Chapter Captain MKG: So this is the section that I think can benefit from the most updating. There have been numerous reports in recent weeks of Amazon and Google knowing too much about you; there was the whole "My TiVo? thinks I'm gay" thing. There has definitely been a tradeoff as move from a static advertising model (we sell X number copies of the paper, therefore X number people see your ad) to a more flexible model (we know what they're reading/buying/searching, we can target your ad for greatest impact) whereby more and more data about our alcohol purchasing habits in England (if you're Lessig) or viewing or purchasing habits (for the rest of us) are recorded and fed into valuable data. This is often a condition of our access (and, in the digital world, therefore copying) of online content - free subscriptions to read the NYT online etc. Can people give other & better examples?

Rebecca Giblin-Chen: What do you think about adding the example of adware? It is growing increasingly sophisicated and is present as the cost of using many "free" programs. Programs like Cydoor are believed to monitor your web usage etc and target you with specific ads based on that information. Such intrusive code is present on tens of millions of computers often without their owners knowledge (as permission to install is buried deep within the installation agreement).

MKG comment: So it has been a couple of years since I last read Cohen's paper, but my understanding was that it was about the cost of privacy/anonymity as a condition of use of IP protected items.  Eg., in order for you consumer to be able to see this program, find this content, buy this book, you must give us X amount of personal information.  So an purely adware company that does not connect to IP protection - do they come within this paradigm? Having said that, please, feel free to update based on your comments so we can see how they fit in within the overall chapter/part.