>> Not because the feature is gone but because they are daft enough to assume that they can sell this as an improvement to their users and anyone will believe it.
Imagine how users would feel if they said "We're making this change because people keep ripping off images via our search. Since the public can't be trusted to follow copyright law, we're not going to make it so easy to break."
I'm sure the public would eat that s* up and ask for seconds.
The issue is about closing a loophole. If it was framed that way people would still be upset, but not as upset in the same way as being treated like idiots.
Imagine how users would feel if they said "We're making this change because people keep ripping off images via our search. Since the public can't be trusted to follow copyright law, we're not going to make it so easy to break."
I'm sure the public would eat that s* up and ask for seconds.