Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> 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




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: