> 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
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.
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.