"An unknown percentage of the rest still are protected by copyright, depending on whether it was renewed. Google's resumption of its scanning of copyrighted works comes amid heated debate in the library community over participation in the program."
It's not the % that are in copyright thats important, because the "Association of American Publishers" doesn't represent *copyright* holders, it represents a tiny subset, and not even its full membership.
"The UN no more represents me or my opinion than it represents the US and its opinion. The rest of the world is far from united behind this UN resolution. I for one think the US has done a fine job and I would much rather it be controlled in the US than in some wholly undemocratic institution where repressive governments would get a say in governance."
UN ITU is just a meeting place for government technical people. If they don't meet there under the UN, they'll meet at the London Hilton, or the Savoy but whereever they meet and whoever books the meeting room, it will be the same governments and the same technical people. It's not a *UN* resolution or *UN* control, since a UN is just a bunch of governments in a meeting.
You might not like some of the Governments sitting at the meeting table, but they're just one voice each in a big table, and some of them feel the same way about you! That system works in all other telecoms, including the wires that carry the internet, so why wouldn't it work for DNS?
This was about 1999 or 2000. He was in Germany, his ATM card was in Germany with him, his account was being debitted from ATMs in Thailand, 10 Euros or so a time. The bank refused to return the money (about 80 euros in total?) until he hired a solicitor, then they settled immediately.
So I think there are newer cases than 1992 that this comes from.
" I won't steal your thunder " Before you were stealing my intellectual property, now you're stealing my thunder? Thats *my* thunder you're taking their buddy.:)
More seriously: "bezier curves for issues of clarity, simplicity of implementation, ink conservation" Thats damn close to the drawing a graph example the judges based their thinking on. Steal away.
Imagine you have a plot twist of a television program themes, now that they can be patented, you can expect those TV guys to apply for patents. Previously that wouldn't get past the door and so didn't try, now the court is saying they can apply.
Same with photo compositions, painting themes, unusual musical chord twists, drawing styles, colour compositions... Note the limit on what is accepted as prior art, mean it will be next to impossible to refuse any patent request in any area now.
"I do not have numbers, but I am willing to take a guess the number of Business Method patents allowed to date is quite low."
Most of the software patents seem like business methods to me, 1 click ordering for example. There's little difference.
Why not give the ISP's hulking great big tax breaks so they can go explore for more IP addresses.
You could open up the IP address of the Department of National Parks, and let them look in there for more IP addresses - there's sure to be plenty in there because nobodies ever looked.
Failing that, you could do invade some other countries allocation of IP addresses and use those.
There's plenty of IP addresses in the world: using the USGS model, if you count the number of blocks where there is a 50% chance of finding 10 free IP address and average it with blocks where there is a 90% chance of finding 1 free IP, we won't run out until 2200 at the earliest and the number of IP addresses just tripled to 12 billion!
I know, they haven't found new IP addresses for the last couple of decades, but that's because of them dam Democrats refusal to look.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm deferring to your interpretation, because it creates a nice solution. What I'm complaining about the wording, since he can't choose how many prisoners he calls and recalls if you get to pick.
"Because k>n, he can completely destroy all the information the prisoners may try to send each other with the chalice, and there is obviously no way for the n'th prisoner to be called, to know that he is the last. Therefore the riddle is unsolvable in this situation, but the poster clearly states that there IS a solution!"...or the poster is incorrect.. or the poster recalls the wording incorrectly.. or its something dumb like "the doors are on the inside so to get to the cells the prisoners must have gone through the centre room so they've all been in there, so the first one he calls says 'yes'"....
I'm doing a test on this, if you report it through the proper email addresses it gets filtered, you get that 'we welcome your feedback' crap from their Google *bots* in customer relations. If you mention it on a discussion board that the programmers read it will get fixed, quote the response number.
For Google I've been doing the numbers, if you explain your comment or suggestion here, you get a much better response rate than their email addresses.
I think there's a fault (now that I'm caffinated I can tie my shoe laces too!). He doesn't need to keep calling them. The puzzle is that he only needs to call them the same arbitrary number of times. So he could call them only once each and that would defeat this.
It's a nice solution otherwise.
"The king will call the prisoners in any order he pleases, and he can call and recall each prisoner as many times as he wants, as many times in a row as he wants. The only rule the king has to obey is that eventually he has to call every prisoner in an arbitrary number of times. So maybe he will call the first prisoner in a million times before ever calling in the second prisoner twice, we just don't know. But eventually we may be certain that each prisoner will be called in ten times, or twenty times, or any number you choose. "
(based on an AC comment above and my bug fix to it)
They choose a watcher If the watcher is called and the cup is upside down he flips it right side up If anyone else is called and the cup is right side up they flip it to be upside down, unless they've done it previously in which case they leave it alone. When the watcher has flipped the cup n+k+1 times he says yes.
Since the King can only interfere k times, you have to out wait him, hence +k. The +1 is because the cup may not be right side up on first time.
Being quite lazy and uncoffied, it may be +-1, so I'd add +16 because I'm a programmer and do stuff like that. But that strategy would work.
The problem with that is King doesn't need to turn the challice himself, he only needs to call a prisoner (a non watcher) out to turn it over. Since he can call them an infinite number of times there is no K cap with that strategy.
"2) Everyone else, upon finding an upright chalice, turns it upside down. Otherwise, they leave it. They each must turn it over exactly 3k+1 times, where k is the number of times the king can move the chalice."
I've only had one coffee, so I'm not going to work the numbers, but if each non watcher only turns the challice right side up ONLY IF THEY HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY DONE SO. That small change may make your strategy work.
I've used it for year, its one of the best vector drawing applications available, easily the match for Illustrator.
You guys don't know how major this is, it used to be called Corel Xara, Corel bought the distribution rights to stop it killing Corel draw, then failed to market it.
I use it for splash screens, for ten second knockups for presentations, for creating logos, animated GIFs the lot.
"Net neutrality. As voice, video, and data rapidly converge, Congress is rewriting U.S. telecommunications laws and deregulating broadband connectivity, which is largely a good thing. But in a country where most citizens have only one or two viable broadband options, there are real dangers for the Internet: Should network operators be able to block their customers from reaching competing websites and services (such as Internet voice calls and video-on-demand)? Should they be able to speed up their own sites and services, while degrading those offered by competitors? Should an innovator with a new online service or application be forced to get permission from each broadband cable and DSL provider before rolling it out? Or, if that's not blunt enough for you, what's better: [a] Centralized control by network operators, or [b] free user choice on the decentralized, open, and astoundingly successful end-to-end Internet? (Hint: It's not [a].)"
I think you'll find thats exactly what they've been calling for. The UN committee will simply set the rules by which the root servers change with the actual root servers themselves in the control of many different countries.
So it will be the same as the telephone system works now, in theory a committee of UN member countries controls it, via the ITU. But the day to day running is by hundreds of telecoms companies which in some cases are government owned. No single country can wipe any other country off the telephone network.
So China can't wipe +1 numbers and remove the USA from the telephone system and USA can't wipe China from the the international telephone system either.
It should be a big improvement, its not a USA vs World issue, at the moment it only takes one hissy fit from Verisign's CEO and they can wipe China, (or cnn.com for that matter or any other USA site) off the net.
Re:Wrong argument - need a better solution
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 1
"Someone who is infringing copyright says it's not theft because the copyright holder still has the original material so they are doing no harm"
Stop right there, its a copyright violation, it is a *bad* thing, its just not *theft* which is a different, more serious, bad thing. So Equating it to 'doing no harm' then talking at length about how it is bad, isn't a valid argument. You only end up arguing against your own bad choice of analogy.
Put it this way, your post is like squishing puppies with hammers, now you might claim its not a bad thing, but read up on the studies that puppies, particularly the really cute ones feel pain.....
Re:This sort of thing...
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"1. the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song."
*Potential* income, and I would potentially own a Ferrari, if it wasn't for these meddling kids.
"2)Income is a thing...A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property".
When your copyright expires has the public domain stolen your intellectual property? "Intellectual property" the phrase is just a soundbite designed to confuse the legal constructs of patent, copyright and trademark with that of possession.
"Repeatedly, the same individuals will decry violations of the GPL ( copyright infringement), then decry a group of people enforcing their copyright."
This infringment is by a legal minor, a legal minor is a legal minor because children are not considered capable of making clear rational decisions. GPL violations are not done by legal minors because legal minors can't enter into the GPL contract. Even if it was the same person, the situations are clearly not the same.
"Let the whole world have it for free, it is already paid for"
That would be one hell of an idea, but perhaps advertising supported, they would need a platform to insert the appropriate Geo advert into the download on the fly. They already run adverts on the international services, so UK could have it ad free, rest of us have to watch our local market adverts. Either way I could watch BBC stuff instead of this Fox crap and they could get more money.
So I don't see how that can be true, especially since it would be sold rather than given away free (like Daily Show). But more to the point, I *can't* get BBC here, its not available, only BBC World is available, so its not competiting in many markets with itself. They could (at minimim) sell it to markets where they don't have distribution deals.
"1. The character of the use. Google will be using the works for primarily commercial purposes. Their aim is for users to visit their web site, search for snippets in these books, and hopefully either click on an ad or purchase the book from a link on their site. They are not providing criticism, commentary, newsreporting, or parody, which are all factors that weigh in favor of fair use."
No, but they will provide search and context analysis. Don't forget the alternative here, the book Guild could opt out of Google book search and create their own search with their own books and profit from their own adverts. That people will use Google is because its search analysis is considered to be good, so they certainly do add value to the work, which is what the "criticism, commentary, newsreporting, or parody" tests are all about, adding value.
"2.Since these books will be checked out from libraries" Recall the libraries scan right, Google doing the scanning is not checking them out, its simply scanning them as an agent of the library, there is a contract there. The question is whether it can go on to index the digital version.
"3. How much will be used...Google is planning to copy everything." How much of the music is used when I convert CD-> MP3, all of it. How much is used when a webcache caches my webpages? All of it. How much is backedup when I backup my disk? All of it. In each case these come under fair use, no new person gets to use the copy so its not a copy that can cause a loss of potential income. Google's computer may have a word index representation of the book, but if nobody can read it, it is the same principle.
"4. Net economic effect. This question asks, if this behavior was widespread, would the copyright holder suffer economic loss? Clearly, the answer is yes; if everybody went to the library and scanned in a complete copy of all the books, there would be a much smaller incentive to purchase them."
Again, nobody can read the copy in the Google index, what gain is there if you can check out a book and take an *unreadable* copy from which you can only view snippets among hundreds of others? As to whether appearing in Google search results is a benefit or a loss, is it a benefit or a loss to have extracts appear on Amazon with links to buy? How is the Google thing different?
All this is very moot. Since the Guild are aware of the system and could simply opt out. How much does it cost to opt out? A few pennies to run off a list of books. So they go to court and argue the potential damage of opt-out vs opt-in, and it is a value measured in pennies because thats what they weren't pepared to spend, and the example authors they take to court as part of the class action will automatically have been opted out so their 'damage' claim will be zero.
Balance that against the potential extra sales by having their books indexed and no judge will find in their favour.
"I would also be best served by robbing my friendly neighborhood bank. "
You copied a snippet from the text of my article, you sir, are a bank robber... except the analogy doesn't stand up, becauses its fair use to make snippets available and if you don't want it you can simply say so. You yourself just did it, are you a criminal now?
"They are keeping a full, OCR'd copy of the scanned book on servers that can be reached via the public Internet. " Not so, only a snippet can be and if you don't want snippets then you just have to say so.
"I am also offering an opt-out to every bank in the United States." Good for you, but offering snippets is not illegal and you keep quoting snippets from my post so you're aware of this.
"They lied?" Yes, they have a motive different from the stated one, it's a lie.
Slashdot Mirror
...the organisations taking Google to court?
"An unknown percentage of the rest still are protected by copyright, depending on whether it was renewed. Google's resumption of its scanning of copyrighted works comes amid heated debate in the library community over participation in the program."
It's not the % that are in copyright thats important, because the "Association of American Publishers" doesn't represent *copyright* holders, it represents a tiny subset, and not even its full membership.
Slighly off topic, but watch this video from SNCF about Ideas:
/
http://www.zippyvideos.com/3940632471977606/ideas
"we give it tools to exist somewhere else"
"rather than on a piece of paper"
Looks like SNCF taking a side swipe at how stupid patents have become.
"The UN no more represents me or my opinion than it represents the US and its opinion. The rest of the world is far from united behind this UN resolution. I for one think the US has done a fine job and I would much rather it be controlled in the US than in some wholly undemocratic institution where repressive governments would get a say in governance."
UN ITU is just a meeting place for government technical people. If they don't meet there under the UN, they'll meet at the London Hilton, or the Savoy but whereever they meet and whoever books the meeting room, it will be the same governments and the same technical people. It's not a *UN* resolution or *UN* control, since a UN is just a bunch of governments in a meeting.
You might not like some of the Governments sitting at the meeting table, but they're just one voice each in a big table, and some of them feel the same way about you!
That system works in all other telecoms, including the wires that carry the internet, so why wouldn't it work for DNS?
Where's one for Halogen?
This was about 1999 or 2000. He was in Germany, his ATM card was in Germany with him, his account was being debitted from ATMs in Thailand, 10 Euros or so a time. The bank refused to return the money (about 80 euros in total?) until he hired a solicitor, then they settled immediately.
So I think there are newer cases than 1992 that this comes from.
" I won't steal your thunder " Before you were stealing my intellectual property, now you're stealing my thunder? Thats *my* thunder you're taking their buddy. :)
h tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6767433.WKU.&OS=PN/6767433&RS=PN/ 6767433
More seriously:
"bezier curves for issues of clarity, simplicity of implementation, ink conservation"
Thats damn close to the drawing a graph example the judges based their thinking on. Steal away.
Only tangentially related to this, have you seen this patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/neta
For a solar still:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still
This company received a patent on the solar still in 2004:
http://www.solaqua.com/solstilbas.html
I think USA has almost no prior art test at all, and no non-obvious test, this is a train wreck just waiting to be patented.
Imagine you have a plot twist of a television program themes, now that they can be patented, you can expect those TV guys to apply for patents. Previously that wouldn't get past the door and so didn't try, now the court is saying they can apply.
Same with photo compositions, painting themes, unusual musical chord twists, drawing styles, colour compositions...
Note the limit on what is accepted as prior art, mean it will be next to impossible to refuse any patent request in any area now.
"I do not have numbers, but I am willing to take a guess the number of Business Method patents allowed to date is quite low."
Most of the software patents seem like business methods to me, 1 click ordering for example. There's little difference.
Why not give the ISP's hulking great big tax breaks so they can go explore for more IP addresses.
You could open up the IP address of the Department of National Parks, and let them look in there for more IP addresses - there's sure to be plenty in there because nobodies ever looked.
Failing that, you could do invade some other countries allocation of IP addresses and use those.
There's plenty of IP addresses in the world: using the USGS model, if you count the number of blocks where there is a 50% chance of finding 10 free IP address and average it with blocks where there is a 90% chance of finding 1 free IP, we won't run out until 2200 at the earliest and the number of IP addresses just tripled to 12 billion!
I know, they haven't found new IP addresses for the last couple of decades, but that's because of them dam Democrats refusal to look.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm deferring to your interpretation, because it creates a nice solution. What I'm complaining about the wording, since he can't choose how many prisoners he calls and recalls if you get to pick.
...or the poster is incorrect.. or the poster recalls the wording incorrectly.. or its something dumb like "the doors are on the inside so to get to the cells the prisoners must have gone through the centre room so they've all been in there, so the first one he calls says 'yes'"....
"Because k>n, he can completely destroy all the information the prisoners may try to send each other with the chalice, and there is obviously no way for the n'th prisoner to be called, to know that he is the last. Therefore the riddle is unsolvable in this situation, but the poster clearly states that there IS a solution!"
I'm doing a test on this, if you report it through the proper email addresses it gets filtered, you get that 'we welcome your feedback' crap from their Google *bots* in customer relations. If you mention it on a discussion board that the programmers read it will get fixed, quote the response number.
/dev/null ?"g gestions_-_d.html
So describe it now in response to a Google story.
Read "Suggestions ->
http://www.nigeljohnstone.com/archives/2005/10/su
(My blog, so its full of half assed ideas).
For Google I've been doing the numbers, if you explain your comment or suggestion here, you get a much better response rate than their email addresses.
"But eventually we may be certain that each prisoner will be called in ten times, or twenty times, or any number you choose. "
I can see what you mean, but only if I ignore this sentence:
"and he can call and recall each prisoner as many times as he wants"
I think there's a fault (now that I'm caffinated I can tie my shoe laces too!). He doesn't need to keep calling them. The puzzle is that he only needs to call them the same arbitrary number of times. So he could call them only once each and that would defeat this.
It's a nice solution otherwise.
"The king will call the prisoners in any order he pleases, and he can call and recall each prisoner as many times as he wants, as many times in a row as he wants. The only rule the king has to obey is that eventually he has to call every prisoner in an arbitrary number of times. So maybe he will call the first prisoner in a million times before ever calling in the second prisoner twice, we just don't know. But eventually we may be certain that each prisoner will be called in ten times, or twenty times, or any number you choose. "
"They each only flip it (2k+1) times."
(based on an AC comment above and my bug fix to it)
They choose a watcher
If the watcher is called and the cup is upside down he flips it right side up
If anyone else is called and the cup is right side up they flip it to be upside down, unless they've done it previously in which case they leave it alone.
When the watcher has flipped the cup n+k+1 times he says yes.
Since the King can only interfere k times, you have to out wait him, hence +k.
The +1 is because the cup may not be right side up on first time.
Being quite lazy and uncoffied, it may be +-1, so I'd add +16 because I'm a programmer and do stuff like that. But that strategy would work.
The problem with that is King doesn't need to turn the challice himself, he only needs to call a prisoner (a non watcher) out to turn it over. Since he can call them an infinite number of times there is no K cap with that strategy.
"2) Everyone else, upon finding an upright chalice, turns it upside down. Otherwise, they leave it. They each must turn it over exactly 3k+1 times, where k is the number of times the king can move the chalice."
I've only had one coffee, so I'm not going to work the numbers, but if each non watcher only turns the challice right side up ONLY IF THEY HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY DONE SO. That small change may make your strategy work.
I've used it for year, its one of the best vector drawing applications available, easily the match for Illustrator.
You guys don't know how major this is, it used to be called Corel Xara, Corel bought the distribution rights to stop it killing Corel draw, then failed to market it.
I use it for splash screens, for ten second knockups for presentations, for creating logos, animated GIFs the lot.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
"Net neutrality. As voice, video, and data rapidly converge, Congress is rewriting U.S. telecommunications laws and deregulating broadband connectivity, which is largely a good thing. But in a country where most citizens have only one or two viable broadband options, there are real dangers for the Internet: Should network operators be able to block their customers from reaching competing websites and services (such as Internet voice calls and video-on-demand)? Should they be able to speed up their own sites and services, while degrading those offered by competitors? Should an innovator with a new online service or application be forced to get permission from each broadband cable and DSL provider before rolling it out? Or, if that's not blunt enough for you, what's better: [a] Centralized control by network operators, or [b] free user choice on the decentralized, open, and astoundingly successful end-to-end Internet? (Hint: It's not [a].)"
I think you'll find thats exactly what they've been calling for. The UN committee will simply set the rules by which the root servers change with the actual root servers themselves in the control of many different countries.
So it will be the same as the telephone system works now, in theory a committee of UN member countries controls it, via the ITU. But the day to day running is by hundreds of telecoms companies which in some cases are government owned. No single country can wipe any other country off the telephone network.
So China can't wipe +1 numbers and remove the USA from the telephone system and USA can't wipe China from the the international telephone system either.
It should be a big improvement, its not a USA vs World issue, at the moment it only takes one hissy fit from Verisign's CEO and they can wipe China, (or cnn.com for that matter or any other USA site) off the net.
"Someone who is infringing copyright says it's not theft because the copyright holder still has the original material so they are doing no harm"
Stop right there, its a copyright violation, it is a *bad* thing, its just not *theft* which is a different, more serious, bad thing. So Equating it to 'doing no harm' then talking at length about how it is bad, isn't a valid argument. You only end up arguing against your own bad choice of analogy.
Put it this way, your post is like squishing puppies with hammers, now you might claim its not a bad thing, but read up on the studies that puppies, particularly the really cute ones feel pain.....
"1. the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song."
*Potential* income, and I would potentially own a Ferrari, if it wasn't for these meddling kids.
"2)Income is a thing...A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property".
When your copyright expires has the public domain stolen your intellectual property?
"Intellectual property" the phrase is just a soundbite designed to confuse the legal constructs of patent, copyright and trademark with that of possession.
"Repeatedly, the same individuals will decry violations of the GPL ( copyright infringement), then decry a group of people enforcing their copyright."
This infringment is by a legal minor, a legal minor is a legal minor because children are not considered capable of making clear rational decisions. GPL violations are not done by legal minors because legal minors can't enter into the GPL contract. Even if it was the same person, the situations are clearly not the same.
"Let the whole world have it for free, it is already paid for"
That would be one hell of an idea, but perhaps advertising supported, they would need a platform to insert the appropriate Geo advert into the download on the fly. They already run adverts on the international services, so UK could have it ad free, rest of us have to watch our local market adverts. Either way I could watch BBC stuff instead of this Fox crap and they could get more money.
"The BBC sells these shows to networks in other countries. They're not going to be interested unless they have exclusivity."
/ index.jhtml
o _air_in.html
I don't think thats true. You can watch Comedy Centrals The Daily Show on the Internet:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show
Yet its shown on CNN here and Comedy Channel and its coming to the UK soon:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/10/04/daily_show_t
So I don't see how that can be true, especially since it would be sold rather than given away free (like Daily Show). But more to the point, I *can't* get BBC here, its not available, only BBC World is available, so its not competiting in many markets with itself. They could (at minimim) sell it to markets where they don't have distribution deals.
I don't live in the UK, do they plan to let non UK people get (pay) for access? Anyone from the beeb know?
"1. The character of the use. Google will be using the works for primarily commercial purposes. Their aim is for users to visit their web site, search for snippets in these books, and hopefully either click on an ad or purchase the book from a link on their site. They are not providing criticism, commentary, newsreporting, or parody, which are all factors that weigh in favor of fair use."
No, but they will provide search and context analysis. Don't forget the alternative here, the book Guild could opt out of Google book search and create their own search with their own books and profit from their own adverts. That people will use Google is because its search analysis is considered to be good, so they certainly do add value to the work, which is what the "criticism, commentary, newsreporting, or parody" tests are all about, adding value.
"2.Since these books will be checked out from libraries"
Recall the libraries scan right, Google doing the scanning is not checking them out, its simply scanning them as an agent of the library, there is a contract there. The question is whether it can go on to index the digital version.
"3. How much will be used...Google is planning to copy everything."
How much of the music is used when I convert CD-> MP3, all of it.
How much is used when a webcache caches my webpages? All of it.
How much is backedup when I backup my disk? All of it.
In each case these come under fair use, no new person gets to use the copy so its not a copy that can cause a loss of potential income. Google's computer may have a word index representation of the book, but if nobody can read it, it is the same principle.
"4. Net economic effect. This question asks, if this behavior was widespread, would the copyright holder suffer economic loss? Clearly, the answer is yes; if everybody went to the library and scanned in a complete copy of all the books, there would be a much smaller incentive to purchase them."
Again, nobody can read the copy in the Google index, what gain is there if you can check out a book and take an *unreadable* copy from which you can only view snippets among hundreds of others? As to whether appearing in Google search results is a benefit or a loss, is it a benefit or a loss to have extracts appear on Amazon with links to buy? How is the Google thing different?
All this is very moot. Since the Guild are aware of the system and could simply opt out.
How much does it cost to opt out? A few pennies to run off a list of books. So they go to court and argue the potential damage of opt-out vs opt-in, and it is a value measured in pennies because thats what they weren't pepared to spend, and the example authors they take to court as part of the class action will automatically have been opted out so their 'damage' claim will be zero.
Balance that against the potential extra sales by having their books indexed and no judge will find in their favour.
"I would also be best served by robbing my friendly neighborhood bank. "
You copied a snippet from the text of my article, you sir, are a bank robber... except the analogy doesn't stand up, becauses its fair use to make snippets available and if you don't want it you can simply say so. You yourself just did it, are you a criminal now?
"They are keeping a full, OCR'd copy of the scanned book on servers that can be reached via the public Internet. "
Not so, only a snippet can be and if you don't want snippets then you just have to say so.
"I am also offering an opt-out to every bank in the United States."
Good for you, but offering snippets is not illegal and you keep quoting snippets from my post so you're aware of this.
"They lied?"
Yes, they have a motive different from the stated one, it's a lie.