Stupid offline judges (Score: 2, Insightful) by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2015-10-20 20:21 (#R3FR) ...so it would be difficult for anyone to read any of the works in their entirety by repeatedly entering different search requests.Ok.... I say 'stupid' with a very bad conscience. The ruling shows a remarkable common sense. But difficult? I suppose it never occured to them that people could write a script, which does this automatically. And then automatically stitches the pieces together. Unless of course, if there are certain pages, which regardless of search terms are never shown. Re: Stupid offline judges (Score: 1) by email@example.com on 2015-10-22 15:43 (#R9X0) And just what does any of that have to do with copyright law? Re: Stupid offline judges (Score: 1) by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2015-10-22 16:57 (#RA4C) The judge argued that it is too difficult to exploit to get the full content of a book, so it does not do any significant harm to the copyright holders. This need not to be true, if no pages are exempt from appearing as search result. The judge might overestimate the difficulty for a specialized program to repeatedly request parts of a book with different search terms and automatically stitch the pieces together.