Remarkably balanced and insightful with broad coverage of relevant subject areas. A very scholarly work presented in language that is unusually clear to the general public for such an academic work. Includes concise commentary about social-historical context and factors leading to then (and essentially current) legal status of psychedelic drugs with minimal partisanship.

Interesting information though it understandably concentrates on institutional impact rather than general public impact and has disturbing biases. Doesn't address or inadequately addresses some of the major problems such as potential censorship, "begign neglect", privacy invasion of users, computer security compromises due to the single large targetable source of access, undermining of public domain, makes false assumptions about degree of access (various OS platforms, older & newer versions of software or security/privacy programs and settings may prohibit access from unknown number of computers which could access content if not monopolized by Google)and ignores the access denied by preventing downloading so they can only be read during times of internet access on computers or perhaps other devices with internet access though many people have limited or no internet access and many people share computers so the inability to read offline means they can only read while dedicating the internet connected computer/device to that use. Perhaps because of the context does not challenge/address whether the agreement serves the reasons the US Constitution provides power for Congress to make copyright protection("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"), whether this settlement is Constitutionally valid -- which I don't believe it can be though the courts and I disagree on the Constitutionally of many subjects [ :( ] and I'm not clear what role, if any, Congress has played in this. The Justice Department investigating whether the settlement violates antitrust laws (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/30... other information strongly suggests to me that the settlement was not reached by plaintiffs and defendants claiming to represent all effected classes necessary to negotiate rights, very specifically including the people of the US who certainly have legal standing regarding public domain rights.

Interesting and remarkably similar to current opinions in drug cases regarding hostility to defendants, hostility to religious freedom (excepting mainstream & some extremely marginalized groups)and acceptance of legislative claims without any regard to the truth of those claims. I believe this is the case that was appealed up to the Supreme Court which held the federal anti-marijuana law of that time was unconstitutional (tax stamp procedure necessarilly required self incrimination and it was not a true exercise of revenue power but a pretext, IIRC were the reasons)causing the US to be without any federal anti-marijuana law for an extremely brief period until Congress rushed to pass a new one.