Even if you got an answer to your question, how would it affect the the parents assertion?
Should the internet provider of the person reading the blog post get royalties for the book the person wrote? Should you be paid for your snarky question, as the generator of content?
If you break the distribution model of content producers there won't be any new content, and the old content will simply rot away.
Radio broke the distribution model of record disks.
YouTube broke the distribution model of old content producers.
People still make music and more content than ever before. People are not gonna suddenly stop generating knowledge because of Wikipedia. The prediction that "there won't be any new content" is hyperbolic and just plain wrong as demonstrated by history.
The interesting point here is: can a non-free site let Google crawl it in order to be searchable, while not allowing them to exploit their content otherwise?
I don't see any legal ground for such a limitation, so I can't imagine what would e.g. eBay or Walmart put in their suit if they tried to put such a limitation and then saw Google not honor it. Maybe someone with a legal background could comment.
On one hand, Google is in large part responsible for the idea that they’re just a free service and anyone can use them without payment, so they’ve trained users to in essence think of them as a non-profit utility which they’re obviously not.
On the other hand, how do you allocate Google’s value when no-one has ever paid for it or been asked to pay for it?
You can legislate Google into the ground (unlikely, but theoretically possible), but what would replace it? Any other similar service operating at their scale would need to make money too.
