diberry - 5:06 am on Aug 30, 2012 (gmt 0)

I just read the news here: [news.google.com...] I pretty much know the major things going on in the US and parts of the world now. I did not click a single link.

That's skating right on the edge of a "fair use" violation of US copyright law, as I understand it (wiki "fair use" for more info).

You have the right, without permission, to quote short snippets of others' work and give credit. With printed media, this was simple: just don't quote too much.

But on the internet, we can tell whether links are getting clicked, so it's easier to prove when someone's link to a source is benefiting the source at all, or just benefiting the quoter. Best practice for bloggers is to make sure, no matter what size "snippet" or how you credit the source, that your links make your readers want to go visit your sources, too. That's your best defense if someone claims you used their material unfairly - "But I sent their site traffic. They benefited. No monetary damage was done."

Of course, there really haven't been enough cases to do with internet abuse of "fair use" to know for sure how it's all going to shake out. Google is definitely pushing the envelope, for Brett to be able to do what he just did.

I don't think the internet could function without fair use, so I'm not sure I'm a fan of this German law, per se. But I agree Google can't be allowed to essentially republish others' content without benefiting the original source in some way.