That shows a fundamental technical illiteracy - they either tell people where it is or are fair use essentially why they can't demand you pay a euro every time you say "Disney" because of copyright.

If I keep a list of every bookstore in town and what they carry (all publicly disclosable and I honor their requests to stop listing) and people visit it often so much so that I can make a profit by posting ads.

If some wanker expects me to pay him to list his bookstore because I am making money on billboards and he wants a cut, telling him to piss off, delisting him and then watching him go bankrupt is perfectly legal, moral, and just.

Except this is a book store pretty much everyone on the internet visits daily. And the books aren't photo copies but small synopses and blurbs.

If you want to go further you get the whole thing on the creators page, which, surprise, is ad-supported or paywalled. Big content creators basically want the ad revenue (which they get, in large, via portals like Google) and a payment from the portals for the service of getting them that ad-revenue.

Previous such legislation in Spain and Germany was a complete disaster. Spain is now without Google News and ad-revenue is down for many content creators. Germany content producers basically caved and gave Google banket permission to list their stuff.

This is a power move originating from the biggest publishers (which will be the only ones potentially profiting). The smaller outlets are actually against it.

I just can't imagine why it sounds like you are arguing against me while describing exactly the problem.

That Google can force a comply or die decision on content producers is exactly the problem.

I don't accept the "they are too big to be required to follow the law like everyone else" argument. I don't accept that Jane's bookstore has to follow the law but Google doesn't.