Hi Christian,
Chris McBride

I don’t know of any fair use condition (they are explicit) that this could fall under — which fair use condition do you consider covers this use?

There is a material loss of revenue to the content producers due to the practice of deep linking (since the ad revenue attached to the searching/curating of their website ends up in the hands of a third party e.g. Google). They try to avoid/minimize that by asserting that by owning the intellectual property being accessed, they can set the terms of the license agreement. The fact that you don’t have to pay to access their licensed material doesn’t mean you don’t have to abide by their license. The counter-argument to that is that deep linking involves embedding just URL in the third party SW/site/etc, and that the URL in and of itself is not covered by the license attached to the intellect property itself. That’s my interpretation of how both sides view this and no, I am not a lawyer…

Just search for “deep linking” and “news aggregators” and you’ll find dozens of articles on the topic. And BTW google can avoid this issue in a way because they are big enough. They give anyone the option to not have their content deep linked (and thus only deep link companies that agree to it) — but then they don’t index it either. And not having google deep-link your articles is an offer few newspapers take them up on, given their size and the number of visitors that they bring in (most figure a little less money per google-initiated reader is worth it still given the sheer number of additional readers)

In short what I’m saying is that this issue is not about chatbots, it predates them by more than a decade (here’s a 2002 article about itfor example http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB102807155128762520).And it’s been a contentious one for a while. So they are not picking on JULIA…

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.