I haven't read the article yet, but I find the intro
"This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out the permission of Professor Hawking."
bad taste for a person carrying a degree granted by the public.
Besides, is my squid proxy already in violation of this?
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was referring to "reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document" (cf. my remark on the squid proxy). IMHO, prohibiting "distributing" or "hosting" this document is just ridiculous in a world where there is an internet and has nothing to do with "ownership of the products of his intellect".
Further, the "products of his intellect" are themselves a partially reproduced, edited, or translated versions of documents his has read previously, in all likelihoods. I thought, every scientist (in particular, Mr. Hawking) is aware of this and thus claiming "ownership" of this "product" seems unfair. Hence, I find it bad taste.
Of course, we can now start to argue what does "edit", "reproduce" or "document" mean.
I'm confused. Are you implying that studying at and receiving a qualification from a partially or wholly state-funded academic institution necessitates that you forgo any claim to private ownership of your written works and become a sort of intellectual serf to the greater public?
No, of course not. I said "bad taste", not "immoral" or "illegal".
I'd expect more humbleness from people of an academic institution, for the reasons state previously. Slamming the copyright notice into my face before I've even started to read the article, although technically and legally correct, does not qualify in my opinion.