[Gllug] Uh oh, ministers consider "anti file-sharing laws"

[Martin A. Brooks]

Tethys wrote:
>> You seem hung on the idea that something physical has to be removed
>> for theft to have occured: this is obviously bollocks.
>>     
>
> From the Theft Act 1968 (http://tinyurl.com/36kx57):
>
> 	"Basic definition of theft: A person is guilty of theft
> 	if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
> 	another with the intention of permanently depriving the
> 	other of it."
>   

aka The Slashdot Argument. 


> Downloading software doesn't do that (depriving them of hypothetical
> future income doesn't count). Now while I don't approve of copyright
> infringement[1], just as I don't approve of theft, it's not hard to
> see that they are different things.
>   


Our moral compasses spin on different axis then, I fail to see how 
anyone could tell them apart.  This argumennt, in its purist intention, 
is sophistry.


> [1] With some exceptions. The illegality of format shifting for
>     personal use is blatantly ridiculous, and is an aspect of the
>     law that I happily ignore with no moral qualms whatsoever.
>   

And yet once more we agree. Crap.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug