The government of Switzerland has issued a statement declaring that it will not take action to alter current copyright laws allowing the downloading of music and movies for personal use. The statement is the result of a lengthy study conducted by the Swiss government into the impact of so-called “piracy” on the entertainment industry.
The entertainment industry has been complaining in Switzerland – as in the US and elsewhere – that the unauthorized downloading of music and movies has harmed their business. The situation in Switzerland is somewhat unique, in that current copyright law considers the downloading of content for personal use as acceptable and legal. The entertainment industry has been lobbying the Swiss government to change the law. This study is the government’s response.
Despite the industry’s claims that downloading undermines their business, this study shows that the effect of unauthorized downloading on the industry’s bottom line is negligible. One key finding of the study is that downloaders spend as much if not more to acquire content legally as those who do not download. Researchers found no change in amount of disposable income spent on music and movies, despite the fact that roughly one third of Swiss people engage in some form of downloading. The government concluded, then, that no change to the current legal structure was necessary, and urged the entertainment industry to grow and adapt with the changes in technology and in consumer habits, rather than trying to suppress progress.
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.
sure feels good Switzerland is not Sweden and not Germany (especially not the Nazi version) edit: it will not take action to alter current copyright laws allowing the downloading of music and movies for personal use. it has always been like this nothing new
If only we swedes would have stood up for our old laws like Switzerland did So many studies and such yet hollywood is slowly winning over here.. EDIT: Sweden does have a law for "personal use" too, we get taxed for it instead which is a whole different matter. (We pay tax to a private organization... yep.)
On December 05 2011 02:04 Enki wrote: Sweden is looking like a better place to move to with each passing day to me. Their laws are just so sane compared to the U.S.
sweden isn't switzerland. and switzerland isn't sweden
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
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
The thing is Switzerland is a direct demacracy. We do have elected representatives but in the end people can allways force a referendum on any law. That's why lobbying the politics isn't as effectiv as in other countries.
On December 05 2011 02:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: U.S time for you to step uppp!
What world are you dreaming that you live in? The us wants to step up internet regulation not back down on it.
Swiss take this issue makes a lot of sense.
To be fair, Switzerland has a lot of advantages when it comes to this sort of legislation. Consider the nature of exactly what is being downloaded in Switzerland, how much of it is produced in a foreign country? It is quite easy to declare piracy legal when the harms associated with said piracy are being felt in another place entirely.
Question: The article mentions "movies and music" specifically at times, but other times uses more generic terms in stating that "current copyright law considers the downloading of content for personal use as acceptable and legal".
Basically - does this only apply to music and movies, or any digital entertainment product (such as software)?
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
Isn't torrenting the only way to get caught anyway? I thought downloading from filehosting sites was considered safe
Most of my piracy is through bittorent, so this wouldn't really help me, actually.
So after this change, what are the current Power Ranking on European countries? Seems like the "Sw" countries are quite high. I'm not getting a good vibe about Romania's performance though. But surely after the Greece money issue, they can't be last?
I work in Zurich and the cost of living over there is so mental that I am surprised people can afford to buy any music or videos at all... You look at the average wage and its like double what we have in the UK, but the cost of living feels about 4 times as much!
Someone said come to Romania, someone else said Romania is the toilet of Europe, someone else said Sieg heil, someone else said keep Sieg heil to Germans, someone else said we're talking about Switzerland, someone else said lolwut. Now you're caught up. Continue.
Haha, and I already have given myself a small headstart learning German (although I hear that the swiss speak with an accent that would make it difficult to understand it with classes based on German German).
I have to say that the Swiss seem to be the only nation on the planet with sane leaders....
When I have money to spare and a good game or film is released then I will buy it, I'll usually download it first for free to check it out tho.... to see if my money will be well spent. Most things I download I wouldn't bother buying, they aren't worth the money, so i'm not hurting anyones profit margins.
Well done to the Swiss, hopefully more nations will allow "for personal use" of legal materials downloaded "illegally" though I have little hope that this will happen anytime soon in the UK..... where is the best place to live in Switzerland?
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
Isn't torrenting the only way to get caught anyway? I thought downloading from filehosting sites was considered safe
It depends on the law. You can compare it to laws about drugs like marijuana. Most places have laws about distribution, while some places also have laws about possession. Downloading from a filehosting site instead of bittorrent protects you from the distribution charge, but not from the possession charge.
You can see this with emulators for video games since I believe in certain places it is illegal to own a downloaded game that you do not own in a legal way (Steam is downloaded but legal). In other words, if I buy a Nintendo 64 and a Super Mario 64, I can download an emulator and a copy of Mario 64 and it can be legal. If I download a copy of StarFox without the physical copy as well, then that is probably going to be illegal. Emulators themselves are, I believe, fine by themselves since they can't do anything without the games. So technically you could buy a Mario 64 without Nintendo system and still be fine legally (I believe, don't quote me on that).
In any case, the law can be complicated, and I can give you no definite answers since I am not too familiar with it as every state may or may not have different relevant laws. I imagine some states also have no laws about this, and the corresponding law could be a federal one.
On December 05 2011 03:14 danl9rm wrote: Making something legal doesn't make it right.
And making something illegal doesn't make it wrong. Both of those statements are true, but neither adds anything to the discussion, nor is a new argument presented. >_<
Seems like the smart thing to do, to actually look at the statistics. In the US the government just looks at the study, sees a good excuse, and then makes copyright laws stricter because the lobbyists want them to.
And here in the netherlands they will do the opposite thing, it was legal and now they are aiming to make it illegal.
Luckily they will do it in typical dutch way, like they way we condone softdrugs "Downloading to become illegal in the Netherlands, but no enforcement against downloaders" lol
Btw for people who confuse Sweden and Switzerland:
God, I really need to stop browsing General Thread. So many of these threads just make me sad to be an American TT. US law, litigation and policy seems so ass backwards on many issues in comparison to EU ;0
On December 05 2011 02:31 Zion9 wrote: Just come to Romania, we didnt even have/had a law for this
You are also the toilet of Europe.
And your a very intelligent, educated person. OH wait a second...
Sorry, maybe the metaphor went over your head, Romania isn't Europe's toilet but rather its waste dumping ground. This isn't even supposed to be insulting, it's a sad fact.
Fckin sweet government <3 at least someone isn't getting bought up by the lobbyists haha jkjk. But really that's a sick statement to read, makes me happy.
On December 05 2011 03:26 Zandar wrote: And here in the netherlands they will do the opposite thing, it was legal and now they are aiming to make it illegal.
They'll fail though, there's no majority for this plan in parliament.
But yeah, the Netherlands has the same "advantages" as Switzerland. And it'll probably stay that way for a while. Which is good, since I currently live in the Netherlands, but it's quite likely I'll have to move to Switzerland at some point in my future (don't mind too much, except that it'll be to the French speaking part ).
One thing to note is that while downloading is legal in the Netherlands, the actual sharing / uploading of movies/music is not legal. I think this might be similar in Switzerland. This means that torrenting could still be risky (if the copyright-holders choose to prosecute individual downloaders/uploaders) as you have to upload stuff in order to be able to download.
The reason that software is exempt from this law is that with software it's not about the files, but about the license you need to run the programs legally. When you download the software, you don't have the license to legally run it and you're in violation. With music/movies there is no separation between the files and the license.
On December 05 2011 03:31 cmen15 wrote: Fckin sweet government <3 at least someone isn't getting bought up by the lobbyists haha jkjk. But really that's a sick statement to read, makes me happy.
The gouvernement simply knows that the population would never accept a law that goes against downloading.
Smart move by Swiss gov seeing as how their country doesn't produce much that anyone would bother to pirate there will be only a few losses for the country's citizens.
The most amusing part of this thread is all the people praising Sweden lol. Its good that they didn't try and make personal downloading illegal, would have been basically impossible to enforce (see America rofl)
I feel bad for all the Swiss actors or singers making a break into the industry. Guess they won't be earning as much =/ Well it's ridiculous how much they pay for actors and singers anyways so its good lol
The government concluded, then, that no change to the current legal structure was necessary, and urged the entertainment industry to grow and adapt with the changes in technology and in consumer habits, rather than trying to suppress progress.
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
Isn't torrenting the only way to get caught anyway? I thought downloading from filehosting sites was considered safe
It depends on the law. You can compare it to laws about drugs like marijuana. Most places have laws about distribution, while some places also have laws about possession. Downloading from a filehosting site instead of bittorrent protects you from the distribution charge, but not from the possession charge.
You can see this with emulators for video games since I believe in certain places it is illegal to own a downloaded game that you do not own in a legal way (Steam is downloaded but legal). In other words, if I buy a Nintendo 64 and a Super Mario 64, I can download an emulator and a copy of Mario 64 and it can be legal. If I download a copy of StarFox without the physical copy as well, then that is probably going to be illegal. Emulators themselves are, I believe, fine by themselves since they can't do anything without the games. So technically you could buy a Mario 64 without Nintendo system and still be fine legally (I believe, don't quote me on that).
In any case, the law can be complicated, and I can give you no definite answers since I am not too familiar with it as every state may or may not have different relevant laws. I imagine some states also have no laws about this, and the corresponding law could be a federal one.
I know it's still illegal but what about being caught? Has the entertainment industry every successfully subpoenaed information from filehosting sites or ISPs about downloading?
On December 05 2011 02:02 Sclol wrote: sure feels good Switzerland is not Sweden and not Germany (especially not the Nazi version) edit: it will not take action to alter current copyright laws allowing the downloading of music and movies for personal use. it has always been like this nothing new
would you pease delete the nazi shit?
cool for the guys living in switzerland makes me kinda sad though
I wasn't aware Switzerland has an entertainment industry. Obviously, countries that import almost all their entertainment don't care that their citizens are stealing from foreign companies.
On December 05 2011 03:58 andrewlt wrote: I wasn't aware Switzerland has an entertainment industry. Obviously, countries that import almost all their entertainment don't care that their citizens are stealing from foreign companies.
Entertainment industry=/=entertainment export though...
On December 05 2011 03:26 Zandar wrote: And here in the netherlands they will do the opposite thing, it was legal and now they are aiming to make it illegal.
Luckily they will do it in typical dutch way, like they way we condone softdrugs "Downloading to become illegal in the Netherlands, but no enforcement against downloaders" lol
Btw for people who confuse Sweden and Switzerland:
Sweden: Abba, Vikings, Pippi Longstocking, Nils holgerson, knäckebröd Switzerland: Mountains, Heidy, Cuckoo clocks, Watches, Swiss knife, Tax heaven and Roger Federer
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
does this mean that torrenting (and not being a 0.0 ratio leech) is illegal?
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
does this mean that torrenting (and not being a 0.0 ratio leech) is illegal?
The government concluded, then, that no change to the current legal structure was necessary, and urged the entertainment industry to grow and adapt with the changes in technology and in consumer habits, rather than trying to suppress progress.
So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
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
does this mean that torrenting (and not being a 0.0 ratio leech) is illegal?
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
It's a little odd seeing people shedding tears for the poor little American entertainment industry. The same poor little entertainment industry that pulled in more money than the GDP of roughly half the countries in the world (individually, of course). There are other similar industries unmentioned, in an effort to keep this short.
"Through Sunday, August 1, movie distributors cumulatively grossed just over $6.7 billion at the domestic box office, according to Hollywood.com, putting the industry about 4.7 percent ahead of where it was at the same point last year."
"Coming off a record-breaking 2009, during which the MPAA says U.S. distributors took in a staggering $29.9 billion at theaters around the globe..." (The Wrap)
good decision. I read in a newspaper, that 30% of the swiss people are downloading music and movies and i guess it's the same everywhere else in first and second world countries. It's also for your "personal use" only, if you're selling it or giving it away you might do something illegal. Uploading is forbidden too. I'm not sure about software, but it might be more restrictive.
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
Copyright infringement IS stealing.
No it isn't. Didn't you read the post you quoted?
No really, it isn't. It might sound the same but it really isn't. Stealing removes a copy from the retailer, copyright infringement doesn't. Considering many pirates never would have bought the product the infringed it becomes even more complex.
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
Copyright infringement IS stealing.
It really isn't. But lack of revenue or infringement of a property right is experienced as such and experienced as akin to theft. How often I have to explain this even to people at work makes me sadface.
In addition, this goes for entire Europe not just Switzerland and it's purely about not altering current regulations instead of actually creating regulations to allow this.
On December 05 2011 02:22 Sclol wrote: while we are at it switzerland also has really high salaries, barcrafts, cups only for swiss people and nice women. Feel free to join us
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
IP laws have and always will be controversial. Patent laws etc. redefined "theft" - i.e. you are a victim not only because you lost some property, but because someone else is using an idea that you we're the first to define as "yours". Before that everyone had to take care of keeping their trade secrets themselves. I think governments shouldn't participate much in helping people get personal gain. It's "every man for himself" anyways in business world, no need for that kind of support.
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
Isn't torrenting the only way to get caught anyway? I thought downloading from filehosting sites was considered safe
It depends on the law. You can compare it to laws about drugs like marijuana. Most places have laws about distribution, while some places also have laws about possession. Downloading from a filehosting site instead of bittorrent protects you from the distribution charge, but not from the possession charge.
You can see this with emulators for video games since I believe in certain places it is illegal to own a downloaded game that you do not own in a legal way (Steam is downloaded but legal). In other words, if I buy a Nintendo 64 and a Super Mario 64, I can download an emulator and a copy of Mario 64 and it can be legal. If I download a copy of StarFox without the physical copy as well, then that is probably going to be illegal. Emulators themselves are, I believe, fine by themselves since they can't do anything without the games. So technically you could buy a Mario 64 without Nintendo system and still be fine legally (I believe, don't quote me on that).
In any case, the law can be complicated, and I can give you no definite answers since I am not too familiar with it as every state may or may not have different relevant laws. I imagine some states also have no laws about this, and the corresponding law could be a federal one.
I know it's still illegal but what about being caught? Has the entertainment industry every successfully subpoenaed information from filehosting sites or ISPs about downloading?
My point was that it isn't illegal unless it is illegal to possess pirated works. It is not always illegal to possess, although it is usually illegal to distribute. So sometimes you are in fact perfectly safe and legally ok to download from filehosting services, but it depends on where you live.
And yes, the entertainment industry has successfully subpoenaed information from filehosting sites and ISPs. It's all about whether or not the ISPs allow it, and where the filehosting site is located. Most ISPs will not allow it, however it also depends on the person asking. For example, I think if a University asks for that information, the ISP will usually give it since the University is the one paying for the connection, not the student. They will usually not give it if you are just a regular consumer because of the backlash and because they want to make it seem like your information is secure (even if it isn't).
As for filehosting sites, most of those are no longer based in the U.S. precisely due to being shut down and subpoenaed. The U.S. now attempts to work with foreign agencies to try to shut down foreign based websites that do filehosting. This is also why you see so many of these sites in countries like Spain and Switzerland, because the laws there are more in favor of the freedom to download and distribute (Spain especially has been clear about the ability to share culture as more important than profit making).
Oh why are you Swedish people so lucky. Oh whoops, I meant Switz . Seriously though, I just cringe every time I delve into the laws that Congress is trying to pass.
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
Copyright infringement IS stealing.
No it isn't. Didn't you read the post you quoted?
No really, it isn't. It might sound the same but it really isn't. Stealing removes a copy from the retailer, copyright infringement doesn't. Considering many pirates never would have bought the product the infringed it becomes even more complex.
Although I generally agree, that isn't a good argument for allowing it. The idea that the people who pirate would not have bought it has an easy response. They shouldn't have it in the first place. If I can't purchase a chair, that doesn't mean I should have one regardless; if I can't purchase a movie ticket, that doesn't mean I should be able to walk into the theater anyway. Thus, if I cannot purchase a song/movie/game, I shouldn't be able to listen to it/watch it/play it.
It's also not the same because physical products have a definite work to money ratio. I build a chair and then I charge you for the product and my time spent working on it. If I write a program that you can download, I only have to write it once, but does that mean I only have to charge one person for that program? If I write a book, does that mean I only have to charge one person for the story? The analogy does not really work with the inanimate. (I also realize books have a physical presence, and so of course you pay for the paper, but the majority of the cost is what the publisher thinks people will pay for the information on the paper, not the paper itself).
The better way to argue against it is the way Spain has done. The Spanish courts liken downloading and sharing as a way to spread culture and educate people. People hundreds of years ago would borrow and copy books and give them to each other for free as a way to share knowledge. Libraries eventually replaced individuals since they could do it more efficiently with a greater number of books, and now the Internet can do it instantaneously and globally. The Spanish courts have essentially correlated the Internet with what the poor were doing in Spain hundreds of years ago, and have given it approval as overall good for the culture, even if it is not good for the bottom line of the companies.
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
Copyright infringement IS stealing.
It really isn't. But lack of revenue or infringement of a property right is experienced as such and experienced as akin to theft. How often I have to explain this even to people at work makes me sadface.
In addition, this goes for entire Europe not just Switzerland and it's purely about not altering current regulations instead of actually creating regulations to allow this.
Please explain to me how it is not stealing, or maybe my definition of copyright infringement is different from yours. If I develop a music and you take my music without permission through online downloading whether to use it to make your own music or to simply listen to the music, how is this any different from you simply walking into my home and taking the music out of hands?
Props to Swiss government to standing up instead of bending to corrupted corporate will.
The government concluded, then, that no change to the current legal structure was necessary, and urged the entertainment industry to grow and adapt with the changes in technology and in consumer habits, rather than trying to suppress progress.
Learn to adapt! Finally someone tells them the truth :D
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
Copyright infringement IS stealing.
It really isn't. But lack of revenue or infringement of a property right is experienced as such and experienced as akin to theft. How often I have to explain this even to people at work makes me sadface.
In addition, this goes for entire Europe not just Switzerland and it's purely about not altering current regulations instead of actually creating regulations to allow this.
Please explain to me how it is not stealing, or maybe my definition of copyright infringement is different from yours. If I develop a music and you take my music without permission through online downloading whether to use it to make your own music or to simply listen to the music, how is this any different from you simply walking into my home and taking the music out of hands?
Added charge of trespassing. And snatching is bad too.
Big deal. Piracy has been legal in my home for about a decade now. I haven't even needed to ignore one of those "cease and desist" letters.
Anyway, well done Sweden. Sorry I mean Zealand. It sounds like you guys have a lot of sane laws over there, but I honestly don't know enough about the rest of your system to start packing my bags yet. Do the people support things like banning junk food and putting breathalyzers in all cars? Because I'm not looking for a bigger nanny state.
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
Copyright infringement IS stealing.
No it isn't. Didn't you read the post you quoted?
No really, it isn't. It might sound the same but it really isn't. Stealing removes a copy from the retailer, copyright infringement doesn't. Considering many pirates never would have bought the product the infringed it becomes even more complex.
Although I generally agree, that isn't a good argument for allowing it. The idea that the people who pirate would not have bought it has an easy response. They shouldn't have it in the first place. If I can't purchase a chair, that doesn't mean I should have one regardless; if I can't purchase a movie ticket, that doesn't mean I should be able to walk into the theater anyway. Thus, if I cannot purchase a song/movie/game, I shouldn't be able to listen to it/watch it/play it.
It's also not the same because physical products have a definite work to money ratio. I build a chair and then I charge you for the product and my time spent working on it. If I write a program that you can download, I only have to write it once, but does that mean I only have to charge one person for that program? If I write a book, does that mean I only have to charge one person for the story? The analogy does not really work with the inanimate. (I also realize books have a physical presence, and so of course you pay for the paper, but the majority of the cost is what the publisher thinks people will pay for the information on the paper, not the paper itself).
The better way to argue against it is the way Spain has done. The Spanish courts liken downloading and sharing as a way to spread culture and educate people. People hundreds of years ago would borrow and copy books and give them to each other for free as a way to share knowledge. Libraries eventually replaced individuals since they could do it more efficiently with a greater number of books, and now the Internet can do it instantaneously and globally. The Spanish courts have essentially correlated the Internet with what the poor were doing in Spain hundreds of years ago, and have given it approval as overall good for the culture, even if it is not good for the bottom line of the companies.
Ty for formalizing this post, so i didn't have to write a follow-up myself. :D
If you're into entertainment industry because you like to create, you're in the good. If you are there because you like to make money, you are on your own. You might help the industry with your actions, but you aren't actually essential to improving culture. Culture doesn't need help spreading and it's even arguable that mass media is detrimental to culture.
EDIT: P.S. Internet has made any copyright claims lost cause anyways imo. I just don't want to see public money everywhere used to defend people who are too stupid to have realized it.
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.
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.
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.
What? 28 Days Later sold 10,000 less DVDs? Fucking kill them all. Switzerland will run red with the blood of these traitorous swedes. Set the country on fire, damn it. They don't deserve life!
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
Copyright infringement IS stealing.
It really isn't. But lack of revenue or infringement of a property right is experienced as such and experienced as akin to theft. How often I have to explain this even to people at work makes me sadface.
In addition, this goes for entire Europe not just Switzerland and it's purely about not altering current regulations instead of actually creating regulations to allow this.
Please explain to me how it is not stealing, or maybe my definition of copyright infringement is different from yours. If I develop a music and you take my music without permission through online downloading whether to use it to make your own music or to simply listen to the music, how is this any different from you simply walking into my home and taking the music out of hands?
Because when I take something out of your hands, you are losing something. You aren't losing anything from duplication of data.
You can't argue that you are losing money from being unable to enforce artificially high prices through artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity perverts the market price. If you want to argue that it's impossible for people to make music without selling their CD's, which is obviously a falsehood to begin with, and if you think it's really necessary as a society that we fund the production of music, then maybe you should support public subsidizing of the music industry instead of supporting the destruction of a product from the marketplace.
On December 05 2011 04:21 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: So this government is essentially saying stealing is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt your bottom line. What's next are they going to legalize shop lifting in clothing stores as long as you only take one item of the rack? Or maybe they will legalize auto theft as long as you steal a car worth under $500. This is seriously the dumbest fuking law I have ever heard. Herp derp Switzerland.
User was warned for this post
Stealing and Copyright Infringement are two completely different things.
Copyright infringement IS stealing.
It really isn't. But lack of revenue or infringement of a property right is experienced as such and experienced as akin to theft. How often I have to explain this even to people at work makes me sadface.
In addition, this goes for entire Europe not just Switzerland and it's purely about not altering current regulations instead of actually creating regulations to allow this.
Please explain to me how it is not stealing, or maybe my definition of copyright infringement is different from yours. If I develop a music and you take my music without permission through online downloading whether to use it to make your own music or to simply listen to the music, how is this any different from you simply walking into my home and taking the music out of hands?
correct me if i'm wrong, but copyright infringement implies taking credit for the work, no? if i downloaded nicki minaj's latest hit and told everyone that i produced it, then i would be breaking copyright laws. however, simply having the song, by whatever means i got it, does not give me credit for creating it.
stealing is another issue. is it stealing if someone did actually buy the track and then just shared it with the world? people can do that with physical cd's as well, but it's just much easier to do with the internet because you don't even need to know the person for them to decide to share it with you. whether that is right or wrong, i will not say. but i'm just stating what i believe to be facts.
On December 05 2011 05:11 KoBlades wrote: haha i didnt know that so many people mistook switzerland for sweden, always thought that that situation was unique for Austria and Australia..
Wait, there are actually people who confuse Austria and Australia? That's sad.
At least Sweden and Switzerland are on the same continent.
i guess this is just one more reason why blizzard and other companies are requiring people to login in to their shitty online servers to play games. combats illegal and legal piracy. i am not sure why a country would do this, but apparently it is has been this way for awhile. isnt switzerland the country that is known for hiding assets as well, including nazi gold? quite a reputation they are building for themselves. its like tortuga from pirates of the caribbean.
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.
No, because the entertainment industry (THE DISNEY COMPANY) are quite frankly morally bankrupt. In the United States, the Founding Fathers originally set a 14 year limit on copyrights with the idea that anyone who made something should have some amount of time to make a profit from their creativity. Essentially, they wanted to encourage people to experiment and create. They set a limit to 14 years because they also wanted to people to continue creating, not just do one thing and then rest on their laurels for the rest of their lives.
The Disney Company has been constantly lobbying the government to increase this limit, and it is now somewhere around 90 years after the author is dead. That is ridiculous and contrary to the spirit of the law. Not only that, but because corporations create most products instead of people (something the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen), the author's death becomes much murkier in a legal setting. After all, Steven Spielberg did not create E.T. or Jaws alone, he had an enormous team of editors, actors, camera men, sound engineers, etc. working on the film. Who is the author in this scenario? Is it the main director or the company? It is very complicated.
Regardless, the Internet negates whatever argument we have on what the correct amount of time to have a copyright is anyway. Whether it be 100 years or 14 years, the instantaneous nature of the Internet negates that time. What companies should be doing is figuring out ways to make money from creative works that will sustain them in the thriving future, not the dying present.
Musicians are already ok with this since they make most of their money from concerts, not from CD or Song sales, and they always have. Very few musicians make the majority of their money from CD and song sales since the Record companies get the lion's share of that profit. That's why bands go on Tour so frequently (not the only reason, but the monetary incentive is fairly substantial). Obviously movie and book publishers do not go on tours, and less and less people go to the movies. Despite what you might think Avatar was not the most seen movie of all time. Although more people may have seen it, a much smaller percentage of the movie going populace saw it than the one that saw Gone with the Wind. And most movies are not Avatar anyway, so the percentage of the movie going public is going down substantially.
That leaves DVD sales (or Blu-Ray) which pirating obviously cuts in to. Pirating is also only going to get worse when you consider that though the majority of people do not pirate, the majority of people are also probably old and do not spend a lot of time on a computer. Most moms in their 40s barely know how to work one, let alone find a website like the now dead NinjaVideo or something like PirateBay or Isohunt. As the current generation of pirates ages, the number of people pirating will grow. This means that what these companies should be doing is figuring out ways to give pirates an incentive to pay, or to create alternative models for profit generation.
And no, this is not going to kill the industry since people will always find ways to create. There are many wonderful movies being created online through the use of either donations, or ad revenue models, and because the technology to create special effects is so cheap nowadays, they do a remarkable job. FreddieW's 3-5 minute shorts look better than half of the movies in the theater.
On December 05 2011 05:11 KoBlades wrote: haha i didnt know that so many people mistook switzerland for sweden, always thought that that situation was unique for Austria and Australia..
Be glad, I live in the Netherlands, for us it's simple, it's Nederland, we are Nederlanders and we speak nederlands
Now in English, I come from Holland, we are Dutch and speak dutch.
On December 05 2011 05:11 KoBlades wrote: haha i didnt know that so many people mistook switzerland for sweden, always thought that that situation was unique for Austria and Australia..
Be glad, I live in the Netherlands, for us it's simple, it's Nederland, we are Nederlanders and we speak nederlands
Now in English, I come from Holland, we are Dutch and speak dutch.
i thought in english its: From the land of Shrooms, be a drug addict speak scandinavian
On December 05 2011 05:11 KoBlades wrote: haha i didnt know that so many people mistook switzerland for sweden, always thought that that situation was unique for Austria and Australia..
Be glad, I live in the Netherlands, for us it's simple, it's Nederland, we are Nederlanders and we speak nederlands
Now in English, I come from Holland, we are Dutch and speak dutch.
i thought in english its: From the land of Shrooms, be a drug addict speak scandinavian
On December 05 2011 05:11 KoBlades wrote: haha i didnt know that so many people mistook switzerland for sweden, always thought that that situation was unique for Austria and Australia..
Be glad, I live in the Netherlands, for us it's simple, it's Nederland, we are Nederlanders and we speak nederlands
Now in English, I come from Holland, we are Dutch and speak dutch.
i thought in english its: From the land of Shrooms, be a drug addict speak scandinavian
thats american. but can we stop with the country bashing yes please?
btw i once received a packet which went to Swaziland first and came a month late to Switzerland. lol
On December 05 2011 05:11 KoBlades wrote: haha i didnt know that so many people mistook switzerland for sweden, always thought that that situation was unique for Austria and Australia..
Be glad, I live in the Netherlands, for us it's simple, it's Nederland, we are Nederlanders and we speak nederlands
Now in English, I come from Holland, we are Dutch and speak dutch.
Here you live in Holandia, are holender and speak holenderski. Of course, some more educated people may recognize you as Królestwo Niderlandów (Netherlands Kingdom) and that you speak niderlandzki (Netherland language) and fryzyjski (Frisian).
If you steal something (like a car), you essentially take it away from someone. If you download something "illegaly", you don't take it away from anyone except maybe the revenue. Now Switzerland made a study that shows that "illegal" downloads do not take away any revenue at all (which is in my opinion way more interesting than a country NOT changing it laws.)
On December 05 2011 05:11 KoBlades wrote: haha i didnt know that so many people mistook switzerland for sweden, always thought that that situation was unique for Austria and Australia..
Be glad, I live in the Netherlands, for us it's simple, it's Nederland, we are Nederlanders and we speak nederlands
Now in English, I come from Holland, we are Dutch and speak dutch.
Here you live in Holandia, are holender and speak holenderski. Of course, some more educated people may recognize you as Królestwo Niderlandów (Netherlands Kingdom) and that you speak niderlandzki (Netherland language) and fryzyjski (Frisian).
The Gaiman video is not a bad video, but you have to remember that not every author is Neil Gaiman. I'm not saying that his conclusion is wrong, because it isn't. It's been proven time and time again that allowing people to pirate will most likely increase sales. But most of the things being pirated are things people want anyway. And things that Neil Gaiman creates are tactile anyway (like books), whereas a TV show will have much more difficulty under this model. Providing Lost for free to people in Russia will most likely not increase sales of Lost DVDs.
FYI this law has allways been like this or atleast for the past few years,so to all the ppl saying:"I wonder how this is going to turn out" I don't think it will change a lot
People can argue all they want about if it is wrong or right, if it's stealing or not, they can add all laws they want to protect present intellectual proprieties, add this or that fine or sanction etc.. but the fact is intellectual property needs to be redefined, if not, reality will simply bury it and move on.
..patenting, copyright etc.. are antiquated and counter productive concepts that are in dire need of revision, if not extinction. The very term "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. It is an artificial construction that today hinders the evolution of ideas and progress far more than any of its proposed benefits. It has gone as far as people patenting naturally occurring genes!?! lol.. Imagine if the chemists of our past, upon discovering how to make water or oxygen, or upon discovering the molecular composition of water or oxygen had tried to patent these compounds! If I were a young man today, and not my cynical old self too tired or too comfortable to care, I'd probably be a hard core activist against all this sort of shit going on today.
As for piracy it can not be stopped or limited in todays world; on the other side the smart ones are fighting a battle for information control not piracy and the dumb ones are just plain retarded coming up with absurd laws (like arresting people taking photos inside a cinema). Worst are those with more sinister interests use intellectual property laws and anti-piracy campaigns to achieve other goals beyond the control of information..
A series of videos that dwels decently into the subject: + Show Spoiler +
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
On December 05 2011 02:04 Enki wrote: Sweden is looking like a better place to move to with each passing day to me. Their laws are just so sane compared to the U.S.
sweden isn't switzerland. and switzerland isn't sweden
On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote: Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there?
AFAIK There aren't many studies showing that piracy is actually hurting anything, industry figures keep counting everything downloaded as a lost sale which simply isn't true. You also have to actively seek pirated content, because it isn't advertised anywhere, which means you are a lot more interested in what you are getting. You can also listen to the songs as many times as you want on youtube and my untrained brain can't see much difference between that and listening to the same song on my mp3 player. One is lighter on the bandwith and that's about it.
Active interaction with the consumer and abolishing any state borders would work much better for any entertainment industry. I WANT something like Steam for music, with all the deals and reasonably priced stuff all concentrated into a single place, but all I have in my country is iTunes and I really hate Apple.
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there?
I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet.
Doesn't the argument essentially go: "if someone can't make money selling their product then they won't invest the time or resources to create it." It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about cancer drugs or music, the argument is the same.
That doesn't mean I agree with the argument. I very clearly stated I was playing devil's advocate, but I'm used to being misread
That particular argument on "suppresing progress" oh man... But I really do think the entertainment industry has to adapt regardless. Piracy is huge, and somewhat comparable to the war on drugs. There's no real way to fight piracy unless you completely censor the internet.
Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there?
I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet.
Doesn't the argument essentially go: "if someone can't make money selling their product then they won't invest the time or resources to create it." It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about cancer drugs or music, the argument is the same.
That doesn't mean I agree with the argument. I very clearly stated I was playing devil's advocate, but I'm used to being misread
No, not every country in the world is a capitalist democracy.
On December 05 2011 06:07 Physician wrote: People can argue all they want about if it is wrong or right, if it's stealing or not, they can add all laws they want to protect present intellectual proprieties, add this or that fine or sanction etc.. but the fact is intellectual property needs to be redefined, if not, reality will simply bury it and move on.+ Show Spoiler +
..patenting, copyright etc.. are antiquated and counter productive concepts that are in dire need of revision, if not extinction. The very term "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. It is an artificial construction that today hinders the evolution of ideas and progress far more than any of its proposed benefits. It has gone as far as people patenting naturally occurring genes!?! lol.. Imagine if the chemists of our past, upon discovering how to make water or oxygen, or upon discovering the molecular composition of water or oxygen had tried to patent these compounds! If I were a young man today, and not my cynical old self too tired or too comfortable to care, I'd probably be a hard core activist against all this sort of shit going on today.
As for piracy it can not be stopped or limited in todays world; on the other side the smart ones are fighting a battle for information control not piracy and the dumb ones are just plain retarded coming up with absurd laws (like arresting people taking photos inside a cinema). Worst are those with more sinister interests use intellectual property laws and anti-piracy campaigns to achieve other goals beyond the control of information..
A series of videos that dwels decently into the subject: + Show Spoiler +
i.e. you shouldn't be able to own people, people speech, or people ideas I sound like an old drum but some subjects will always get me going again...
Thank you. That was a very informative, amusing and even moving post. I don't have anything to say in this thread. My opinions on piracy aren't going to change nor are my opinions on the greed culture of the music industry. But I had to say thank you for that post.
Finally a win for common sense over industry lobbying governments around the world. Unfortunately I can't see the same good news happening for Australia, we have a very weak government that is easily swayed by political 'donations' ie. legal bribes.
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there?
I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet.
Doesn't the argument essentially go: "if someone can't make money selling their product then they won't invest the time or resources to create it." It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about cancer drugs or music, the argument is the same.
That doesn't mean I agree with the argument. I very clearly stated I was playing devil's advocate, but I'm used to being misread
No, not every country in the world is a capitalist democracy.
I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet WHICH ENFORCES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
There. Anymore nitpicking? I apologize for assuming people could make common sense extrapolations from such a sentence.
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there?
I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet.
Doesn't the argument essentially go: "if someone can't make money selling their product then they won't invest the time or resources to create it." It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about cancer drugs or music, the argument is the same.
That doesn't mean I agree with the argument. I very clearly stated I was playing devil's advocate, but I'm used to being misread
No, not every country in the world is a capitalist democracy.
I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet WHICH ENFORCES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
There. Anymore nitpicking? I apologize for assuming people could make common sense extrapolations from such a sentence.
You were wrong. Don't try to pin your bad logic on me. When you're trying to make a point all you have are your words. When you say "EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANETZ GUIZ" it's not assumed that you're restricting that, and that's why you used the all inclusive term "every". I can't say "everyone on the planet is male" and expect people to think "obviously he means everyone but females, so his statement is correct".
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
How much money are those Indie devs spending on advertising compared to these "large companies with massive shitty DRM?"
It is unfortunate if/when sales are lost due to piracy, especially in the gaming industry. But how are their profits compared to before? Are they going bankrupt by these "hundreds of thousands of sales lost?" Are they actually making more money than they were previously? It's important to keep this in context instead of spewing hyperbole or inaccurate statements.
On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote: Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
This is so true.
Let the industry and business die. It wouldn't kill off music, there will still be people all over the internet distributing their own music, making money from shows etc, because people still want that. It'd be better.
On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote: Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
While it would manipulate the price it does by no means that it has to be a bad thing. Especially for the smaller bands. There Swedish systembolaget is a perfect example of this. They have increased not only the selection but also they have reduced the price.
Infact 90% of the swedish movie industry is based on state subteties. Music is such an important thing that I am sure it being state funded is possible and might even make the industry stronger.
On December 05 2011 07:57 FliedLice wrote: why is everybody so happy about being allowed to steal things?
this is weird
Because it will hopefully force the industry to adapt, just as it had to adapt when tape cassettes and VHS were cutting edge. (You will notice that recording the radio and / or TV did not result in the demise of various entertainment industries).
Corporations need to be protected from the average man living in a hut, or society will collapse because the majority will rip off the poor defenseless minority 1% CEO's of media giants Disney and Viamcom that have more money than god. Check the video out.
Its fair enough, it is a barely policed law, Switzerland for a long time have actually known how to run a country properly, socialism that has not been corrupt, its a wonderful country, all people can seem to mock it with is being boring, boring meaning, is not an aggressor, would rather not get involved in war and does not have a high crime rate. I would love to live in that country, gtz to anyone who does, this is a completely justifiable idea and will result in less people being prosecuted for things they dont really deserve prosecution for
Corporations need to be protected from the average man living in a hut, or society will collapse because the majority will rip off the poor defenseless minority 1% CEO's of media giants Disney and Viamcom that have more money than god. Check the video out.
I had the exact same problem when F.E.A.R was released... ...This guy solved my problem. (Had similar problems with Bioshock.)
Why is Swiss policy always so sensible? Because they have decentralized government, direct democracy, limited government authority, and strict adherence to the rule of law. That is why they are the most prosperous nation on earth. I just hope they can resist the immense pressure from the EU to control them.
On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote: Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
While it would manipulate the price it does by no means that it has to be a bad thing. Especially for the smaller bands. There Swedish systembolaget is a perfect example of this. They have increased not only the selection but also they have reduced the price.
Infact 90% of the swedish movie industry is based on state subteties. Music is such an important thing that I am sure it being state funded is possible and might even make the industry stronger.
Music isn't vital. But it wouldn't exactly stop if the current music industry completely and utterly died. People like music, therefore people will make music, with or without the current industry in place. Same goes for tv, movies, games, etc. The governments of the world help and protect them not because they're vital, but because they have deep and loose pockets.
So yes, price manipulation is bad, because it starts with malintent. Even if some small good comes from it, it's not right for tax dollars to go towards protecting this specific company and this specific product from this specific not-exactly-a-crime because they produced a bullshit system that allows their product to be duplicated and distributed free of charge.
We got better things to spend those dollars on, like medical research and feeding the starving.
On December 05 2011 02:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: U.S time for you to step uppp!
What world are you dreaming that you live in? The us wants to step up internet regulation not back down on it.
Swiss take this issue makes a lot of sense.
To be fair, Switzerland has a lot of advantages when it comes to this sort of legislation. Consider the nature of exactly what is being downloaded in Switzerland, how much of it is produced in a foreign country? It is quite easy to declare piracy legal when the harms associated with said piracy are being felt in another place entirely.
This is exactly why scandinavians and small euro countries can do this.
On December 05 2011 05:03 seedfreedom wrote: so... who can teach me swiss...
I hope it was a joke, but I fear its actually not one :/
ya, my bad. i try to keep myself somewhat informed but meh, everyone makes mistakes.
On December 05 2011 07:57 FliedLice wrote: why is everybody so happy about being allowed to steal things?
this is weird
because they arent broke, poor, or helpless. Besides, 90% of their "missed revenue" weren't going to buy the game anyways. 90% of people who would buy the game, do so now anyways. yet they treat it as they are missing billions.
On December 05 2011 02:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: U.S time for you to step uppp!
What world are you dreaming that you live in? The us wants to step up internet regulation not back down on it.
Swiss take this issue makes a lot of sense.
To be fair, Switzerland has a lot of advantages when it comes to this sort of legislation. Consider the nature of exactly what is being downloaded in Switzerland, how much of it is produced in a foreign country? It is quite easy to declare piracy legal when the harms associated with said piracy are being felt in another place entirely.
This is exactly why scandinavians and small euro countries can do this.
Okay, the whole Sweden/Switzerland thing was pretty fun in the start, but are you really going to continue? Or have you just not got a clue about what is going on in Scandinavia?
Okay, the whole Sweden/Switzerland thing was pretty fun in the start, but are you really going to continue? Or have you just not got a clue about what is going on in Scandinavia?
What's the problem? Most of scandinavia had very relaxed laws on piracy and still do relative to UK/US/France.
The government of Switzerland has issued a statement declaring that it will not take action to alter current copyright laws allowing the downloading of music and movies for personal use. The statement is the result of a lengthy study conducted by the Swiss government into the impact of so-called “piracy” on the entertainment industry.
The entertainment industry has been complaining in Switzerland – as in the US and elsewhere – that the unauthorized downloading of music and movies has harmed their business. The situation in Switzerland is somewhat unique, in that current copyright law considers the downloading of content for personal use as acceptable and legal. The entertainment industry has been lobbying the Swiss government to change the law. This study is the government’s response.
Despite the industry’s claims that downloading undermines their business, this study shows that the effect of unauthorized downloading on the industry’s bottom line is negligible. One key finding of the study is that downloaders spend as much if not more to acquire content legally as those who do not download. Researchers found no change in amount of disposable income spent on music and movies, despite the fact that roughly one third of Swiss people engage in some form of downloading. The government concluded, then, that no change to the current legal structure was necessary, and urged the entertainment industry to grow and adapt with the changes in technology and in consumer habits, rather than trying to suppress progress.
On December 05 2011 02:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: U.S time for you to step uppp!
What world are you dreaming that you live in? The us wants to step up internet regulation not back down on it.
Swiss take this issue makes a lot of sense.
To be fair, Switzerland has a lot of advantages when it comes to this sort of legislation. Consider the nature of exactly what is being downloaded in Switzerland, how much of it is produced in a foreign country? It is quite easy to declare piracy legal when the harms associated with said piracy are being felt in another place entirely.
This is exactly why scandinavians and small euro countries can do this.
Sweden is the third in music export country per capita. so nah it's just that. is something more like the system is wrong
I partly feel bad about this. What about the people who produce the content? How can they keep making good content when there is nobody willing to pay for it. Yes, there are plenty of studies that state that people will spend more money if they pirate other stuff, but still it is annoying. It is stealing.
Okay, the whole Sweden/Switzerland thing was pretty fun in the start, but are you really going to continue? Or have you just not got a clue about what is going on in Scandinavia?
What's the problem? Most of scandinavia had very relaxed laws on piracy and still do relative to UK/US/France.
That what is being described in the OP sure as hell isn't what takes place in Scandinavia (perhaps in Finland, don't know what is going on there), yet you made it sound like there were equal laws to the one in Switzerland which isn't the case - not even close to, despite the piracy party trying to pull in the other direction...
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
Seriously guys? First you go on about pirating everything and then make claims that it's bad because it hurts the PC gaming?
First of all, you've got really bad attitute towards it. I sure as hell am downloading/pirating a lot of stuff but whenever I get the chance I do give credit where credit is due. I like the album I downloaded? I go and buy it.
That's also why I buy things I really don't need or donate to sources of free entertainment I deem worthy. If I like a game or a piece of software that's free and it has some paid DLC, T-shirts, donate button or other way of getting voluntary revenue I'm all over it.
With how shitty the games have been lately I usually download them first to take them for a spin, if I like what I see I go and buy it (right now I have exactly 0 pirated games, last one was Skyrim which I started to hate after playing for 2-3 hours). What's wrong with testing out the product before you get it? They have test drives for cars. If it's shitty I'm saving the money, if it's good I'm buying it.
This way it's better for consumers and producers alike. Producers get free advertisement while consumers get 'test drives' and a sort of 'quality check' over producers, which need to make better products for people to be willing to buy the real deal after trying it out.
@ FabledIntegral: So, a game that can provide you with 20+ hours of entertainment costs you 5 hours of your work and you're bitching about it? I earn 20% of what you are and I have no problem with buying original games and albums. And I've got mortgage to pay off, wife, kid and a second one on the way. Seriously, what's wrong with you people?
On December 05 2011 02:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: U.S time for you to step uppp!
What world are you dreaming that you live in? The us wants to step up internet regulation not back down on it.
Swiss take this issue makes a lot of sense.
To be fair, Switzerland has a lot of advantages when it comes to this sort of legislation. Consider the nature of exactly what is being downloaded in Switzerland, how much of it is produced in a foreign country? It is quite easy to declare piracy legal when the harms associated with said piracy are being felt in another place entirely.
This is exactly why scandinavians and small euro countries can do this.
Sweden is the third in music export country per capita. so nah it's just that. is something more like the system is wrong
Smaller countries in the graph have practical license to legislate intellectual property laws in any manner they so choose, making Switzerland's decision seem almost required given their political climate. The same cannot be said for the countries in which the music industry is of a certain size and gravity relative to other corporate/government interests.
...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.
On December 05 2011 08:11 Rogerabbit_gosu wrote: Switzerland for a long time have actually known how to run a country properly, socialism that has not been corrupt, its a wonderful country
On December 05 2011 08:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Why is Swiss policy always so sensible? Because they have decentralized government, direct democracy, limited government authority, and strict adherence to the rule of law.
Wait a minute.... now I'm confused. Socialism with limited, decentralized government? Having the power to obtain and redistribute the resources of a nation certainly doesn't seem either limited or decentralized.
On December 05 2011 08:11 Rogerabbit_gosu wrote: Switzerland for a long time have actually known how to run a country properly, socialism that has not been corrupt, its a wonderful country
On December 05 2011 08:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Why is Swiss policy always so sensible? Because they have decentralized government, direct democracy, limited government authority, and strict adherence to the rule of law.
Wait a minute.... now I'm confused. Socialism with limited, decentralized government? Having the power to obtain and redistribute the resources of a nation certainly doesn't seem either limited or decentralized.
I didn't really understand what you wrote, but aren't you talking about communism?
On December 05 2011 08:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Why is Swiss policy always so sensible? Because they have decentralized government, direct democracy, limited government authority, and strict adherence to the rule of law. That is why they are the most prosperous nation on earth. I just hope they can resist the immense pressure from the EU to control them.
It's much more complicated than that. Don't just take the political aspects of Switzerland you like and declare they're the reason for Switzerland doing well.
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
I agree with you, however, the number of times a game has been downloaded illegaly does not corresponds to the number of "sales lost" . Most of these guys wouldn't have bought the game in the first place and just went like "oh I heard about this game, it seems ok and some people are playing it. I guess could download it".
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."
Oh, right, right. Thank god you read their motivation and everything.
Despite the industry’s claims that downloading undermines their business, this study shows that the effect of unauthorized downloading on the industry’s bottom line is negligible. One key finding of the study is that downloaders spend as much if not more to acquire content legally as those who do not download.
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.
On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote: Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
While it would manipulate the price it does by no means that it has to be a bad thing. Especially for the smaller bands. There Swedish systembolaget is a perfect example of this. They have increased not only the selection but also they have reduced the price.
Infact 90% of the swedish movie industry is based on state subteties. Music is such an important thing that I am sure it being state funded is possible and might even make the industry stronger.
Music isn't vital. But it wouldn't exactly stop if the current music industry completely and utterly died. People like music, therefore people will make music, with or without the current industry in place. Same goes for tv, movies, games, etc. The governments of the world help and protect them not because they're vital, but because they have deep and loose pockets.
So yes, price manipulation is bad, because it starts with malintent. Even if some small good comes from it, it's not right for tax dollars to go towards protecting this specific company and this specific product from this specific not-exactly-a-crime because they produced a bullshit system that allows their product to be duplicated and distributed free of charge.
We got better things to spend those dollars on, like medical research and feeding the starving.
Arguably music is vital, not in the sense of you die without it but neither are public asphalt roads. Why is price manipulation always started with malintent?
There are currently massive problems with wealth inequality and having wide public enterainment payed for by taxes is a bad thing? You know what a bullshit system is? a system that only takes into account the top 1% which is what the most mainstream music and film industry is currently centered around.
Feeding the starving and medical research is the most BS argument ever. Should government would spend all the money from the public sector from less than basic infrastructure on medical research too?
On December 05 2011 08:40 mAgixWTF wrote: Downloading is legal in Germany, too. You are just not allowed to upload copyrighted material. Just like in Switzerland i guess.
Do you have a source for this? Because I live in germany and I'm pretty sure that this is wrong.
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.
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
With how shitty the games have been lately I usually download them first to take them for a spin, if I like what I see I go and buy it (right now I have exactly 0 pirated games, last one was Skyrim which I started to hate after playing for 2-3 hours). What's wrong with testing out the product before you get it? They have test drives for cars. If it's shitty I'm saving the money, if it's good I'm buying it.
Lol I hope the industry starts making 2 hours demos and proves that pirating isn't just people "testing" the game.
edit: About how stealing gum somehow "prevents others from owning the stolen item": that is certainly a distinction between piracy and physical theft. You still have to show why preventing others from owning the stolen item is the only thing wrong with theft.
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.
Stealing gum prevents other people from having the gum. Copying digital files doesn't prevent anyone else from having the file.
On December 05 2011 02:05 tnud wrote: If only we swedes would have stood up for our old laws like Switzerland did So many studies and such yet hollywood is slowly winning over here.. EDIT: Sweden does have a law for "personal use" too, we get taxed for it instead which is a whole different matter. (We pay tax to a private organization... yep.)
well in Canada we have pay a levy on all blank media (cd's, dvd's, cassettes, etc...) because people burn music on cd's.... oh wait its 2011. i havn't used a cd for anything other than a coaster in years.
On December 05 2011 10:53 DamageControL wrote: Lol I hope the industry starts making 2 hours demos and proves that pirating isn't just people "testing" the game.
Well with new AAA games, 2hours is more the full game than a demo.
Hahahahahahaahhahahaha sucks for the idiots in the entertainment industries. Maybe now more people will listen to the truth - you cannot stop piracy, far better to simply make legal purchasing easier and safer than piracy and not overpriced, and you'll have very few problems.
So that I can travel to Switzerland faster to download my shit while residing amongst hot Swedish girls.. Actually all the confusion really made me laugh, hoping its more than normal cause OP is Swedish
Though I'm not sure how I feel about that. I mean shouldn't whoever created the product decide whether or not its available for free? Even if there's no negative effect on the sales, it should still be up to the author.. Also the money brought in to internet providers should not even be factored in.
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.
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.
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 02:03 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
...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.
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.
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
Seriously guys? First you go on about pirating everything and then make claims that it's bad because it hurts the PC gaming?
First of all, you've got really bad attitute towards it. I sure as hell am downloading/pirating a lot of stuff but whenever I get the chance I do give credit where credit is due. I like the album I downloaded? I go and buy it.
That's also why I buy things I really don't need or donate to sources of free entertainment I deem worthy. If I like a game or a piece of software that's free and it has some paid DLC, T-shirts, donate button or other way of getting voluntary revenue I'm all over it.
With how shitty the games have been lately I usually download them first to take them for a spin, if I like what I see I go and buy it (right now I have exactly 0 pirated games, last one was Skyrim which I started to hate after playing for 2-3 hours). What's wrong with testing out the product before you get it? They have test drives for cars. If it's shitty I'm saving the money, if it's good I'm buying it.
This way it's better for consumers and producers alike. Producers get free advertisement while consumers get 'test drives' and a sort of 'quality check' over producers, which need to make better products for people to be willing to buy the real deal after trying it out.
@ FabledIntegral: So, a game that can provide you with 20+ hours of entertainment costs you 5 hours of your work and you're bitching about it? I earn 20% of what you are and I have no problem with buying original games and albums. And I've got mortgage to pay off, wife, kid and a second one on the way. Seriously, what's wrong with you people?
And like you said, you pirate a ton of shit. I pay for my shit. That's where my money is going.
What's wrong with testing out the product before you get it? Nothing, if the company doesn't mind. However, they do. No one is forcing you to buy the product. If you think it has the possibility of being shitty, just don't buy it.
When you pirate something you're just copying a bunch of code (that the company spent hours and a tons of money on developing). So what's the point in buying said product after you pirate it. You already have the code. You're simply donating to the company.
Companies need to rely on donations now to make money? What a joke.
On December 05 2011 08:40 mAgixWTF wrote: Downloading is legal in Germany, too. You are just not allowed to upload copyrighted material. Just like in Switzerland i guess.
Do you have a source for this? Because I live in germany and I'm pretty sure that this is wrong.
Its a grey area I think. They can only persecute torrent users.
On December 05 2011 14:26 Bacillus wrote: 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.
I'm sure if you compare "people that download a lot" with the general population I'm sure "downloaders spend more" is pretty accurate. But as you say if you compare "people that download a lot" with lets say people of the same age and income that don't you might come to a different conclusion. Maybe this study takes this into account but I agree it's not as simply as to look at the people that download and those who don't if you want an accurate description of the consequences.
On December 05 2011 19:19 Brett wrote: Rofl @ people on first page who intend to move to -Sweden-
.....
It happens surprisingly (?) a lot if you talk to people in other countries when you are traveling.
Sweden used to have the same type of law, you could download for personal use but not share it.The swedish goverment was to weak and gave in to industry and changed them.
We swiss people don't want all you foreigners, so stay away! Have you forgotten?
On December 05 2011 08:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Why is Swiss policy always so sensible? Because they have decentralized government, direct democracy, limited government authority, and strict adherence to the rule of law. That is why they are the most prosperous nation on earth. I just hope they can resist the immense pressure from the EU to control them.
Europe's not a country, just saying So if I have Swiss relatives, could I get them to download me music etc and then send it to me?
'Personal' would be the keyword in 'personal use'.
Well I was interpreting 'personal' more to mean that the pirates were not making a profit off of it or broadcasting it for groups of people, but you make your point. *Gets embarrassed and sits in corner.
1. People use LimeWire still ROFL 2. Why download music for free to then buy it..... 3. LimeWire is so unsafe its untrue, so much Spyware you get from just one download
Also i think the best way to combat "piracy" is just to make Spotify/Grooveshark more aware to the internet i mean you can listen to any song any time on spotify and grooveshark for so little a month or just use it for free but your not downloading it or taking it away from your computer which is fine imo.
It should (and kinda does) work the same way with Films, going onto say lovefilm.com streaming the latest films or dvds to your computer for minimal fee per month (online blockbuster ftw)
Piracy will always happen, because of how easy it is, there is probably a number of people if they know about the websites such as spotify/lovefilm/grooveshark who would use them to stream moveis and listen to songs instead of illegally downloading them because its easy.
Piracy will always happen until you start to address the problems. Who really wants to pay £10/$10/10Euros for a Cinema ticket after all t.t or £10/$10/10Euros for a CD...its crazy, you can buy a pack of 50Burnable CDs for £10/$10/10Euros at computer fairs!
On December 05 2011 02:02 Sclol wrote: sure feels good Switzerland is not Sweden and not Germany (especially not the Nazi version) edit: it will not take action to alter current copyright laws allowing the downloading of music and movies for personal use. it has always been like this nothing new
My first thoughts when reading the title of this topic were "What the the fuck does Switzerland have to do with Pirates, they don't even have access to the sea".
On December 05 2011 22:31 Velr wrote: What i find funny...
People still download? Isn't anyone just streaming anyway?
What? Of course people download... you get way better quality this way, and its usually much easier to find.
O_o
Please tell me the diffrence between a HD-Download and a HD-Stream? Chances are, if you don't find a HD-Stream you also won't find a HD-Download. Or then you wait a little until the "famous" streaming sites have the HD-Stream, which happens like right after the HD-DL is avalaible somewhere? :p.
Well, maybe i'm a little "early" in calling downloads "old". But I doubt we will download much in 5 years from now..
On December 05 2011 22:31 Velr wrote: What i find funny...
People still download? Isn't anyone just streaming anyway?
What? Of course people download... you get way better quality this way, and its usually much easier to find.
O_o
Please tell me the diffrence between a HD-Download and a HD-Stream? Chances are, if you don't find a HD-Stream you also won't find a HD-Download. Or then you wait a little until the "famous" streaming sites have the HD-Stream, which happens like right after the HD-DL is avalaible somewhere? :p.
Well, maybe i'm a little "early" in calling downloads "old". But I doubt we will download much in 5 years from now..
difference is... you dont need internet access to watch one of those?
also have you ever tried listening to streamed music?
On December 05 2011 21:27 Pandemona wrote: "LimeWire users are also big iTunes customers"
So much wrong with this statement....
1. People use LimeWire still ROFL 2. Why download music for free to then buy it..... 3. LimeWire is so unsafe its untrue, so much Spyware you get from just one download
Also i think the best way to combat "piracy" is just to make Spotify/Grooveshark more aware to the internet i mean you can listen to any song any time on spotify and grooveshark for so little a month or just use it for free but your not downloading it or taking it away from your computer which is fine imo.
It should (and kinda does) work the same way with Films, going onto say lovefilm.com streaming the latest films or dvds to your computer for minimal fee per month (online blockbuster ftw)
Piracy will always happen, because of how easy it is, there is probably a number of people if they know about the websites such as spotify/lovefilm/grooveshark who would use them to stream moveis and listen to songs instead of illegally downloading them because its easy.
Piracy will always happen until you start to address the problems. Who really wants to pay £10/$10/10Euros for a Cinema ticket after all t.t or £10/$10/10Euros for a CD...its crazy, you can buy a pack of 50Burnable CDs for £10/$10/10Euros at computer fairs!
does LimeWire still exist? my LimeWire uninstalled itself and took 30~ gigs of music with it when they initially got hit with that ridiculous 75 trillion or whatever lawsuit
On December 05 2011 22:31 Velr wrote: What i find funny...
People still download? Isn't anyone just streaming anyway?
What? Of course people download... you get way better quality this way, and its usually much easier to find.
O_o
Please tell me the diffrence between a HD-Download and a HD-Stream? Chances are, if you don't find a HD-Stream you also won't find a HD-Download. Or then you wait a little until the "famous" streaming sites have the HD-Stream, which happens like right after the HD-DL is avalaible somewhere? :p.
Well, maybe i'm a little "early" in calling downloads "old". But I doubt we will download much in 5 years from now..
WHY do you want or feel it's needed to download stuff? The only reason that is left, is that it is accesible when offline. But i doubt we will be offline in any even a little populated area in the near future.
WHY do you want or feel it's needed to download stuff? The only reason that is left, is that it is accesible when offline. But i doubt we will be offline in any even a little populated area in the near future.
Eh, there are quality issues. There are connectivity issues. There are compability issues with streaming programs and devices/os. There are cost and cap issues (download once, play how many times you want vs stream over and over. If you have offline mode then that's just another way of downloading it...). That's just a few reasons that took my a few seconds to think of...
I'm sure the study could be replicated elsewhere in the world. The primary argument held by the Swiss judicial system is very practical and straightforward. If indeed bottomlines lost in the acquisition of pirated materials is negligible, why fuss about it. I don't know about American people and theyre digital consumption, but I think it is time to study this case and see if it works in other countries.
WHY do you want or feel it's needed to download stuff? The only reason that is left, is that it is accesible when offline. But i doubt we will be offline in any even a little populated area in the near future.
Because streaming music to my ipod / smartphone is not viable with our horrible data deals when i'm on the road? And because I don't care for the latest "make up tips" from youtube and download series and movies 1080p only?
On December 05 2011 23:22 nymfaw wrote: Damn.. now i also want to move to Somalia
WHY do you want or feel it's needed to download stuff? The only reason that is left, is that it is accesible when offline. But i doubt we will be offline in any even a little populated area in the near future.
Eh, there are quality issues. There are connectivity issues. There are compability issues with streaming programs and devices/os. There are cost and cap issues (download once, play how many times you want vs stream over and over. If you have offline mode then that's just another way of downloading it...). That's just a few reasons that took my a few seconds to think of...
Also, if you can download 720-1080p movie with multiple audio/subtitle tracks in 5 min, why bother finding a stream? Not to mention the degree of control you get in players like VLC or Mplayer: denoise, volume normalization, equalizer, sync etc.
Sorry, edited my post above. Can you tell me what exactly is worse about streamed music... Must be one hell of a song if 1-2+ MB's/sec isn't enough to getit to you in decent quality... And this would actually have like nothing to do with the actual streaming but the record your streaming from and the speed of your connection? Yes, on the road it's not "good" enough atm (and way to expensive) but that will change soon.
I recently downloaded Dota 2 from Steam.. 4MB/Sec and my connection is nothing fancy, just more or less standard cable. I would like to think thats sufficient for any kind of "quality" your music might requires and it will only get faster (abd usable "on the road") in the coming years .
On December 05 2011 22:31 Velr wrote: What i find funny...
People still download? Isn't anyone just streaming anyway?
What? Of course people download... you get way better quality this way, and its usually much easier to find.
O_o
Please tell me the diffrence between a HD-Download and a HD-Stream? Chances are, if you don't find a HD-Stream you also won't find a HD-Download. Or then you wait a little until the "famous" streaming sites have the HD-Stream, which happens like right after the HD-DL is avalaible somewhere? :p.
Well, maybe i'm a little "early" in calling downloads "old". But I doubt we will download much in 5 years from now..
yeah i think thats not in the slightest whats gonna happen. people will always prefer having the actual files on their pc
On December 05 2011 21:27 Pandemona wrote: Also i think the best way to combat "piracy" is just to make Spotify/Grooveshark more aware to the internet i mean you can listen to any song any time on spotify and grooveshark for so little a month or just use it for free but your not downloading it or taking it away from your computer which is fine imo.
I have used spotify twice. Both times I un-installed it as a worthless thing, even worse than a paperweight. It had none of the songs I wanted to listen to. I tried a total of 10 different artists, they had a total of 0 songs from them combined.
As for the topic at hand. so they decided to keep their current law for the foreseeable future due to no reason to change. Nice for them.
I find it hard to believe it doesn't effect the entertainment industry.. I mean just look at community, being "cancelled" because itsd ratings have been shit, when its one of the most watched comedies. It just so happens that the demographic that loves community is the same demographic that watches most of their TV online via streaming/downloading.
On December 06 2011 01:27 Ian Ian Ian wrote: I find it hard to believe it doesn't effect the entertainment industry.. I mean just look at community, being "cancelled" because itsd ratings have been shit, when its one of the most watched comedies. It just so happens that the demographic that loves community is the same demographic that watches most of their TV online via streaming/downloading.
Pretty big effect imo
You mean, people still watch TV? I can't really tell when was the last time I turned the damned thing on. I guess I did watch some news on it during the last 4 years but nothing past that.
For me, TV and Radio have been obsolete for a while. Internet and books it is for me.
On December 06 2011 01:27 Ian Ian Ian wrote: I find it hard to believe it doesn't effect the entertainment industry.. I mean just look at community, being "cancelled" because itsd ratings have been shit, when its one of the most watched comedies. It just so happens that the demographic that loves community is the same demographic that watches most of their TV online via streaming/downloading.
Pretty big effect imo
TV shows are getting cancelled because no one watches TV. Release it online. Money saved, problem solved.
On December 06 2011 01:27 Ian Ian Ian wrote: I find it hard to believe it doesn't effect the entertainment industry.. I mean just look at community, being "cancelled" because itsd ratings have been shit, when its one of the most watched comedies. It just so happens that the demographic that loves community is the same demographic that watches most of their TV online via streaming/downloading.
Pretty big effect imo
TV shows are getting cancelled because no one watches TV. Release it online. Money saved, problem solved.
They do release it online. Why would someone watch an online version that has commercials when they can watch an online version that doesn't have commercials? It also costs money to deliver shows online.
On December 06 2011 01:27 Ian Ian Ian wrote: I find it hard to believe it doesn't effect the entertainment industry.. I mean just look at community, being "cancelled" because itsd ratings have been shit, when its one of the most watched comedies. It just so happens that the demographic that loves community is the same demographic that watches most of their TV online via streaming/downloading.
Pretty big effect imo
TV shows are getting cancelled because no one watches TV. Release it online. Money saved, problem solved.
They do release it online. Why would someone watch an online version that has commercials when they can watch an online version that doesn't have commercials? It also costs money to deliver shows online.
better quality and safer sites? watching 30seconds of commercials isnt even bothering me. i actually pay attention to online commercial whereas ob TV I just change the channel.
On December 05 2011 02:05 tnud wrote: If only we swedes would have stood up for our old laws like Switzerland did So many studies and such yet hollywood is slowly winning over here.. EDIT: Sweden does have a law for "personal use" too, we get taxed for it instead which is a whole different matter. (We pay tax to a private organization... yep.)
Here we pay too. Tax from empty harddisks, CDs etc. And it has been outlawed by EU, but no problem :D. Also downloading is legal in most places I think, only uploading is frowned upon.
On December 06 2011 05:26 Yuljan wrote: better quality and safer sites? watching 30seconds of commercials isnt even bothering me. i actually pay attention to online commercial whereas ob TV I just change the channel.
Safer sites? How hard is it to use a search engine and click once? Quality of (official) online content is usually terribad and you can't even use your own player (forced to use quicktime/flash or some other crap). Or am I misunderstanding this and he isn't talking about torrenting?
On December 06 2011 01:27 Ian Ian Ian wrote: I find it hard to believe it doesn't effect the entertainment industry.. I mean just look at community, being "cancelled" because itsd ratings have been shit, when its one of the most watched comedies. It just so happens that the demographic that loves community is the same demographic that watches most of their TV online via streaming/downloading.
Pretty big effect imo
TV shows are getting cancelled because no one watches TV. Release it online. Money saved, problem solved.
They do release it online. Why would someone watch an online version that has commercials when they can watch an online version that doesn't have commercials? It also costs money to deliver shows online.
My default start point when trying to watch something online is to google "watch (name of show) online". For a British show such as Peep Show the top link will be Channel 4's "4 on demand" service which allows me to watch it online in decent quality legally if I am willing to put up with the ads. I have zero problems with the ads, it's a fair exchange for the ease, good quality, fast streaming and the legality. If the industry is willing to meet me halfway then I feel I should encourage them and on their part it's a no brainer as I'd have watched it online anyway had they not provided the service and somebody else would have gotten the ad revenue. The lesson has been proved time and time again with services such as itunes, people will take the legal option if it matches the illegal option in convenience and availability. It's on the industry to keep up with their consumers and those that refuse to leave their outmoded systems will see themselves replaced.
One thing that surprises me though is that they don't take advantage of the fact you're watching online to tailor ads to you. I'd happily take 10 seconds giving them my gender and age if it meant I got ads that were more interesting to me.
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
Amnesia and The Witcher 1+2 were massive successes, the true enemy of PC gaming is the console. Also I doubt software is included in the Swiss law.
On December 06 2011 01:27 Ian Ian Ian wrote: I find it hard to believe it doesn't effect the entertainment industry.. I mean just look at community, being "cancelled" because itsd ratings have been shit, when its one of the most watched comedies. It just so happens that the demographic that loves community is the same demographic that watches most of their TV online via streaming/downloading.
Pretty big effect imo
TV shows are getting cancelled because no one watches TV. Release it online. Money saved, problem solved.
They do release it online. Why would someone watch an online version that has commercials when they can watch an online version that doesn't have commercials? It also costs money to deliver shows online.
better quality and safer sites? watching 30seconds of commercials isnt even bothering me. i actually pay attention to online commercial whereas ob TV I just change the channel.
Let's not forget that american shows offered online are often not available outside of the US. The entertainment industry is so slow adapting to the new realities of the internet and is missing so many business opportunities because of it. Instead it is doing everything in its power to return to status quo ante, a futile endeavour.
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
You are wrong. Other games are "losing" sales as well, their futilez DRMz doesn't matterz. The Witcher publisher only chose not to repay the customers by bothering them with useless protection. It's much more likely that established companies can sell even shitty games (CoD), because they have tons of money to spend on advertising and hype.
how do you guys not watch tv? how about when you have friends over for some live sports in the television in the living room with some beers and chips. Especially if you follow a sport or a team.
Companies need to rely on donations now to make money? What a joke.
what companies should rely on is making good products.
That isn't relevant. If they make good products, they still rely on donations.
Exactly, unless they can force you(or someone else) to Pay for better products, then they will rely on donations.
Which means 1. Good Distributors pay money to so that there is content to be distributed (although anyone can distribute it) or 2. The only content that is produced is adds (like the old fashioned soap operas).. watch the new movie "Jack in the Box 4: Meet the Mustard" where the entertainment value IS the advertising value. (this include Political adds/Cultural adds/ artists that want the public to 'hear their message' and so get a rich patron who wants some PR)
Companies need to rely on donations now to make money? What a joke.
what companies should rely on is making good products.
That isn't relevant. If they make good products, they still rely on donations.
Exactly, unless they can force you(or someone else) to Pay for better products, then they will rely on donations.
Which means 1. Good Distributors pay money to so that there is content to be distributed (although anyone can distribute it) or 2. The only content that is produced is adds (like the old fashioned soap operas).. watch the new movie "Jack in the Box 4: Meet the Mustard" where the entertainment value IS the advertising value. (this include Political adds/Cultural adds/ artists that want the public to 'hear their message' and so get a rich patron who wants some PR)
Sorry, didn't quite follow what you were trying to say.
On December 05 2011 23:39 Velr wrote: Sorry, edited my post above. Can you tell me what exactly is worse about streamed music... Must be one hell of a song if 1-2+ MB's/sec isn't enough to getit to you in decent quality... And this would actually have like nothing to do with the actual streaming but the record your streaming from and the speed of your connection? Yes, on the road it's not "good" enough atm (and way to expensive) but that will change soon.
I recently downloaded Dota 2 from Steam.. 4MB/Sec and my connection is nothing fancy, just more or less standard cable. I would like to think thats sufficient for any kind of "quality" your music might requires and it will only get faster (abd usable "on the road") in the coming years .
If you download it you can put it wherever you want such as on an MP3 or CD. If you stream it you can't do this.
here is a quote that i found the most relevant and eye-opening:
Public libraries have been lending out books to people, for free, for the last 500 years or so. Publishers are OK with it because the library is paying for the book, and if it's a popular book, they'll buy multiple copies so multiple people can check it out at once. Then they'll replace those every couple of years, because if you read a book too much it falls apart at the binding.
But then the publisher invented a better book. An indestructible book called an ebook that could be read 10 billion times without ever falling apart. How much does it cost to manufacture this marvel? Not a goddamned penny. The readers have the ability to "manufacture" copies of their own, on their computer, at no cost to the publisher. It's a post-scarcity book.
So for the publishers, the next step was clear: Make the book destroy itself.
An ebook sold to a library will thus delete itself out of existence after a year, or after X number of times it had been lent out. This is a big source of controversy between publishers and public libraries, maybe because both of them know they've found the loose thread that can unravel all of society. After all:
A. Why can't the library just buy as many digital copies as are needed for the customers, and keep them forever, if they don't naturally degrade? B. Wait a second. It's just a digital file. Why not just buy one copy, and just copy and paste it for every customer who wants to read it? C. Wait a second. Why do you need the library at all? Why can't a customer just buy a copy from the publisher and "lend" copies to all of his friends? D. Wait a second. If no printing and binding needs to be done, why do you need the publisher? Just buy it directly from the author. E. Waaaaait a second. Why buy it? Once the author makes one copy available, why can't everyone just grab it for free?
Companies need to rely on donations now to make money? What a joke.
"Companies need to rely on government backed monopolies to make money? What a joke."
Of course stakeholders will try to argue that copyright is like physical property. Many consumers argue that it's not. Where democratic institutions are weak copyright holders seem to be winning. Where they are strong consumers enforce their own interests.
Companies need to rely on donations now to make money? What a joke.
"Companies need to rely on government backed monopolies to make money? What a joke."
Of course stakeholders will try to argue that copyright is like physical property. Many consumers argue that it's not. Where democratic institutions are weak copyright holders seem to be winning. Where they are strong consumers enforce their own interests.
China must have the strongest democratic institutions
Companies need to rely on donations now to make money? What a joke.
"Companies need to rely on government backed monopolies to make money? What a joke."
Of course stakeholders will try to argue that copyright is like physical property. Many consumers argue that it's not. Where democratic institutions are weak copyright holders seem to be winning. Where they are strong consumers enforce their own interests.
The issue iss there will be no "jobs" of writing, acting, developing games instead the 1. you will have people who produce 'mass' culture/entertainment as a hobby 2. you will have people who 'personalize' culture/entertainment (i wrote a book/movie/game/song just for you) for the relatively wealthy. 3. you will have people/organizations with lots of money wo produce culture/entertainment to try and get their ideas across/make themselves popular.
There are some key distinctions between intellectual property and physical property (why IP expires eventually). However, IP still needs protection, otherwise culture/entertainment is 'underproduced' (same for research)
Companies need to rely on donations now to make money? What a joke.
"Companies need to rely on government backed monopolies to make money? What a joke."
Of course stakeholders will try to argue that copyright is like physical property. Many consumers argue that it's not. Where democratic institutions are weak copyright holders seem to be winning. Where they are strong consumers enforce their own interests.
China must have the strongest democratic institutions
I guarantee you China will change its stance once it becomes a net producer instead of a net consumer.
However, IP still needs protection, otherwise culture/entertainment is 'underproduced' (same for research)
I think that's the key principle that needs to be re-estabilished. IP isn't some inherent right (like the right to property) but a mechanism implemented by society to avoid this problem.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://naturesgraffiti.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/the-birth-evolution-and-death-of-intellectual-property.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.yellowchrome.org/infoanarchism.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i38.tinypic.com/zssbd1.jpg)
