> If the injunction really orders them not to read the books they have > purchased, that strikes me as wrong, but hey, we all know the law is an ass, > even in Canada. If I'd bought a book and got an injunction like this, I'd > still read it, I just wouldn't tell them ...and if we extend that line of reasoning just a bit further, it brings us to (what I think is) RMS' original point. How much of a right do we grant to our governments to declare arbitrary actions illegal, no matter how trivial or harmless? The cynic in me says that governments love having their citizens buy into a belief that they (the citizens) are guilty of something; people with something to hide are likely to keep their heads down and be good little sheep lest they be noticed and shorn. As the saying in Russia went, "nobody ever asks 'why' when the KGB takes them away." The KGB, of course, had a matching expression: "if we have the man, we'll make the case." If the government is allowed to control trivial aspects of people's lives, then they will do so. Not in all cases, but... oh, the "opportunities" that arise. Perhaps this case is not as black-and-white as it could be, but I surely do see it as a very steep and well-greased slippery slope - with its entry point just under a hidden trap door. Ben Okopnik Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette http://linuxgazette.net
I agree with his sentiments completely. Most people assume the government to be all knowing and always correct entity. What they forget is that the government is not an amorphous mass, it is made of people - who might have no clue. Anyone has just to look at the Indian government's blunderings in the IT LAW to learn how clueless it is.