I think the archive of an article is more preservation of history and maintaining records of events which often disappear if not archived. The number of threads referencing articles which are defunct is always increasing. A book or movie or original content on the other hand will continue to hold its own commercial value so reproducing it is more akin to an actual loss for the license holder.

Definitely a grey area when that content is then used to train models though.

I would say 9 times out of 10 it's to get around the paywall and absolutely not some higher moralistic preservation of history.

And everything is a grey area, determining the line is the existential purpose of these court cases.

We've been here before with hyperlinking, then indexing and then linking with previews and the Canadian Facebook stuff but I think this has more standing.

If I buy a book, I get a work of literature. But if I buy a news subscription I get a series of facts riddled with advertisements. I accept the former, but I oppose the latter. I suspect I'm not the only one.

I don't fully understand what you're opposing.

is it?

1) that you paid for news

2) that it included ads

both are just the price you want to pay. There are various state news outlets that you're probably already paying for - npr, pbs, bbc, cncb depending on your region

That's why you don't pay for news?

There are browser extensions that block ads. They are called ad blockers.