Google's AI global copyright infringements at scale needs to stop

[Whitey]

Thanks @goodoldweb. This is one of the most important and grounded posts I've seen in recent months, so i extracted it from the thread and started an OP:

Webmasters, it’s time to face the truth: no one is going to protect our content from Google’s AI Overviews—except us. Every day, original work is being lifted, repackaged, and served back to users with no or very little attribution, and no traffic returned. This isn’t curation. It’s exploitation.

Every one of us, in our own countries, has copyright laws that protect our work. We don’t need to wait for a global solution—each of us can push back, starting at home.

So let’s stop waiting. Each of us has the power to act within our own legal systems. File complaints. Demand accountability. Push your local authorities and copyright bodies to take this seriously. Almost every country has a copyright authority with a website and a complaint form—start there. The more of us submit complaints, the harder it is for them to ignore. Google isn’t above the law—and it’s time we remind them of that.

I understand some webmasters fear filing takedown requests might risk their sites being de-indexed by Google, but staying silent only lets the problem grow. When filing complaints with authorities, it’s important to mention this fear—so they understand the full impact on webmasters and can take it seriously.

And just as important—we must all demand real tools to block AI from scraping our content. This shouldn’t be opt-out. It should be opt-in. Our work should not be fair game just because it’s online. Consent must be the default.

Do not delay. Do not wait for someone else to lead. Every day we stay silent, more of our work is taken without credit, without permission. If we don’t act now, we’re handing over our rights without a fight.

In Australia, our copyright law includes ‘fair dealing’ exceptions—but they’re limited to specific uses like research, criticism, or news reporting. Simply scraping or repurposing our content without permission doesn’t qualify. That means we have strong legal protections—if we choose to use them.

Today, we filed an official complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and also with the Australian Copyright Council, to hold Google accountable—and I encourage you to take action in your own countries too.

P.S. I wish this website would take a more prominent role. It is a gathering place for webmasters from all over the world and, in a way, represents webmasters everywhere.

What’s playing out isn’t just a technical shift, it’s a structural one. The long-standing "value exchange" between content creators and platforms is eroding. AI Overviews increasingly reframe your original work into zero-click summaries, often without attribution, credit, or meaningful visibility in return. It's hard to see that as anything other than extractive.

In the Australian context, as mentioned, 'fair dealing' has well-defined limits, and broad repurposing for commercial advantage doesn’t comfortably sit within those. The underlying legal frameworks do exist in most jurisdictions, though they’re not always visible or enforced in the context of AI scraping and synthesis.

What’s also becoming clear is that the web’s feedback loop (user visits, engagement signals, backlinks) are being bypassed. As a result, traditional SEO strategies are starting to decouple from visibility outcomes. It raises a difficult but important question for many site owners: where is the line between exposure and exploitation?

Whether or not one pursues formal action, understanding the boundaries of copyright, fair use/fair dealing, and digital property rights seems more relevant now than ever. It’s no longer just about rankings, it’s about how the web sustains original creators.

A tactic that makes actionable notice more likely is to file complaints and cc your local politicians, authorities, ombudsmen, key journalists in your jurisdiction. Almost like an "Open Letter" that hit's the mark. The aggregated effort cannot be ignored by making those accountable to each other in the cc'd correspondence.

I'll be following up on this over the next few days.

[Whitey]

I'll be following up on this over the next few days.

All done

[Whitey]

Here’s a copy of my letter circulated to key journalists, politicians and leaders in compliance authorities in US, UK, EU and AU making them accountable to each other.

I hope it helps and gives inspiration to others to raise awareness - but tbh, imo the laws are currently inadequate, rather the sentiment that changes the laws to meet these challenges may take a looong time to define and change.

Dear All,

Could you please acknowledge your receipt and actions relating to this complaint, circulated for accountability purposes between yourselves.

I have web publishing activities globally and am a contributor (anonymous) to an authoritative forum in digital publishing and e-commerce. The purpose of this email is to help accelerate the awareness and actions of fairness and lawful compliance for the common good, both here in Australia and globally.

I write to express a serious concern about Google’s deployment of AI Overviews in its search engine, which is currently lifting, repackaging, and redistributing original web content without meaningful attribution or traffic return to the source publishers.

This practice, carried out by one of the most powerful companies in the world, undermines the principles of copyright and fair use across every digital jurisdiction. While Google claims to summarize, in effect it reproduces original work in a form that diverts user engagement away from the creators, thereby eliminating the fundamental value exchange that sustains the open web.

The evidence of this is widespread and global. Publishers, bloggers, businesses, academics, and independent creatives are reporting significant drops in visibility and engagement. Many now find their content appearing in AI-generated outputs; altered, stripped of context, and with no benefit returned to the original author. This is not curation; it is unauthorised commercial replication at scale.

The broader implications for the global creative economy are severe. If the creators and publishers of the web are systematically removed from the information loop, we risk accelerating the collapse of sustainable content creation. Innovation, cultural preservation, journalism, education, and public knowledge are all at stake. Urgent cross-jurisdictional attention is needed to determine whether this behaviour breaches existing copyright law, anti-competitive statutes, and moral rights protections.

Please note that I request to remain publicly anonymous (unless specific permissions and protections are granted to myself and agreed between us) in relation to this complaint, due to the commercial nature of my own web publishing work and potential professional implications.

I encourage your respective bodies to urgently investigate and, where necessary, intervene to ensure that global copyright and competition laws are enforced in the digital space, especially when actors such as Google circumvent the very structures that sustain online creativity and information plurality.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

I’ll probably get some “Dear John” replies but at least I did my bit :)

[tangor]

Powers that be are likely aware all this is going on. However, those same powers are caught between what is right and what is necessary (for the new tech) and have no burning desire to get involved.

Ultimately it will take a cadre of lawyers willing to tilt at windmills pro bono up front on behalf of a class of webmasters (yet to be defined) for a BIG payout on the backside, some five or ten years down the line.

MEANWHILE hardening websites against AI/LLM is the first step ... and oh so many webmasters are terrified of how that will affect their serp ranking.

[Whitey]

@tangor – You're absolutely right, most regulators are hesitant to act decisively, caught between supporting innovation and upholding creator rights. As the *Forbes* article [forbes.com...] by Virginie Berger points out, OpenAI and Google are aggressively lobbying to expand "fair use" to justify scraping and repurposing our work, without traffic, attribution, or consent. It's not innovation, it's substitutional replication at scale.

Hardening sites is a good first step, but it won't be enough without legal pressure. Berger makes it clear: sentiment drives regulation. That’s why open letters, complaints, and coordinated pushback matter now. We need to reframe the narrative that AI scraping isn't neutral tech; it's an extractive model that undermines the web’s value chain.

The longer we wait, the more this behavior becomes normalized. Silence will be taken as consent. So yes, protect your content, but also make noise, amplify it in the right strategic places, because policy follows pressure imo.

[goodoldweb]

MEANWHILE hardening websites against AI/LLM is the first step ... and oh so many webmasters are terrified of how that will affect their serp ranking.

Exactly. Webmasters across the globe are caught in a stranglehold by a tech giant that built its empire on their content—Google. Who else would dare to scrape and display creators' work in such way ("AIO") while claiming it's just ‘fair use'?

[Whitey]

ChatGPT: TL;DNR:

"Fair use" lets others use copyrighted content without permission if certain conditions are met, but it’s not a free pass—especially for AI.

In U.S. law, four key factors decide fair use:

Purpose – Is the use transformative or just repackaging? Commercial use (like Google’s AI) weighs against fair use.

Nature – Factual content is more fair-use-friendly than creative work.

Amount – Using the “heart” or core of a work, even briefly, can breach fair use.

Market Impact – If AI summaries reduce traffic or revenue to the source, that’s a red flag.

In the context of Google's AI Overviews, replacing the need to visit the original content — without consent — could fail this test. That’s why creators are pushing back.

[Micha]

I am not familiar with US law, but isn't removing source references from AI-generated responses a clear violation of the fair use principle? At the very least, source references should be mandatory. Google's removal of source references becomes even more problematic when the company displays advertisements alongside the AI responses.

There is another point to consider: Google's investors are becoming increasingly skeptical. So far, the company has not been able to convincingly demonstrate that it really has its AI systems under control. And this is precisely where we have real leverage: by repeatedly documenting and publicizing these problems, we are not only putting pressure on Google itself, but also on investor confidence, which is known to be very fragile on the stock market. The good news is that the major media outlets have already gotten involved.

[Whitey]

@Micha – Excellent points. Removing attribution while monetizing AI responses directly undermines both ethical standards and legal ones, especially when those responses replace the need to visit original sources.

Under U.S. law, fair use becomes shakier when:

•The purpose is commercial,
•Attribution is stripped,
•The “heart” of the work is used, and
•The original market is harmed.

This is why Google’s AI Overviews could be on shaky ground.

In EU law, the bar is even higher. The Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception under Article 4 of the EU Copyright Directive allows content scraping only if rights holders don’t opt out, and crucially, attribution is still expected. Similar restrictions exist in Australia (fair dealing), UK (limited TDM exceptions), and Canada, all of which are more narrowly defined than the U.S. fair use model.

As for investors, yes, Google is profitable now. But here’s why they’re right to worry:

1.Legal risk: Multiple lawsuits (NYT v. OpenAI, Getty v. Stability AI) could set costly precedents.
2.Regulatory blowback: The EU is moving fast with the AI Act and potential copyright fines.
3.Brand and trust erosion: The narrative is shifting. Media, academics, and creators are framing this as exploitation, not innovation.
4.Dependency risk: If AI outputs start triggering large-scale opt-outs, lawsuits, or blocked web access, the value of the LLMs declines.

In short, what looks profitable today may not be sustainable tomorrow, especially if Google’s AI is seen as a rights-infringing black box rather than a search tool that respects creators and legal frameworks.

Let’s keep the pressure on from all angles, legal, media, and markets. I think actions will start to come faster than previously mentioned here. Let’s see.

[goodoldweb]

They’re stripping away website references now to make it harder for publishers to trace their stolen content. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve even added code recently to further scramble the material, making it nearly impossible to prove in court. Plain thieves—hiding their loot in plain sight.

And honestly, I don’t care much about the other AIs that aren’t officialy search engines. You have to go out of your way to download or install them—they’re not pre-installed on billions of devices worldwide, like Google is.

[Micha]

@Whitney

EU Copyright Directive allows content scraping only if rights holders don’t opt out, and crucially, attribution is still expected.

It is also very important to note that an opt-out procedure, which Google is currently considering, is not valid in the EU. Here, Google must first ask for permission and only use the content if the answer is “yes.” Unfortunately, some of our publishers will be tempted by the big money, so it is to be feared that only those who receive money from Google will be displayed.

[Whitey]

@Micha @goodoldweb - Both your points highlight what’s becoming the new normal in AI search: obfuscation, zero attribution, and increasingly evasive behaviour by design.

The EU Copyright Directive (Article 15) is clear: content cannot be used for commercial aggregation (even summaries or snippets) without prior consent. “Opt-out” doesn’t cut it, it must be opt-in. Google’s current AI Overviews approach would likely be non-compliant under EU law if launched unmodified.

In contrast, the U.S. still leans on a flexible “fair use” doctrine, but even there, scrambling or paraphrasing doesn’t protect a company if the use remains substitutional and impacts market value. Courts can still rule against it if all four fair use factors break down, especially purpose, amount used, and market harm.

As of now "The European Commission" is gathering evidence and conducting preliminary assessments of Google’s AI Overviews feature, according to reports, with a focus on potential copyright violations, impacts on media diversity, and market fairness under the Copyright Directive, Media Freedom Act, Digital Services Act, and Digital Markets Act. While no formal enforcement has begun, this review could lead to significant regulatory action aimed at ensuring compliance and safeguarding the rights of content creators and independent publishers

If Google is intentionally stripping attribution or obfuscating original sources, that’s not just unethical, it could strengthen legal claims of wilful infringement. This is no longer about technical innovation. It’s about avoiding accountability at scale.

[Kendo]

where is the line between exposure and exploitation

When was it not exploitation?

[Dooku]

@Whitey, not sure at this moment how this should be done, but your letter should be created in a way to be universal for many regions in the world. If somehow this "standard" letter could be posted on some high profile platforms and thereby with minimal extra input from webmasters/users can be edited and sent to the appropriate organizations/authorities in their own locations, that would certainly start to attract attention.

It would also be beneficial if a link could be added to that letter pointing to a website explaining in layman terms what G is actually doing and what the ramifications are of their actions. Something that is easily digestible by politicians, policymakers and internet organizations. Because I am sure they are now hearing only one side of this story.....from lobbyists!

[goodoldweb]

More Ways to Combat AI Content Misuse

At this stage, it may be prudent for publishers to include the following notice in the footer of each page:

"All rights to this article are reserved. No portion of this work may be copied, reproduced, distributed, or publicly displayed without the prior express written consent of the author. Use of this material for display, reproduction, training, or input into any artificial intelligence system or AIO-style automated process is strictly prohibited."

This serves as both a protective measure against unauthorized AI usage and a clear signal to those "geniuses" at the plex that we do not consent to the exploitation of our work.

[Whitey]

Ultimately it will take a cadre of lawyers willing to tilt at windmills pro bono up front on behalf of a class of webmasters (yet to be defined) for a BIG payout on the backside, some five or ten years down the line

@tangor highlights a path we’ve seen before, long legal efforts chasing platform accountability. But this time, we’re seeing something new: coordinated regulatory focus across multiple regions.

The EU’s current review of AI Overviews touches several pillars; copyright, digital market fairness, and media pluralism. It’s reminiscent of the early days of GDPR, where initial skepticism eventually gave way to real enforcement. Australia and the U.S. are also watching closely.

For smaller publishers, the stakes go beyond content rights; this affects traffic, visibility, and ultimately survival. AI summaries built from your work, without meaningful attribution or click-through, undercut the very signals (like NavBoost) that have historically driven discoverability.

It’s too early to call it a turning point, but the pattern is familiar; and this time, the momentum of scrutiny feels different.

[goodoldweb]

Our role as webmasters/publishers should include informing and educating the public—highlighting how Google's misconduct directly impacts the prices consumers pay at the checkout. As more businesses are forced to shut down and advertising costs soar, Google continues to demand higher ad fees from publishers while offering little visibility in return.

Publishers, inform your readers and customers: 'We no longer recommend Google for search. Click here to learn why.'

Link to a strong article outlining the issue so your audience can understand what’s at stake. Let me know if you need help with writing that article. I'm happy to post here a template for such article if mods allow.

[ichthyous]

Unfortunately we are seeing a concerted effort across platforms to ignore copyright completely now in the hopes of tying up any current or future suits in the legal system for years, burying them in appeals and bribing politicians into taking stances beneficial to the tech companies and weakening copyright law.

The amount of investor money behind these platforms means that they can snub their noses at copyright infringement concerns. On top of that, you have Musk / DOGE literally trying to break into the US Copyright Office to take control of it because he intends to use the USCO copyright registrations to train Xai. Let that sink in for a second...he has so little fear of copyright infringement that he is literally trying to copy all the copyrighted data directly for his own personal use. The director of the USCO was dismissed because of a report critical of the theft of copyrighted works to train AI datasets. She has now sued to regain her position. Read here:

[tech.yahoo.com ]

Seeing how spineless and easily bought off politicians are when a little money is waved in their faces I fully expect copyright to come under assault, both in the courts and by the government. It will be up to the copyright holders to fight for their rights collectively or prepare to have it all used without any compensation whatsoever. That is already the status quo.

[Whitey]

@ichthyous and @goodoldweb – completely aligned with your points. What’s unfolding isn’t just Big Tech overstepping—it’s a coordinated effort to devalue copyright across platforms, delay accountability with legal muscle, and reshape policy behind closed doors.

Another article on The Verge also just reported that Shira Perlmutter, the Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, was fired just days after publishing a report questioning whether using copyrighted material to train AI constitutes “fair use.” Her report warned that AI outputs might replace original works in the market. She’s now suing for reinstatement, alleging political interference. Musk’s **xAI** has also been linked to attempts to use this data wholesale.
[theverge.com...]

This is already impacting how our communities work is treated, and what users end up seeing or paying for. As @goodoldweb suggests, "we need to start educating readers", not just about the theft, but about the "real-world consequences": rising costs, fewer choices, and a media ecosystem stripped of diversity and independence.

[Whitey]

TL;DNR:
Chegg is suing Google, not for copyright infringement, but for antitrust violations, arguing that AI Overviews misuse publisher content while abusing Google’s monopoly in search to suppress traffic and competition. This lawsuit connects copyright use with market power abuse, signaling broader legal pushback.

In more detail:

A new lawsuit from Chegg highlights how copyright and antitrust issues are converging in the age of AI search. While many of us have focused on Google’s AI Overviews scraping and repackaging content without attribution, Chegg takes it a step further. They argue that Google is leveraging its dominant market position to compel publishers into a one-sided deal: your content feeds Gemini, or you lose visibility.

This isn’t framed as a standard copyright complaint; it’s an antitrust case. Chegg claims the AI Overviews damage their business by diverting traffic and weakening the incentive to create content, which harms the broader digital economy. The strategy here is clever: copyright law protects the content, but antitrust law challenges the systemic abuse of power.

Full read here:
[linkedin.com...]

This could be a turning point. It ties AI content misuse to broader monopoly behavior. Thoughts?

[Micha]

I have a question: Why don’t we join forces and form one big, loud voice? That would get more attention than if we all keep fighting alone. It can’t go on like this. Google and others are destroying us to make money with our content, and we’ve been protesting against it for years without anything happening. A central contact point in different languages, informing and explaining, could make a difference (campaign work, basically).

[Whitey]

@Micha – You’re right to raise this now.

While webmasters have been sounding the alarm for years, the global protest against AI Overviews and abuse of market power is finally starting to take form:

TL;DNR:

•Legal pushback is escalating:

•Chegg (US) is suing Google over AI Overviews diverting traffic (antitrust).

•France has ordered Google to negotiate payment with publishers.

•EU Commission is investigating Overviews under copyright and competition law.

•News/Media Alliance (US) calls Overviews “theft.”

•Publishers are sidelined:
AI Overviews answer 17%+ of queries now without clicks or traffic returned. And opting out means opting out of Search.

•Google’s blind spot?
Overviews bypass user interaction, but Google’s NavBoost rankings depend on those signals (clicks, scrolls, engagement).
No clicks = no data = no feedback.

This could weaken the very system Google relies on to rank results. While webmasters may not be organized yet, these cracks are getting harder to ignore, and documenting them matters.

[goodoldweb]

Webmastrs, in my next two posts, I’ll include templates for you to use should you choose to do so. The first is designed to inform your customers or subscribers, and the second is intended for lobbying politicians or government bodies.

Feel free to edit, share, and use these templates in your websites, letters, or newsletters. You have my full permission.

[edited by: goodoldweb at 4:55 am (utc) on May 25, 2025]

[goodoldweb]

TEMPLATE 1 - FOR CUSTOMERS
----------------------------------------------------------

How Google’s Market Dominance Hurts Everyone But Google

Google is the undisputed giant of the search engine world, holding over ninety percent of global market share. While it may seem like just a convenient tool to find information, Google’s grip on search has far-reaching consequences — especially for consumers, small businesses, and webmasters.

At the heart of the problem is Google’s ability to control not just search results, but also the digital ecosystem that surrounds them. Over the years, Google has quietly shifted from being a gateway to the internet to becoming the destination itself. Instead of sending traffic to websites, Google increasingly answers queries right on the results page, using content lifted directly from publishers — often without permission or compensation.

This tactic, known as “zero-click search,” means users get the information they want without ever leaving Google. That might sound helpful, but it cuts off traffic and ad revenue for the very websites that create the content Google relies on. Webmasters invest time, money, and creativity into building useful resources, only to see Google display their work in snippets or use it to train its AI tools — all while keeping users within the Google ecosystem.

Meanwhile, Google’s control over search ads inflates prices for everyone. Because it dominates the search space, Google can dictate ad costs with minimal competition. As more businesses fight for visibility, they’re forced to bid higher on keywords. Those costs eventually trickle down to consumers, inflating prices on everything from services to online products.

But Google’s influence goes well beyond search. Its dominance in key products like Gmail, Chrome, and Android helps cement its power across the internet. Gmail is one of the most widely used email services in the world, giving Google deep insight into user behavior and interests. Chrome, the world’s most popular browser, funnels users to Google Search by default, while collecting mountains of data. And Android, which powers most smartphones globally, comes bundled with Google apps — often with settings that quietly steer people toward Google’s services, sometimes without even realizing it.

This creates a closed loop: the more people use Google’s products, the more data it gathers, the better it can fine-tune its search and ads, and the more businesses feel pressured to pay to be seen. New competitors, whether in search, browsers, email, or mobile platforms, face an uphill battle because Google’s ecosystem is so tightly integrated and dominant.

Even worse, businesses have little choice but to play along. With Google controlling the primary path to visibility, companies must buy ads or risk obscurity. Organic reach is harder than ever as Google’s own products and favored partners get top billing in results — often ahead of more relevant or local options.

The web was built on openness and competition. But today, that vision is fading. Webmasters lose traffic and revenue, businesses pay more to advertise, and consumers face higher prices — all while Google gets stronger. It’s time more people recognized the hidden costs of letting one company control so much of our digital lives.

[goodoldweb]

TEMPLATE 2 - FOR POLITICIANS
----------------------------------------------------------

Google’s Digital Monopoly: It’s Time for Governments to Step In

Google’s overwhelming control of the internet is no longer just a tech industry issue — it’s a threat to fair competition, digital innovation, and consumer choice. With over ninety percent of the global search market, and dominance in products like Gmail, Chrome, and Android, Google has become a gatekeeper to the web, dictating how people access information, how businesses are found, and what prices we all pay.

For years, Google has quietly expanded its power by blending its roles as search engine, ad platform, and content aggregator. Instead of directing users to websites, Google now often answers queries directly using content scraped from webmasters — cutting off those sites from the traffic and revenue they rely on. This “zero-click search” model strips creators of their fair share while keeping users trapped within Google’s own ecosystem.

Webmasters, small businesses, and publishers are struggling to stay afloat. Their content is mined and displayed by Google without meaningful credit or compensation. At the same time, businesses are forced to pay ever-increasing advertising costs just to stay visible — costs that eventually land on the shoulders of everyday consumers.

And it doesn’t stop at search. Gmail dominates email. Chrome is the world’s leading browser. Android powers the majority of smartphones. All of these products are deeply integrated and designed to nudge users back into Google’s services — reinforcing its monopoly with each click, tap, and search. This tight integration gives Google a massive advantage and makes it nearly impossible for new competitors to gain a foothold.

This is not just about business competition — it’s about fairness and the future of the open web. Left unchecked, Google’s behavior threatens the very foundations of a free and diverse internet.

That’s why it’s time for regulators and governments to act.

Antitrust laws were created to prevent exactly this kind of unchecked dominance. Just as past generations broke up monopolies in railroads, oil, and telecom, today’s authorities must address digital monopolies that operate with far less scrutiny but just as much impact.

Governments must demand transparency, enforce fair competition, and create meaningful limits on how data, content, and digital space can be controlled by a single company. Webmasters and independent businesses need protection, and users deserve real choice — not just the illusion of it.

The internet was built to be open and democratic. It should not be owned by one company. The longer we wait, the more power Google gains — and the harder it becomes to restore balance.

[Micha]

@goldoldweb thanks

@whitey Yes, it's picking up speed, but we small players don't play a role yet, and in my opinion, that has to change.

[Whitey]

Some may not be aware but "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)" was founded to defend civil liberties in the digital world, a mission that historically aligned with the interests of webmasters, small publishers, and digital entrepreneurs. As a globally respected voice, it has often stood up to government overreach and Big Tech abuses.

But in this recent piece: “U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report on AI Training Errs on Fair Use” [eff.org...] the EFF appears to side with mass AI data scraping, framing it as “fair use,” without addressing the devastating impact on small site owners whose content is being reused without consent, attribution, or compensation. The authors of the this article are noted on it with their contacts for direct communication.

That said, advocates for protection need to be aware of the arguments on both sides, notwithstanding the impacts and harm that necessary and inevitable innovation can bring. So a voice is needed to channel this sentiment, or else webmaster's "will be run over by a bus".

fyi - EDRI appears to be the main European advocate, but they seem silent on current AI Overviews, copywrite and monopoly issues. [edri.org...]

So, imo, @goodoldweb and @micha are absolutely right — the tide is turning, but small web publishers must play a visible role. If even the EFF is drifting toward positions that normalize exploitation, webmasters need to speak up, realign advocacy, and remind these orgs who built the open web they claim to defend. There is a human element to all of this.

[saladtosser]

So why don't we band together and start a class action? Figure out how much it will cost, obtain enough people to join so it doesn't break the bank of any one person and do something? A coalition of the willing? Else you know what will happen, big publishers will settle for major settlements and it will be considered done and dusted ignoring all small publishers!

[not2easy]

Mods reminder - Folks are free to band together for any effort, so long as your organizing is not on this site. It is covered in the Terms of Service agreement:

26. Claims of action, flames, and calls to action against any company or person will be removed.

[saladtosser]

@not2easy, would terms of service need looking at in any cases? I'm no genius (far from it) but if webmasters die off wouldn't WebmasterWorld die off?

If a stand started here, lead by the admins and site itself it would be preferable and gain more respect, trust and traction, especially when the site, site admins and site users are all equally at risk of becoming obsolete?

I understand in normal circumstances why you would have this term but these aren't normal circumstances and consequences of doing nothing affects this site probably more than most other sites on the web if webmasters are put to pastor! Just a genuine question I wont mention it again m8!