Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/5 <WJhonson(a)aol.com>om>:
In a message dated 9/5/2009 2:37:08 PM Pacific
Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)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