This is a false equivalency.

Google used to act as a directory for the internet along with other web search services. In court, they argued that the content they scrapped wasn't easily accessible through the searches alone and had statistical proof that the search engine was helping bring people to more websites, not preventing them from going. At the time, they were right. This was the "good" era of Google, a different time period and company entirely.

Since then, Google has parsed even more data, made that data easily available in the google search results pages directly (avoiding link click-throughs), increased the number of services they provide to the degree that they have a conflict of interest on the data they collect and a vested interest in keeping people "on google" and off the other parts of the web, and participated in the same bullshit policies that OpenAI started with their Gemini project. Whatever win they had in the 2000s against book publishers, it could be argued that the rights they were "afforded" back in those days were contingent on them being good-faith participants and not competitors. OpenAI and "summary" models that fail to reference sources with direct links, make hugely inaccurate statements, and generate "infinite content" by mashing together letters in the worlds most complicated markov chain fit in this category.

It turns out, if you're afforded the rights to something on a technicality, it's actually pretty dumb to become brazen and assume that you can push these rights to the breaking point.