On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: And how are they going to find out about it? Yes people get sued for bypassing DRM (*), but not many. (*) Maybe. Has anyone been successfully sued for merely *bypassing* DRM, and not trafficking in DRM bypassing devices? The very short list of DRM cases I know of are all trafficking cases.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Can't do it that way. "File sharers" allow anonymous individuals to connect to their computers, that's how they get caught. Or were suggesting that the book companies will just start randomly suing infants and grandmothers like the record companies have been alleged to have done? It is not likely that anyone would "steal" enough books in this Assuming Google, the proxy maintainer, and the ISP are willing to release the records, and/or some advanced traffic analysis becomes available (all unlikely), there's still the question as to what they'd charge them with. Copyright infringement, I suppose, but it's not even clear that this is valid (who makes the copies, Google, the downloader, neither, both?). Any computer trespass or similar charge would be between Google and the individual, the book company would likely not have standing to sue. Tortious interference? Maybe that would be the best charge. But fighting such a cross-jurisdictional case could get extremely expensive, especially if someone gets a high profile lawyer on their side (and if they plan on publicizing their lawsuit that's a good possibility). They could also try suing Google (again?). Not sure if the terms of the settlement requires Google to actually keep non-US people away or if it just requires them to kinda try to keep non-US people away. Oops, maybe you shouldn't have made such a claim before you checked whether or not it's correct.

Thomas Dalton wrote: 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