If the printing shop actively helped in the photocopying and promoted that they would photocopy textbooks, then they are criminally liable. This is why most copy shops make you sign the stupid copyright form when you ask them to copy stuff for you.

Not saying that's what happened here (haven't read the court materials).

No, you go after the paper and ink companies. While we are at it, go after the ISP, sorry, highways authorities. After all the road facilitated your ability to photocopy. How about the electricity supplier?

The world has gone utterly mad.

Legally, yes, sometimes the source of the copying is in fact criminally culpable (the print shop), but usually only if they understood what was going on.

If a print shop in Los Angeles were to serve a high volume of student customers, and the print shop knew they were breaking the law by making copies of textbooks and selling them, the print shop would have a massive liability over its head. It would require proving that the print shop knew what the students were doing.

"It would require proving that the print shop knew what the students were doing"

Exactly. It would require proving. The article is arguing that it did not happen

Yes, that's what's at trial here. But in the post I replied to, I was taking issue with the insinuation that "OF COURSE that's what was happening here!" As if to imply online storage with easy download is inherently about piracy.