I agree, we shouldn't even have a government. But if a court is going to give Google a monopoly, then it should at least require the services to be offered non-discriminitively.
Also, there is nothing un-libertarian or un-voluntaryist about me complaining to a private company, Google, about its activities or legal proceedings. --- In [email protected], "Sasan Sadat-Sharifi" <sasan.sa...@...> wrote: > > Nic, > > Why should a private company be forced at gunpoint to provide a service to > everyone? Aren't there voluntary, non-coercive ways to resolve this matter? > Maybe you could make your own deal with book publishers and start your own > book search engine. > > ---Sasan > > > --- In [email protected], "Nicolas Leobold" <nleobold@> wrote: > > > > http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/index.html > > > > > > > > Google wrote about the Google Book Search legal settlement: > > > > "In addition to the institutional subscriptions and the free public access > > terminals, the agreement also creates opportunities for researchers to study > > the millions of volumes in the Book Search index. Academics will be able to > > apply through an institution to run computational queries through the index > > without actually reading individual books." > > > > > > > > > > > > Allowing only academics with institutional credentials to conduct full > > searches through the entire Google Books database denies equal access to > > information and knowledge to ordinary consumers who would also often benefit > > from complete searches. It is elitist and authoritarian and unjust. > > Hopefully the court rules against this exclusionary provision and opens > > complete search to all people. > > > > > > > > Nic Leobold > > > > nleobold@ > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
