Indeed, the two are very different. Later on the author says this: >The point of Peter Baldwin’s fascinating and learned (and also repetitive and disorganized)

Indeed, the two are very different. Later on the author says this: >The point of Peter Baldwin’s fascinating and learned (and also repetitive and disorganized) “The Copyright Wars” (Princeton) is that the dispute between analog-era and digital-era notions of copyright is simply the latest installment of an argument that goes all the way back to the Statute of Anne. This is merely a way of linking to the book. At no point has anybody ever thought of this as 'theft' of the book, it is merely citing it as a reference. That the hyperlink makes this more convenient should please the original author. If the article had linked to the book maybe more would have been sold as the reader wouldn't need to go and work out to buy it for themselves.