3 ms·

I don't find your analogy analogous either. Not only did you equate physical property to IP, but even if you accept that equivalence for the purpose of argumen

I don't find your analogy analogous either. Not only did you equate physical property to IP, but even if you accept that equivalence for the purpose of argument, your analogy seems like it would be better if... Home Depot gives (more like leases, when taking into account that copyright doesn't allow transitive redistribution... no first sale doctrine for intangible/unfixed IP) the aviators to Bob for free, knowing that Bob will take a bunch, set up a table outside that looks like he's giving away free sunglasses, but when you pick up a pair a Home Depot employee comes out, snatches them away from you, and starts pressuring you to get you to buy a pair. I'd classify that as a persuasion pattern, which is partly why this is so polarizing (bad pun, sorry...). You had the aviators in your hand, or in Google's case, you read a snippet they had indexed. You can practically taste it, metaphorically speaking, and then comes the hard sell. Either you pay them for the thing because you were so close to getting it and aren't going to let a few dollars stop you, or you get angry because you had the thing you thought you were about to get snatched away from you. The seller is counting on that, by grabbing for the product, you're committed to getting it even if you discover it actually costs money.

lazulicurio 8y ago
> Not only did you equate physical property to IP Tracking the ownership of the aviators is a non sequitur, as the issue occurs at the point of transaction, not before or after. > [Bob] set[s] up a table outside that looks like he's giving away free sunglasses, but when you pick up a pair a Home Depot employee comes out, snatches them away from you, and starts pressuring you to get you to buy a pair > You had the aviators in your hand, or in Google's case, you read a snippet they had indexed. You can practically taste it, metaphorically speaking, and then comes the hard sell I don't think that just because a publisher makes content free to one user for one use case it obligates them to make content free to all users for all use cases. Does a studio including snippets of a movie in a trailer mean that the movie has to be distributed for free? I would argue Google's actions are more akin to an advertising or PR firm drumming up interest by showing bits of the article to consumers. If I had to condense my thoughts into a couple of bullet points: 1) There is a colorable difference between ad blockers and what this extension is doing 2) I think it is unfair to characterize disapproval of this specific extension as an attack on ad blockers in general 3) Publishers have the right to give samples of their content to search providers without them being obligated to make the content free for everyone

lazulicurio 8y ago

> Not only did you equate physical property to IP Tracking the ownership of the aviators is a non sequitur, as the issue occurs at the point of transaction, not before or after. > [Bob] set[s] up a table outside that looks like he's giving away free sunglasses, but when you pick up a pair a Home Depot employee comes out, snatches them away from you, and starts pressuring you to get you to buy a pair > You had the aviators in your hand, or in Google's case, you read a snippet they had indexed. You can practically taste it, metaphorically speaking, and then comes the hard sell I don't think that just because a publisher makes content free to one user for one use case it obligates them to make content free to all users for all use cases. Does a studio including snippets of a movie in a trailer mean that the movie has to be distributed for free? I would argue Google's actions are more akin to an advertising or PR firm drumming up interest by showing bits of the article to consumers. If I had to condense my thoughts into a couple of bullet points: 1) There is a colorable difference between ad blockers and what this extension is doing 2) I think it is unfair to characterize disapproval of this specific extension as an attack on ad blockers in general 3) Publishers have the right to give samples of their content to search providers without them being obligated to make the content free for everyone