The technology does not allow them to do this without sharing it with you as well. But that is ethically irrelevant.
(Of course, we also deserve a good search engine allowing us to remove paywalled sites and seo spam from our results.)
The technology does not allow them to do this without sharing it with you as well. But that is ethically irrelevant.
(Of course, we also deserve a good search engine allowing us to remove paywalled sites and seo spam from our results.)
It's actually everyone's business because this creates a web that is less usable for everyone. If publishers were willing to commit and make their paid content server-side for customers only, they would have a stronger case against infringers.
They provide users with an expectation of what information they will receive if they pay for the content.
The fact that this "glimpse" of the content pollutes your web searches is a search engine problem.
It would be trivial to filter sites with paywalled content. But Google refuses to let you do that. Hope someone else will come along and help with that.
We widely regard the above as unethical.
Adding content to a search engine literally says "you can come read this content!". That is the purpose of search engines. Even Google penalizes paywall behavior and will downrank them - which forces the paywall people to get more clever.
Sorry but don't abuse search engines and users to sell your content. Buy ads like a big boy.
If they don't like it they can not submit to search engines.
According to the law, someone did.
Just because something's available on request from a server does not mean it's up for grabs.
When you give the content out for free to the indexer, you have given a copy to the world. Google search is not your advertising machine - you can pay for that priviledge if you would care for it.
Though I do agree, the bait and switch aspect of finessing seo and such leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Glad google penalizes such behavior