In his post "A Basic Threat to the Web" Dana Blankenhorn carried a comment from Karl Auerbach,
a former ICANN governor
and what Dana calls a "certified "good guy" of Internet governance."  The comment originally appeared on Dave Farber’s list, and I excerpt it here:

I’ve become concerned with how search engine companies are making a
buck off of web-based works without letting the authors share in the
wealth.

I’ve looked at my web logs and noticed the intense degree to which
search engine companies dredge through my writings – which are
explicitly marked as copyrighted and published subject to a clearly
articulated license.

The search engine companies take my works and from those they create  derivative works.

The search engine companies don’t ask my permission. Rather they
presume that they have the right to create these derivative works
unless I create an explicit denial via a robots.txt file.

The search engine companies generate revenue by making use of the
derivative works they have created from my original works. I, as the
author and copyright owner of the underlying work, am not given any
share of that revenue stream.

Yes, I gain visibility because the search engines create means to find my writings.

Perhaps that would be a reasonable bargain to make – if the  opportunity to make such a bargain were actually presented…

I am increasingly coming to the opinion that some portion of the
revenues received by search engine companies should flow to the
creators and copyright holders of the original works that are indexed
via the derivative works made by the search engines.

I have to take serious issue with this line of thinking.  Here’s my thinking:

• I truly believe that anything posted online by its owner qualifies for "fair use."  As a web user you know that the search engines are there; if you don’t want your work to be found, shared, etc. then don’t post it.

  I understand the argument that the search engines are essentially making a presumptive deal by aggregating the content and then allowing content creators to opt out, but I disagree with that for the mere reason that by physically posting your content online you are taking the first step in making the deal.  If you don’t post it there’s nothing to aggregate.

• Search engines provide a service that is monetarily free to users on both sides of the equation, unless you’re utilizing paid search listings.  Check your web logs and figure out how many visitors came from search engines and most likely you’ll find it is the majority. 

  So you’re getting traffic/exposure that you didn’t have to pay a penny for. But nothing in life is free, so the "price" we pay is that we allow the search engines to use our content under the terms of fair use and let them figure out how to make money.  Without money they die. Without them the web dies, or at least atrophies.

• In his post Dana points out that if everyone takes the point of view that the search engines should share the revenue and if they don’t they’ll pull back their content, then the search engines will have nothing left to search and the afore mentioned atrophy will occur.  Personally I don’t see the business or creative masses being that shortsighted.

  Take traditional publishing companies.  Over the last 10 years they have been struggling with their business models, asking questions like "Should we put all of our content behind a secure site and charge access ala The Wall Street Journal?" or "If we make all our content free how do we make money?"  What they are finally figuring out is how to work with the web and not against it.  They are finding that magic mix of "free" content and "premium" content.  A prime example is what Anne Holland is doing over at MarketingSherpa (Full Disclosure: Anne used to be a client).

  Without the search engines these same publishers would be in trouble.  They’ve figured out that if they make a certain amount of content freely available then the search engines will help potential customers beat a path to their door.  It is up to them to figure out how to make those customers pay, and they are doing it increasingly well.

• Finally I have to say that the current environment provides content creators with an opportunity they couldn’t have dreamed of even 15 years ago.  I think the average writer of 15 years ago would have laughed uproariously at the complaint that someone had provided free exposure for her content, but damnit they didn’t pay me for it!  Back then if you weren’t published you weren’t read.  Now you can sign up for a free blog account, the search engines love you and some kid in India who may be the next great entrepreneur is reading your stuff.

  As Dana says, "I know, I know, we’d all like to be compensated for what we write. But
  that’s what business models are for. Not just advertising, but paid
  writing, speeches, consulting. Works for IBM."