Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 463

by CustooFintel (#38248018) Attached to: Swiss Gov't: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal

There's some interesting subsidiary questions, of course. Like 'what do you spend the money on instead'? At _this_ specific point the Swiss argument is on somewhat shaky ground; I'm not sure they sufficiently proved that the money would be spent on other entertainment products

But that "specific point" is the exact thing artor3 is talking about. The phrase he is questioning is, "...the copyright holders won't suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 463

by CustooFintel (#38247996) Attached to: Swiss Gov't: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal
I searched about a dozen dictionaries and none listed "...with the intention of permanently depriving them of that property." for "stealing". It was mostly variations on taking someone else's property "unlawfully", "wrongfully", or "with the intention of keeping it." I don't want to get into the philosophy of what it means to "take" something, but I think it's safe to say that if the government says it's unlawful to, say, copy a song, then it is by definition stealing, and if they say it's not unlawful, then it is by definition not stealing.

Vax Vobiscum

Working...