Hey, here's an idea – why doesn't Google charge the AP and newspapers for reporters using the Google search engine to research stories? There's a service called Nexus that does this for a hefty chunk of change – why should reporters get the same free ride that non-commercial users receive when they use Google? Sounds only fair to me. Google should track searches by IP location and send a nice monthly bill to AP, the NY Times, Newsweek, Time, Washington Post, all the network and local tv station newsrooms, etc., etc., for the use of their service. Let's see how fair these people think *that* is.

Idiots and morons, the lot of 'em.

Or how about the balance that's already in place...Google gets content for News/Search, and in exchange, the content creators get traffic from people that want to read the whole story since Google only provides excerpts!

It's the same reason they keep suing Google News rather than following the extremely simple method of excluding their content using robots.txt...they know they get a lot of traffic from Google and they don't want that to go away. But they want to get paid too.

"since when does one need to pay for fair use quoting?"

It's really not clear that what Google does with Google News is fair use quoting. Discussion of this tends to be a pure Fallacy Of Composition – someone will basically argue "If one small example is OK, then millions of such small examples in an arguably commercial context must be OK too". And that doesn't follow.

Google has LOST legal cases on this, e.g. _Copiepresse_.

There's also extensive material on why "But we're sending you TRAFFIC!!!" is a very poor deal for anyone but Google.

Copiepresse ruling was based off non-US laws.