So if you enable this, do you want to be punished and fined every time you quote a sentence from a movie or book somewhere?

Google helps you by actually giving you information you search without having to go through a SEOd webpage feeding tracking advertisers. You want to make copyright even more abusive and restrictive for what? Feeding scummy websites that exist to collect clicks for returning simple facts? We're not talking Wikipedia type content here.

There is a concept of fair use, which is both frustratingly and wisely vaguely defined.

The relevant part of the doctrine is: >The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Whether a website is scummy or not does not come into play. And frankly the stuff I'm seeing showing up in snippets in google search are very much wikipedia-type content (often exactly wikipedia-type content). And we're not talking snippets that provide context on the search result to enable determining whether this is the content that one is looking for, we're talking significant pieces of the content, often reformatted and presented in such a way that not clicking on the site is precisely the objective of the presentation.

The problem is that you need to fight for that fair use in the court with huge amounts of money.

When was the last time you've seen an individual or small company win a fair use case against YouTubes abusive algorithm? Because the created content gets taken down constantly even if its fair use. The algorithm doesn't care... and neither do giant copyright holding corporations that issue automated frivolous takedowns.

> So if you enable this, do you want to be punished and fined every time you quote a sentence from a movie or book somewhere?

If I was the 800 pound search engine throwing my weight around to quote a sentence from a movie or book, then yes, maybe I should be fined--or at least required to offer compensation.

I think there's a difference between a company with billions in revenue doing it versus "you".

> Google helps you by actually giving you information you search without having to go through a SEOd webpage feeding tracking advertisers.

You say this as if Google.com itself isn't the ultimate tracked web property for an advertising giant.

> If I was the 800 pound search engine throwing my weight around to quote a sentence from a movie or book, then yes, maybe I should be fined--or at least required to offer compensation.

Except that the (current American) law doesn't work that way - the 800 pound gorillas use their billions to pay lawyers to abuse small creators and outlets based on such creative interpretations of copyright laws. The gorillas are capable of fighting a copyright battle at court over details while they can just abuse the same right into some individuals bankrupcy.

Giving them even more power over your expression is incredibly harmful to society.

> do you want to be punished and fined every time you quote a sentence from a movie or book somewhere?

You can't see how me quoting a line from a movie and Google reproducing tracts of content verbatim might be of different type?