[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

A closer parallel might be that instead of the Canadian tossing it, he puts a bunch of pot on a table inches from the border, puts a little sign on it saying "not legal in the US," and does nothing as the American repeatedly reaches across the border.

OK, and in that situation the Canadian is doing nothing wrong. In fact this is very close to the Voice of America situation.

Or: If the server distributing PD material was actually operating in America rather than Australia, and had a .au extension, what would be the difference? Just that the lawyers don't have to use an international stamp when sending a notice? From a practical perspective, the resulting level of access is identical.

It is a huge difference. They would be operating in the US, and therefore subject to US law.

If Canadian citizen is taken as a slave in the US, should Canada do nothing? After all, the Canadian slave is in the US, so US law applies.

I'm sure they would make lots of political efforts, but they would have no legal recourse.

I do agree there are situations where ethical concerns may override legal ones. Distributing ebooks where copyright is in dispute, well, just isn't one of them -- or at least, isn't anywhere near comparable to the ethical concerns relating to slavery.

I'm confused. Your argument so far has been that ethical concerns should override legal ones in this case, in that you accept that PG Australia are not breaking the law, but that they are ethically obliged to make an effort to accomodate US wishes.

Passivity does not necessarily relieve you of any and all responsibilities, especially once the host is explicitly asked to stop distributing the material freely in locations where it is not yet in PD.

If Saudi Arabia (or another religious state) explicitly asked PG or PGA to stop distributing material to their citizens which was illegal in their country due to offending against religious prescriptions, would PG and PGA be required to do so?

Again I do not believe a full take-down is required or justifiable (though it is often requested), but a disclaimer doesn't do it either.

The US could request whatever it wishes, but it is powerless, it cannot enforce its laws against a foreign entity in a foreign country. Again, your argument so far had been that ethically PGA should accommodate the request anyway.