3 ms·
I downvoted you because linking and showing a few sentences does not mean a company's business is to "abuse copyright."
by driverdan 8y ago
I downvoted you because linking and showing a few sentences does not mean a company's business is to "abuse copyright."
- dangjc 8y agoGoogle shows a lot more than a link and increasingly is tailored to answer your question and prevent you from going to the site that provided the information in the first place.
- danShumway 8y ago> is tailored to answer your question In the US, factual information can not be copyrighted. I believe it can in the EU, although I might be misrepresenting their official stance. At the very least, I'm pretty sure that the EU allows you to copyright databases. I'm sure EU residents can correct me if I'm missing some kind of subtlety. At least in the US though, there is nothing remotely illegal about looking up a fact on a website and then giving it to someone else directly, even if that diverts traffic away from the original site. Copyright was never intended to cover stuff like that.
- hoaw 8y agoAccording to what? Because as I said, as far as I know, many European countries have a limited right to quote something. If the law is written to let people quote other people under specific conditions and one entity uses that to quote everyone then that is, whether you like copyright or not, an abuse of copyright. The reasonable position here is either something like what the EU wants or to reform copyright to allow this kind of use, not "Google has such a large legal team that they can get away with it until they don't". I can't really find any good summary, but this sparse wikipedia article will give you an idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote