Snape kills Trinity with Rosebud writes "Apparently famous authors don't like it if you try to make a buck using their imaginary property because J.K. Rowling is suing the publishers of the Harry Potter Lexicon for infringement. This should prove an interesting test case for fair use given that the lexicon contains mostly factual information about the series, not copies of the books' text. Of course, both sides seem a bit touchy about imaginary property rights, with Rowling's lawyers being miffed after being told to print it themselves when they asked for a paper copy of the lexicon's website, and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts."
Sadly, out of all the comments here, he's the only one who got it right. This is NOTHING like what we're seeing here in the US. There are quite a few important differences: - This is a public law that has been voted on by the legislature (UNLIKE anything we've seen here). - They are not saving the actual content, but just the connection data (eg. A talked with B). - The government is not the one who's saving this data. Individual providers are now required to keep the data for 6 months. That certainly limits the potential for abuse and it's different than the NSA installing 'secret' rooms in Telco buildings. - A warrant is still necessary to get access to the data. In short, this seems like a reasonable step to take. Unlike with the illegal wiretapping and all sorts of other clearly unconstitutional things we've seen around here, these measures only require providers to keep this data for 6 months. NOTHING else.