turned them down.
If the only objection here was "Google is showing different snippet summaries to lots of different people", then we wouldn't be having this debate. How has Google abused copyright here?
It feels like part of the argument here is that newspapers should be able to own facts -- that if people can look at a Google search page, see a title, and roughly know whether or not they want to click on the article, that's some kind of violation. But what does that have to do with copyright?
This is an analogy that would make Cory Doctorow sad.
If they lost the click because the article was summarised and you didn’t need to click through to read it then that’s on HN.
This is less obvious for Google news, but substantially more obvious for other search snippets (like say looking up synonyms).
Of course a reasonable person would argue that more people clicked through to Reuters thanks to HN, and they'd be right. I was simply playing devil's advocate, using the "logic" of the Australian draft law.
Honestly don't understand why google doesn't just say "fine, we'll stop providing excerpts and only provide the link, enjoy the reduced traffic, you really scored an own goal on this one, dumbasses."
Because it is literally against this law. Google has done this in other cases and it is a fine compromise. But this law requires Google/Facebook to continue to link to news outlets. And simply no longer showing snippets does not address the "problem" claimed here and would not prevent the charges.
Australian government doesn't care about snippets - only linking to titles is still a paid action. Not to mention their idea is equivalent to "force HN to publish articles".
Newspapers are news scavenging machines. They regularly copy entire stories from each other, with journalist changing just a few words to get around copyright issues. Surely you've noticed? Every newspaper covers the mostly same stories, with the same facts.
The reason it didn't matter is this isn't about copyright, linking, fairness or any other the other smoke stories you hear. The newspapers had a wonderful business model: they sold ads on dead trees. To entice people to buy their ads laden dead trees, they added news as bait. It's common knowledge in the newspaper the amount of "copy" you have to carry is determined purely by the number of ads you sold - you had to dilute the ad / news ration down to a palatable level.
The people they could sell these ads on dead trees to was limited to roughly how far you could transport those dead trees after they came off the press (at midnight or so) so people could read them over breakfast. Maybe 100km at best? If someone started moving on that territory it was open warfare, but if they just copied your stories so they could sell ads to people outside of you territory - who cared? Rampant copying is how they collectively kept costs down.
Now the internet has moved in, and nobody looks at ads printed on dead trees any more. The newspapers business model has gone. That would be true whether Google was the 1000 pound gorilla on the internet or there was no Google like company. Moving the 100's (1000's?) of mastheads that thrived because of the 100km dead tree transport limit was always going to result in a blood bath that would leave just a couple standing. We are nowhere near that yet.
In the end this is about the internet taking their ad revenue. And that's not because of Google - it's because where before it was read the newspaper on the train or nothing, now you've got a while internet to browse, and most people don't choose to look at news sites, so they lost their audience. In particular it's got nothing whatsoever to do with copyright, linking or fairness, which is why apparently the legislation says Google has to hand over their ad revenue to the newspapers whether they link to them or not.
