Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/5 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 9/5/2009 2:37:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
Either Google or the publisher/author of the book you viewed. People get sued for bypassing DRM, why couldn't they be sued for bypassing restrictions on Google books?>>
Google suffers no damage from people in Namibia viewing a book through a proxy.
Ok, so it would be publisher or author, then.
Returning to the article at the top of the thread (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8237271.stm), a Google supporter is quoted as saying "We see access to knowledge as a civil right", language which would at least suggest support conditional on respect for the rights of others. As opposed, for example, to those m*r*ns and believers in free lunches who hang out on file-sharing sites.
A great thing about WP is that we are prepared to do the work required to provide the access to knowledge, without ripping off authors.
So, what exactly are we supposed to think of the suggestion that Google should settle this suit on the cheap by providiing access in some way globally restricted, in the situation that there will be rationing of access to the technically savvy who are prepared to disregard terms of service, in some parts of the world? "You can of course study here, but only (in some cases) by putting yourself in a false position, if you are unlucky enough not to be in a major market for web advertising we really care about." Say, isn't that the reaction of some search engines to compromise with the Great Firewall of China, just with "if you are unlucky enough not to be" replaced by "if you are unlucky enough to be"?
Treating knowledge-poor folk as poor relations. Nothing like it to warm the cockles of the heart.
Charles