Adam, it’s already been copied and duplicated all over the internet and social media and the matter has been both cross-referenced and indeed referred to in the very first words of my post that opens this thread.
Atb
Thomas you terror, I am shocked you have breached such an important law. Had you not alerted me to this news I would have saved the £5 i spent on buying a copy. Therefore if you give me the £5 back as the rest of the magazine was shit I will consider retaining you as a friend.
Seriously have you ever heard such utter nonsense.
Adrian,
Not sure why this concept is difficult to understand.
The business that produced the content owns it, which makes sense as they incurred some expense in its creation. If someone wants to share it, they can simply take a minute to type a description and then include a link. People that want to see the article or list can click on the link. When this happens, the host website then has evidence of the interest in the article. Maybe people click on others while they are there. Or, better still, they click on an advertisement. Advertisers hope people do that - that's why they pay the publisher.
Sure, it's more convenient to just cut out and post. But that way, the content producer makes less money and perhaps has less incentive to produce more content like this.
Information that is disseminated on social media often links back to the producer - maybe even earning them more followers.