[OT]Books...

[Manfred Nowak]

John Reimer wrote:

> It appears you are defending Bob's "freedom" to post the link and
> disregarding the actual /effect/ of his post, which really is what
> is important here.  Wouldn't it be better to consider the effect
> than to baffle ourselves over the legality of the medium?

Please read my postings carefully. You might be able to recognize, that 
I state rules but I do not give any clue, that the prerequisites are 
fulfilled.

The problem here is, that wheenever Bob does not have the freedom to 
post the link, then nobody has the freedom to post the link. But the 
link is the first result returned by Google, when Google is feeded with 
the canonical search pattern. Now we might have the problem, that 
Google aids for breaching copy rights?

Effects are in the eyes of the observers. Lars Ivar required private 
posts to the assumed holder of the copy right. But how do one know, who 
the actual holder of the copyright is?  


> It's likely the authors would have to "buy" the book to give it away,
> so perhaps the readers should too? 

Are you distinguishing between buying the hardware, to which some 
content is bound and buying the right to know the content?

-manfred