> I don't see how this is related. Well, I said what if "academics had to pay publishers a fee for each citation they make." In this situation, publishers like

> I don't see how this is related. Well, I said what if "academics had to pay publishers a fee for each citation they make." In this situation, publishers like Elsevier would be able to extort even more money from academics, and ultimately from taxpayers. I'm sure publishers would be very happy about that while making everyone else miserable. > Copyright infringment is usually not litigated unless someone loses money. Partly true. Copyright infringement is litigated when the one suing believes there is money to be made. It doesn't matter where "the money lost" actually belongs to, as evident by court cases ruling in copyright troll's favor. It also doesn't matter whether the one being sued made any money too. But the most absurd assumption here is that linking has to benefit the creator of the content. If that is the case, no one would have the freedom to criticize the works of others online, or risk being sued of copyright violation. That's not even remotely close to what copyright was supposed to be all about.