Richard Stallman throws a fit trying to "make Canada respect human rights"

[Zoid]

Legal, schmegal. Possession is 9/10th´s of the law

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
Part of the terms of the copyright was availability on or after the 16th. Possessing them is just was illegal as possessing pirated movies, even if they didn't pirate them themselves.

This isn't a copyright issue. It's a contractual issue between the bookstore and the publisher, which the bookstore violated.

[Ninot]

I read the spoiler. I'll never read the book or any of the previous books. I know people who are waiting anxiously to get the book. Still dont think i'll let them know the plot, just cuz I think its too dumb to matter.

[St Leo]

Uh, the injunction forbid sharing the plot with other people, not reading the book. IMHO, it's in the public's general interest for the plot to remain secret until release date.

Yeah, the GPL forbids NDAs for beta releases, but I disagree with Stallman about this being a crucial human rights point.

I mean -- could any public good whatsoever be derived from the plot of the book being posted online before release? If you are waiting for reviews, you can wait a week little longer. Sheesh.:P

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by St Leo
Uh, the injunction forbid sharing the plot with other people, not reading the book. IMHO, it's in the public's general interest for the plot to remain secret until release date.

How on earth does that make sense?

[St Leo]

Well, spoilers suck.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't see how that equates to their being a "general public interest" in legally prohibiting people from making them. Free speech and all that jazz.

[C0ckney]

i don't have any problem with protecting both the publisher's effort and investment in this case, which is what the injunction does.

[Boris Godunov]

Do you think releasing plot spoilers is going to stop anyone from buying the book who was already planning on doing so? Highly doubt it.

Curtailing free speech to protect business interests is hardly my definition of protecting the public interest, either.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Do you think releasing plot spoilers is going to stop anyone from buying the book who was already planning on doing so? Highly doubt it.

Curtailing free speech to protect business interests is hardly my definition of protecting the public interest, either.

As you admit, the ruling does not affect profits one way or another. It protects the joy of reading, not the bottom line.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by St Leo
[q] Originally posted by Boris Godunov
As you admit, the ruling does not affect profits one way or another. It protects the joy of reading, not the bottom line.

But rulings/laws prohibiting free speech shouldn't be made unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so. Ergo no shouting "Fire" in a theater, no slander or libel, etc.

I don't see how people posting spoilers on a website is in any way damaging to the public interest that it should require legal injunctions. Such injunctions seem to me an improper cowtowing of the judiciary to business interests.

[Q Classic]

By the way, since I'm not in Canada anymore, I can reveal some plot points:

Harry Potter has a hex cast on him by Ron Weasley over an argument they have about the affections of Hermione Granger.

It promptly devolves into silvery things gushing out of wands and what not, solved only by Hermione's relieving their tension in private, three-way talks.

[Ninot]

I'll pay 50$(Cdn) to anyone who runs into a crowded bookstore and spoils the plot of Harry Potter to a crowd of people about to buy the book, if they can provide evidence of the act.

It wont be illegal cuz it'll be past the injunction date

[Boris Godunov]

Will you also cover medical expenses?

[Boris Godunov]

Better yet... I think I will go around bookstores and make people give me five dollars for me not to reveal the ending of the book to them. Far more lucrative venture!