Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 463

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

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan