|
On December 05 2011 10:45 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 10:30 heroyi wrote:On December 05 2011 10:23 Sufficiency wrote:
I really don't like this.... The government is basically saying "we don't care about people who produce contents." ...Switzerland’s findings are just the latest in a series of reports showing that the downloading of music and movies is far less harmful than the entertainment industry would have us believe. In July Douglas C. Merrill, formerly of Google and then EMI, one of the three main record labels, said in a keynote address that his research while at EMI showed that users of torrenting service LimeWire were among the best customers in the iTunes music store. Around the same time, Telepolis published a report (Google Translation) stating that users of the recently raided kino.to website tended to pay more at the box office than the average moviegoer. Meanwhile, another study conducted by Northwestern University (PDF) showed that users of peer-to-peer client software – i.e., BitTorrent users – bring in a substantial amount of money for the large ISPs. ^^OP left out some really nice bit of info here... it sounds like they are making substantial amount of money. REPOST :D So? Just because someone may be a long time shopper at Wal-Mart does not justify making it legal for them to steal a pack of gum, even a single time. This is an issue of property rights, not of how much the violation of property rights hurts the producer or how the violators may simultaneously support the producer.
irrelevant comparison is irrelevant
|
Pretty interesting. See how it works out.
|
It's interesting to me, to be honest, that most people defending corporations are americans or canadians, while most people defending copying files are european.
Myself, I am south american, and I have to say I OWN my life to piracy because it made me who I am. You guys wouldn't understand, because maybe you have access to all the pirated content anyways but for me and my people it is very different. All the movies, music and books I've had access through piracy changed my life, it gave me an international type of culture that makes me understand the world from a very different perspective and also thanks to that I can speak english fluently. I wouldn't know what would be of me without all my indie rock bands, George Orwell's 1984, and all the good movies I've seen through many many years of pirating. It is changing the youth in the third world, our culture is not limited by access to content like our parents was, that is a very powerful thing.
|
On December 05 2011 02:14 Sclol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 02:11 dinmsab wrote:On December 05 2011 02:03 Sclol wrote:
For those wondering... you could ALWAYS download everything that isnt illegal (like childpornography) but not upload it in Switzerland So basically that makes bittorrent illegal right? Yes it does
I am genuinely confused after reading this
If Switzerland's government considers it illegal to upload, why would they protect the downloading of this illegally uploaded content under law? Doesn't that serve to benefit the uploaders because they will be getting more hits to their websites, more ad revenue etc? Something seems off about that, if someone could explain their line of thinking I would appreciated it.
|
I wish the US announced cool laws like this, no the opposite.
|
On December 05 2011 05:05 Project Psycho wrote:
How can anyone be ok with this? this is the kind of thing that is destroying the industry's everyone on here loves, Movies, TV, Music, Video games etc. all of them are getting ripped apart due to piracy and for any country to be fine with that deserves to be bombed imo.
Wow. Really? Let's bomb people for there pirating policies, rofl.
|
On December 05 2011 13:09 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 02:14 Sclol wrote:On December 05 2011 02:11 dinmsab wrote:On December 05 2011 02:03 Sclol wrote:
For those wondering... you could ALWAYS download everything that isnt illegal (like childpornography) but not upload it in Switzerland So basically that makes bittorrent illegal right? Yes it does I am genuinely confused after reading this If Switzerland's government considers it illegal to upload, why would they protect the downloading of this illegally uploaded content under law? Doesn't that serve to benefit the uploaders because they will be getting more hits to their websites, more ad revenue etc? Something seems off about that, if someone could explain their line of thinking I would appreciated it.
The more traffic the more noticeable they are to the people who want to stop it.
|
I know where I am moving :D as for if this is good or bad I honestly have no idea.
|
brb moving to Switzerland.
|
Hey, so, out of curiosity ... Do we have any comments from people who are creators in the entertainment industries - people who might be/already have been affected by piracy of their products, or who have something to say about the concept of copyright in general?
|
On December 05 2011 13:47 khaydarin9 wrote:
Hey, so, out of curiosity ... Do we have any comments from people who are creators in the entertainment industries - people who might be/already have been affected by piracy of their products, or who have something to say about the concept of copyright in general?
Pretty much only comedians since they often release their dvds themselves and get money they actually need from those sales. Why would artists and shit complain? they have allready been paid a ridiculous ammount of money to be in the movie and gets nothing from sales of dvds.
|
Canada has the same laws, if I recall correctly.
Downloading is perfectly legal, as long as it's not illegal CONTENT. However, uploading is a no-no.
|
Interesting...
I'm not completely sold on the 'dowloaders spend more' argument quite yet though. There are so many overlapping things with downloading, tech savvyness and content consumption that I could see the study finding out very different results depending on the way the research was done. I'd like to see English version of the research documentation if that ever gets translated.
|
Well this is a step in the right direction. Stopping wasting resources on useless causes? Pay attention to this global government, please.
|
On December 05 2011 13:57 Hynda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 13:47 khaydarin9 wrote:
Hey, so, out of curiosity ... Do we have any comments from people who are creators in the entertainment industries - people who might be/already have been affected by piracy of their products, or who have something to say about the concept of copyright in general? Pretty much only comedians since they often release their dvds themselves and get money they actually need from those sales. Why would artists and shit complain? they have allready been paid a ridiculous ammount of money to be in the movie and gets nothing from sales of dvds.
Well, it's not just a royalties issue, it's also that in many creative industries, if a company invests a lot of money in producing a project (a film, an album, a book, a game), and that project doesn't pay itself back, then they are less likely to, and in less of a position to be able to, commission another project, especially in the same vein by the same people. So an actor who is paid $1 million to do a film that doesn't make any money, has negligible box office sales (regardless of whether people are just not watching it, or if they are watching it for free) may be seen by producers as a poor investment and not get another job - but also, for instance, all the other creative and technical people who work in the industry who may get less work if the studio doesn't make back its money and cuts back on its future productions.
|
On December 05 2011 12:11 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 10:45 OsoVega wrote:On December 05 2011 10:30 heroyi wrote:On December 05 2011 10:23 Sufficiency wrote:
I really don't like this.... The government is basically saying "we don't care about people who produce contents." ...Switzerland’s findings are just the latest in a series of reports showing that the downloading of music and movies is far less harmful than the entertainment industry would have us believe. In July Douglas C. Merrill, formerly of Google and then EMI, one of the three main record labels, said in a keynote address that his research while at EMI showed that users of torrenting service LimeWire were among the best customers in the iTunes music store. Around the same time, Telepolis published a report (Google Translation) stating that users of the recently raided kino.to website tended to pay more at the box office than the average moviegoer. Meanwhile, another study conducted by Northwestern University (PDF) showed that users of peer-to-peer client software – i.e., BitTorrent users – bring in a substantial amount of money for the large ISPs. ^^OP left out some really nice bit of info here... it sounds like they are making substantial amount of money. REPOST :D So? Just because someone may be a long time shopper at Wal-Mart does not justify making it legal for them to steal a pack of gum, even a single time. This is an issue of property rights, not of how much the violation of property rights hurts the producer or how the violators may simultaneously support the producer. Copyright isn't property. It's a monopoly granted by the state that can be revoked just as easily.
That is false. The subject of copyright is intellectual property. The value of the subjects of copyright does not derive from the physical recreation of those subjects, they come from the origination of the subject. A torrenter does not produce value by copying a movie, it is the creator of the movie who has created value. They are the producers. Owning what you produce is the essence of property rights.
A government does not grant copyright, like a gift or a favour, it merely secures it.
|
On December 05 2011 02:00 dmans wrote:Show nested quote +...Researchers found no change in amount of disposable income spent on music and movies...
This. Kudos to Swiss politicians for not caving to the industry and maintaining a measure of sanity. I've always wanted to tell the profs at my law school that they're full of shit when they say that downloading illegally is "stealing." Actual theft involves a deprivation. If I steal your bike, you no longer have one. If I download a movie, no one is deprived of that movie. And guess what: I'm still going to spend the disposable income I have on the things I like - movies and games. The cumulative result of all of this is that the industry is not deprived of any money, as the money people don't spend on buying movies instead gets put towards buying things like ps3s and actually going to the theatre - right back into the industry's pocket. The net result is only that people who love to watch movies get to watch more movies.
|
Wow. This is pretty awesome. It's an excellent precedent too.
|
Nearly as good as the Austria problem.
![[image loading]](http://i38.tinypic.com/zssbd1.jpg)
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On December 05 2011 14:54 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 12:11 hypercube wrote:On December 05 2011 10:45 OsoVega wrote:On December 05 2011 10:30 heroyi wrote:On December 05 2011 10:23 Sufficiency wrote:
I really don't like this.... The government is basically saying "we don't care about people who produce contents." ...Switzerland’s findings are just the latest in a series of reports showing that the downloading of music and movies is far less harmful than the entertainment industry would have us believe. In July Douglas C. Merrill, formerly of Google and then EMI, one of the three main record labels, said in a keynote address that his research while at EMI showed that users of torrenting service LimeWire were among the best customers in the iTunes music store. Around the same time, Telepolis published a report (Google Translation) stating that users of the recently raided kino.to website tended to pay more at the box office than the average moviegoer. Meanwhile, another study conducted by Northwestern University (PDF) showed that users of peer-to-peer client software – i.e., BitTorrent users – bring in a substantial amount of money for the large ISPs. ^^OP left out some really nice bit of info here... it sounds like they are making substantial amount of money. REPOST :D So? Just because someone may be a long time shopper at Wal-Mart does not justify making it legal for them to steal a pack of gum, even a single time. This is an issue of property rights, not of how much the violation of property rights hurts the producer or how the violators may simultaneously support the producer. Copyright isn't property. It's a monopoly granted by the state that can be revoked just as easily. That is false. The subject of copyright is intellectual property. The value of the subjects of copyright does not derive from the physical recreation of those subjects, they come from the origination of the subject. A torrenter does not produce value by copying a movie, it is the creator of the movie who has created value. They are the producers. Owning what you produce is the essence of property rights. A government does not grant copyright, like a gift or a favour, it merely secures it.
I can't speak for other countries, but the U.S. Constitution explicitly endorses the utilitarian theory of intellectual property (, in which grants of copyrights or patents are seen as government inducements for creative activity, and there are numerous aspects of both statutory schemes that reinforce it as the dominant policy basis for both IP regimes. In contrast, there is relatively little support for moral rights/personhood-based or Lockean labor-theoretic bases for copyrights or patents in the statutes, legislative history, or associated caselaw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
