The problem here is that our hidden assumptions about the way things work don't match up to how they actually work. It's because we've invented all these new t

The problem here is that our hidden assumptions about the way things work don't match up to how they actually work. It's because we've invented all these new technology concepts. Trying to make things easy on ourselves, we apply old analogies incorrectly to new situations. So if I "own" my email at GMail, somehow I feel put upon when somebody else comes along and reads it. We have centuries of examples of social norms to call upon when discussing concrete things like vehicles, houses, or personal effects. So if some official comes in without notice and takes my personal papers, not only is it possibly legally wrong, but it's wrong for a good reason and everybody knows it's wrong simply from using their common sense. We just naturally assume that these assumptions will hold true with new stuff, but they don't. Lawyer-types are defining things like electronically consuming a work of art or reading a book (in ebook format) in ways that don't match up to normality. The system is working as it has always worked -- government and special interests see an opportunity and they take it. Nature abhors a vacuum. So we're either going to need to educate a lot of people on what the new rules are, change the rules, or stop participating in technology the same way we are doing now. Otherwise we're going to keep getting results we don't expect, and it's just going to tick folks off even more. If you ask me, we're at the point where (at least in the U.S.) new constitutional amendments need to be considered regarding electronic anonymity, the relationship of computers to people (it's an extension of their mind, not a device to play things on), and the right to peaceably engage in international commerce as individuals without any government observation, taxation, or interference whatsoever. I doubt that will happen, though. But it's nice to dream.