First comment: "Interesting. These would be the same newspapers that once quoted my blog, without warning. This caused a traffic spike, and a hit to my hosting bill. I look forward to my forthcoming claim against The Times."
Because of course, it's not that the newspapers think any view of a webpage or usage of a headline is infringing, oh no. They just want this rule to apply to Their Stuff, which is Worth Protecting. Not to Your Stuff.
My favorite such case was when the Belgian newspapers sued Google for linking to their sites, and then when Google stopped doing it because they actually won that lawsuit, they came back begging to Google to include them again, once their traffic dropped significantly.
There was also this case reported by TorrentFreak (sorry couldn't find the link). Where this guy from a record label was making a huge deal about one of the bands he managed was being pirated to death. The band only had sold like 200 copies total, but according to his research, that same band had being downloaded illegally over 200k times. TorrentFreak dug into it, and after many emails and a long slapfight between TorrentFreak and the record guy. They found out that he was actually being fooled by those fake download scams. Where the website will say that anything you search for have thousands of downloads, just to make you download a malware instead. The record label refused to admit the mistake, went crazy in their own blog accusing TorrentFreak of being the root of all evil. But then when they got hold of the actual band member. They found they were extremely disappointed to find out the downloads were fake. For a few days this completely unknown band thought they were actually famous.
It really disappoints me that Google would relist those sites. I would have demanded the money spent in court fees as payment for relisting, and if they didn't want to pay it... Google's under no obligation to list any site.
While it's fun to be vindictive, google surely made money by listing ads for those sites, and was probably happy to put them back and get the ad revenue again.
Because of course, it's not that the newspapers think any view of a webpage or usage of a headline is infringing, oh no. They just want this rule to apply to Their Stuff, which is Worth Protecting. Not to Your Stuff.