> As it happens, there are companies making fortunes on internet, and their business largely depends on the contents that is created by others. This is particul

> As it happens, there are companies making fortunes on internet, and their business largely depends on the contents that is created by others. This is particularly true with Google and the press industry. If you see it that way, it seems only fair that Google participate in paying the journalists producing quality content that makes people use their search engine and/or see their ads. Are you really trying to claim that Google largely depends on the content created by the press for their success? If so, wouldn't you also claim that projects which become famous solely because of link aggregators such as Reddit and HN should pay a monetary amount back to the link aggregator? Also, how do you account for the free services provided to the press industry to allow their content to be written? Does the press in France still pay sums to the Gutenberg estate and heirs? Either way even assuming your point is true, the response should be much simpler: If the journalist content is really that valuable to Google then have the publisher negotiate with Google directly for payment, or remove their content from Google and make them suffer.