Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Swiss Gov't: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the wish-that-sanity-was-contagious dept.

Piracy 463

wasimkadak writes "One in three people in Switzerland download unauthorized music, movies and games from the Internet, and — since last year — the government has been wondering what to do about it. This week their response was published, and it was crystal clear. Not only will downloading for personal use stay completely legal, but the copyright holders won't suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."

cancel ×

463 comments

Slashdotters = fags (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247456)

Slashdotters = fags

Go suck a dong, idiots.

Slashdot = stagnated

How neutral (3, Funny)

darkitecture (627408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247466)

It's a Beige Alert!

Re:How neutral (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247608)

It's a Beige Alert!

It's a Nigger Alert!

Your Post is a Nigger Post and it deserves a Nigger Alert!

Seriously, excess beige? What kind of fucking pussy are you? You nigger. Fuckers like you trying to be funny are what's wrong with the Internet.

Re:How neutral (1, Funny)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247636)

"If I don't survive this, tell my wife hello".

Really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247488)

It's still getting something for nothing, and maybe you spend the same amount in entertainment, but its distributed totally differently. If you spend $100 on some blockbuster concert and then pirate 10 albums from smaller bands, the only one winning is the big act. Rationalize it any way you want, but its stealing either way.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247518)

its stealing either way

What is the "it" to which the stealing belongs?

Okay, seriously: no, it is not. Copyright infringement is not theft. "Piracy," in the sense you're using the word, is not theft. And anyone who says it is has shown that they have nothing meaningful to say on the subject.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247566)

its stealing either way

What is the "it" to which the stealing belongs?

Okay, seriously: no, it is not. Copyright infringement is not theft. "Piracy," in the sense you're using the word, is not theft. And anyone who says it is has shown that they have nothing meaningful to say on the subject.

I just stolen all your comments.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247580)

So ... there will be no problem when I show up at your workplace headquarters, and photocopy every document and make a copy of every hard drive in your office for personal use then ?

Re:Really? (1)

mattventura (1408229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247594)

No, because that was not published information.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247624)

What if one of your co-workers gives all that info to Wikileaks, and Assange publishes it ... then it's fine and dandy right ?

Re:Really? (4, Interesting)

mattventura (1408229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247668)

It would depend on who is helped and hurt by those actions. If my company was doing nothing wrong, then the leaker should be fired and sued. However, if the company was killing people or something, then they did the world a favor.

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247694)

Your company just spent $10 billion dollars developing the next great widget that everyone will want to buy. The information copied allowed manufacturers in {cheap labor country Zuliwabee} to duplicate the plans, and produce the product without having invested the R&D money. All the investors are screwed, thats grandma and grandpas pension funds. The company closes down, and the people who produced the next great widget are all penalized for doing so.

Is this your idea of utopia ?

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247738)

If you start punish the wrong people (eg. downloaders) your are a very very bad person that tries to make the world even worse.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247756)

If your widget cost $10 billion dollars and a cheap labour country is able to duplicate it, someone is siphoning money off your research funds.
In that same statement you are assuming that EVERYONE will want to buy.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247812)

So you're building yet another strawman, right?

Industrial espionage is not a copyright violation, in fact you can commit espionage WITHOUT copyright violations. For example, if I steal a document from your company's safe and then use it to learn your $PROPRIETARY_DESIGNS then I won't be violating copyright as no new copies of your document would be made.

Besides, your scenario does not happen in the real life because either:
1) New widgets with $BILLIONS spent on R&D require complex supply chains and development setup.
2) Replicating widgets on which $BILLIONS were spent is not easy.
3) Replicating other company's widgets is self-defeating. You won't have in-house expertise to build newer and more advanced versions.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247676)

Find and dandy for Assange not so much for the co-worker.

Re:Really? (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247782)

In my case, a Wikileaks publishing would help a lot of people who buy my company's technology, and it would especially help the people who touch that technology.

By the way, my company uses Websense, and blocks any URL with the string "wikileaks" in it. So yeah, If I'm named personally, so be it. If a Blackwater guy gets named, so be it. Unlike the stateside folks, Blackwater/Xe employees are being paid $300,000 a year to have bullets fired at them.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247642)

Will I mind: Nope.

All the information at many workplaces is complete public knowledge. That does not in any way make it less work to complete, and the data you gleam in the few minutes you'll spend trying to gather information before you bore and leave for something of more interest will surprise you that it's already available to everyone else.

Face it: Information is meant to be public. The few that think that hiding information will assure them a higher position in life, don't understand that the first time you sell that information: it becomes worth less then before. (as more people can now be the source).

Re:Really? (1, Informative)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247710)

Face it: Information is meant to be public.

This is a euphamism for "people like to get something for nothing."

Re:Really? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247730)

Yes, people do. Unfortunately, many resources are scarce given current technology. If we get to have a Star Trek economy (replicators, warp drives, practically limitless clean energy), than most of the things that are scarce will become plentiful.

Re:Really? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247684)

Wait, what? Even if he objected to that, that doesn't mean that he would say that it was theft.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247728)

So ... there will be no problem when I show up at your workplace headquarters, and photocopy every document and make a copy of every hard drive in your office for personal use then ?

Copyright infringement is not theft. Using racist language is not theft. Throwing stones through people's windows is not theft. Murder is not theft. Running a red light is not theft. Overcooking vegetables is not theft. Using gotos is not theft. Whether you think that any or all of those things are "a problem" does not depend on whether they are theft. You can think that something is the biggest and worst problem ever, without it being theft. Do you understand?

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247864)

The person to whom you're responding did not say "piracy is right" or "there is absolutely no situation in which copyright infringement can cause anyone any kind of problem". He said that it is not the same thing as theft.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247660)

Stealing something requires that you deprive the owner of the right to posession. So, I can steal your car, and you are unable to drive. To steal a CD, that would require me to break into the music company's office, steal the master, destroy all copies, and then leave. That's not what I'm doing. I'm simply making an unauthorized copy. It is NOT stealing.

Re:Really? (1, Troll)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247764)

Copyright infringement may not be theft in a classic criminal court proceeding but it is a violation that can end up in Civil Court. Eliminate copyrights and you remove a great deal of the motivation for authors, musicians, and film makers to create and publish anything of worth. Authors can't focus all their attention on their writing projects if they have to commit time towards making an income from other jobs just to insure they can afford a living quarters, food, computers, and an Internet connection to to distribute their work. Musicians incur the same expenses as well as things like studio time, instruments, sound engineers, and other support personnel needed to produce their work. Entertainment film production can cost millions of dollars for equipment, actors, props, support personnel, CGI, and all of the other things needed to produce a quality film. Software related copyrights are in a "gray area" but those who create the software have invested their time and required an income to support their work.

Re:Really? (2)

kixome (1636329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247872)

So in the short of things, they might just see how the other side lives right? Having to put forth talent while holding down other jobs, taking care of kids, and so forth? This is the way countless others have made it in this life so why not the ones who have had their fill?

Re:Really? (0)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247792)

"Okay, seriously: no, it is not. Copyright infringement is not theft."

The human mind does not work according to enlightenment reason. The monkey business of the mamallian brains of the braindead half of humanity will continue see here:

http://bit.ly/dYaWUc [bit.ly]

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247920)

Not GP, but yes, copyright infringement is not theft. It's debatable whether it's "piracy" or not; I've never known a file sharer to say "shiver me timbers". Yes, the MAFIAA are a bunch of douche bags who represent the middle men, not the original artists. Yes, intellectual property laws have, in recent times, gone bat fucking insane. All that being said...

Enjoying the creations of others without, in any way, supporting the people who produced said creations is still not right.

OK, I said my peace. Go ahead and flame this post and mod it into oblivion now.

Re:Really? (-1, Flamebait)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247926)

Piracy is theft, and anyone who says it is not has shown they have nothing meaningful to say on the subject.

Whee, what a fun game this debating stuff is!

Re:Really? (0, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247528)

What if you pirate $100 worth of music and spend $100 on blow jobs from thai lady boys? Both you and the lady boy win.

Re:Really? (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247622)

Any man can give a five-star blowjob, but you gotta pay extra for the privilege of looking down.

Mod parent +5 informative

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247562)

Stealing is the act of taking someone else's property with the intention of permanently depriving them of that property. This is not stealing in any way. There is no intention to permanently deprive anyone of anything.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247658)

You are permanently depriving them of the time it took to produce the software, and their right to get paid for producing the software.

Your argument is similar to hiring someone to paint your house, then refusing to pay them after the job is done. You have deprived the painter of his time. When you pirate software, you are depriving the person or people who spent time developing that software of their time.

If you agreed to work for a company for 6 months, developing software, and when you were done, the company said "Well, sorry, we arent going to pay you that last $10,000 installment, get lost" ... would that be alright with you ?

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247698)

You are permanently depriving them of the time it took to produce the software

The time they spent to produce the software is a constant, it doesn't change according to the amount of people using the software.

Your argument is similar to hiring someone to paint your house, then refusing to pay them after the job is done. You have deprived the painter of his time. When you pirate software, you are depriving the person or people who spent time developing that software of their time.

Not really. A software product is already done, the time on it has been spent already whether or not you're using it. But the painter's time isn't used until you hire him to use it. As such your argument doesn't quite fly right. Comparing virtual things to physical things often doesn't work too well.

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247744)

The time they spent to produce the software is a constant, it doesn't change according to the amount of people using the software.

The time required to produce the product is a constant indeed. But the expense is amortized by the number of people who will benefit from using the software. Copying and using software without paying for it, is similar to shoplifting, in the sense that, by you not paying for the right to use the product you stole, increases the price that people who do pay for the right to use an item. When you steal a candy bar from Walmart, the loss is spread to the customers who pay for their purchases.

Not really. A software product is already done, the time on it has been spent already whether or not you're using it.

This is just an excuse on your part. You are receiving the benefit of someone elses labor, without paying for it. It's the same situation if you screw the painter. You receive the benefit of his labor without paying him for it.

If a company hired you to work for them, and the company received the benefit of your labor, then refused to pay you for it, you would be outraged. But when you want to receive the benefits of other peoples labor without paying for it, you justify it by saying "It's okay because its really easy for me to copy it and receive benefit without payment."

By your logic, its okay for me to steal your car because I have a screwdriver and I know how to disable alarms and hotwire it. It only took 30 seconds. It was so easy for me to steal it that you don't deserve a car.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247788)

The time required to produce the product is a constant indeed. But the expense is amortized by the number of people who will benefit from using the software. Copying and using software without paying for it, is similar to shoplifting, in the sense that, by you not paying for the right to use the product you stole, increases the price that people who do pay for the right to use an item. When you steal a candy bar from Walmart, the loss is spread to the customers who pay for their purchases.

It doesn't work like that, you're just grasping for strawman arguments here. A candy bar is a physical object, it cannot just be copied. There is always a loss of material that is spent on manufacturing it, whereas there is no material loss at all when you copy a digital object. So of course the cost of the materials used to manufacture something is either absorbed by the budget assigned to it, or spread to the rest of objects being sold. But as there is no loss of materials and thus no costs of producing a digital object there is also no losses to be spread over.

This is just an excuse on your part. You are receiving the benefit of someone elses labor, without paying for it. It's the same situation if you screw the painter. You receive the benefit of his labor without paying him for it.

No, it's not an excuse. If you literally hire someone to use their time on you, then you are indeed depriving them of their time. But if that person uses their time with or without you involved then you cannot deprive them of their time since they're depriving it all by themselves.

If a company hired you to work for them, and the company received the benefit of your labor, then refused to pay you for it, you would be outraged. But when you want to receive the benefits of other peoples labor without paying for it, you justify it by saying "It's okay because its really easy for me to copy it and receive benefit without payment."

See above.

By your logic, its okay for me to steal your car because I have a screwdriver and I know how to disable alarms and hotwire it. It only took 30 seconds. It was so easy for me to steal it that you don't deserve a car.

No, you're depriving me of a physical object that I don't have accessible to me afterwards. If you however e.g. copy an ebook I have written I will still have the ebook in my possession, too.

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247868)

No, you're depriving me of a physical object that I don't have accessible to me afterwards. If you however e.g. copy an ebook I have written I will still have the ebook in my possession, too.

If Software/Music/Movie ABCD v2.0 costs $10 to create, and 10 people pay $1 for it to receive the benefit of it, everything is great, the world is utopia.

When NancyBoy the pirate enters the picture, and receives the benefit of ABCD without paying for it, he just stole $1, collectively, from the 10 people who paid to receive benefit. If NancyBoy the pirate had paid, the cost to the 11 benefit receivers would be $10/11 or approx $0.91. NancyBoy the pirate has stolen money, and permanently deprived 10 people of property.

The physical object argument does not matter, and here is why. A car started out as dirt in the ground. Someone had to mine the dirt, extract the iron, make steel, form it into a car, etc. When you buy a car, you are paying for the labor and time of people who molded dirt into a car. The same is true of software, movies, and music. You are paying for the labor and time of people who organized information and molded it into a product.

Re:Really? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247876)

I should add, that criminals, always have a justification for their actions. It doesn't make their actions any more or less damaging, it just allows them to continue their criminal activity and satisfy their own internal moral conflict.

Re:Really? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247902)

Which is why when you point out that there is not a single person on the planet that has not used information created by other people without their express permission, right down to the words they use to make their justifications, they will tell you that THEIR use of other peoples intellectual creations don't count as theft. Only yours does.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247794)

You are using some fuzzy economics there. The economic impact of not buying and illegally downloading are identical, so it's just as much theft as not getting it at all.

The economics of theft and copyright infringement are completely different. If your argument has any merit at all, it can stand on it's own instead of free riding on the economic arguments of theft. People who call copyright infringement theft are either idiots or relying upon an appeal to emotion.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247704)

You are permanently depriving them of the time it took to produce the software

No, you aren't. They already used that time, and of their own volition. The pirate had nothing to do with that.

and their right to get paid for producing the software.

How does that work? They still very much have that right. You haven't taken it from them. Someone else can still buy the software.

Your argument is similar to hiring someone to paint your house, then refusing to pay them after the job is done.

Except, in that case, you've asked them to paint your house (asked them to do a job), and then not paid them. You've actually hurt (depending on how you define "hurt") them by directly wasting their time. Pirates are not people who ask artists to do jobs and then don't pay them. The artist takes the job of their own volition and the pirate has nothing to do with that (they're just potential customers).

Re:Really? (0)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247828)

and their right to get paid for producing the software.

How does that work? They still very much have that right. You haven't taken it from them. Someone else can still buy the software.

If you obtained the software from someone other than the copyright holder (who presumably would have charged you for it), whomever you obtained it from deprived the copyright holder of their exclusive distribution right. It's not depriving the copyright holder of a "right to get paid" per se, but it's only one step away from that.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247874)

If you obtained the software from someone other than the copyright holder (who presumably would have charged you for it), whomever you obtained it from deprived the copyright holder of their exclusive distribution right.

You're completely wrong. Their exclusive distribution right has been infringed upon but it still is their right. That's the whole basis on which they can sue.

Re:Really? (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247776)

Your argument is similar to hiring someone to paint your house, then refusing to pay them after the job is done. You have deprived the painter of his time.

The difference is that you never promised anyone you would pay for the work.

You can try to extend that to the social contract, but then the analogy breaks down immediately because in the case of the painter, without your specific, individual promise to pay the work would not be done, but in the case of the author the work will be done whether any specific individual buys a copy or not. More to the point, society in general is upholding the social contract because people are still spending their entire entertainment budgets on entertainment.

Let's put it this way: Piracy is irrelevant as long as artists are getting paid. And they are.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247834)

Officially, the Swiss government has decided that they have no more right to get paid for each copy of that software than I have to get paid for your reading my post. Finally, the legal understanding has caught up with material reality: you can no longer treat strings of numbers (which is what a digital file is) as "things" in the physical sense. Technology briefly created a period where you could treat music as a "thing," technology has ended that period.

Re:Really? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247900)

Software is not just a "string of numbers" as proponents of copyright infringement claim. Software is in fact, stored knowledge, in a specific unique form. Knowledge that required time and effort to gather, assemble, and mold into a product. No different than gathering raw materials to produce a physical tool.

You are using the ease of which a transgression against a productive person can be made, as a justification for transgressing. "The software is really easy to copy, therefore, the people who created it have no right to payment." By this logic, a human life is remarkably easy to extinguish by any number of technological means, therefore, anyone who's life you decide to deprive them of doesn't deserve protection and you don't deserve punishment for having taken it.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247932)

A software developer is spending time, of her own volition, on the speculation that the time spent will be rewarded with purchases. This expectation driving her speculation comes from a very old social contract: copyright. An "agreement" between information producers and information users, brokered by governments, copyright offered content producers a limited period of exclusive copying so that they might profit from their work (not to guarantee it... quality and market would still matter), and to encourage content producers to make that speculation to promote "the useful arts and sciences" in our society. In exchange, the work would enter the public domain at the end of that limited period, benefiting all.

The social contract has been violated. Industrial alliances of gigantic corporate content copyright aggregators purchased laws from various governments, firstly, to extend the limited term, further and further, retroactively, until the point that to most living humans, the period of copyright is "permanent." Secondly, with the rise of better and better digital technologies, and the increased ease and lowered expense of information copying and distribution, the industrial alliances invented DRM to directly violate and damage the easily copied nature of information. The same alliances then purchased legislation against thwarting DRM, etc... Information restricted by DRM is information that cannot enter the public domain and become freely copyable, unless some non-DRM copy was stored in escrow or some such arrangement. Those who have violated the copyright social convention haven't even considered such an action, as their intention with regards to eroding the concept of "limited term" has become their way of life: hence the invention of the term "Intellectual Property."

The agreement a homeowner makes with a painter to paint the house is direct, simple, and real. House painters never purchased laws stating that they could, once hired at an hourly rate, paint half of the remaining job, each day, in perpetuity, and be paid for it. The "agreement" involved in the concept of copyright has been broken for a long time, by the content industries, and most people on the other end of that brokered-before-they-were-born "agreement" no longer support it and many rightly no longer honor it. Intelligent information producers have already started looking at other revenue models and incorporate the above facts in their speculative calculations before spending time on a work. So who gets "deprived" of something to which they have a "right?" The people are deprived of the public domain works they were due prior to every retroactive limit extension.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247570)

It's still getting something for nothing, and maybe you spend the same amount in entertainment, but its distributed totally differently. If you spend $100 on some blockbuster concert and then pirate 10 albums from smaller bands, the only one winning is the big act. Rationalize it any way you want, but its stealing either way.

And who's to say that the $100 would go to the smaller bands if there was no pirated content available? It's just as likely that the person pirates songs from smaller bands to sample them out and then goes and buys $100 worth of goodies from the ones that feel worth it. You can try and rationalize it any way you wish, but it simply isn't as clear-cut as people try to make it out to be.

Besides it's not theft. Hell, it's not even deprivation of income as you cannot just assume that the person would buy the content if it wasn't available for free. If anything it's often free advertising.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Xeno man (1614779) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247592)

It's still getting something for nothing, and maybe you spend the same amount in entertainment, but its distributed totally differently. If you spend $100 on some blockbuster concert and then pirate 10 albums from smaller bands, the only one winning is the big act. Rationalize it any way you want, but its stealing either way.

First of all, no. It's not stealing. Stealing is the incorrect term. Nothing is being taken, information is being copied. If you want want to use a term, the one your looking for is copyright infringement.

Second, it's not copyright infringement because you can only break the law when the law says something is wrong. The government has come out to say a particular activity is not against the law.

Third, finally a body recognizes that money is not infinite. If you only have $100.00 to spend and you plan on spending it, there is no more money to be spent. If you choose to spend it all on a concert then so be it. There is no money left to buy any of those albums if you wanted to or not. You valued that concert more than those albums so that's where your money went. If other people value the concert the same way then it will be successful and make tons of money. Not everyone will think the same way. Some will value those albums more than some stupid concert and will buy albums. If they are good they more people will buy them. If they are crap then no one will buy them. If they are great then maybe I'll go to one of their concerts.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247634)

Why not just go out and buy the content? Just print up money on your computer. You wouldn't be stealing anything or depriving anyone of anything.

Re:Really? (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247832)

Just print up money on your computer.

Because the government hates it you steal their gig.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247858)

s/it you/it when you

Re:Really? (0)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247914)

Not surprised you post as 'Anonymous Coward' your stupidity is certainly something to be ashamed of.

Not surprising (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247490)

A European nation that is famous for it's secretive and shady banking practices shits on the entertainment business which employees lots of creative and productive individuals.

Sounds like the swiss

Re:Not surprising (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247558)

True, but practically all of the creative individuals you mention are the accountants that shit on the actual artists.

Sanity (5, Insightful)

Peristaltic (650487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247494)

...it's nice to see it in action once in a while.

Re:Sanity (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247532)

I can't believe there is a government that still makes sane decisions. Thank god for Swiss people.

Re:Sanity (2)

Weezul (52464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247666)

Related : http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,800850,00.html

Re:Sanity (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247614)

How is it sane to rip artists off and never pay them for their work? What if your boss decided not to give you a paycheck for code you wrote? And when you demanded your money, he told you that copyright sucks, information wants to be free, and that your work will simply serve as free advertising for your skills in the future?

Re:Sanity (-1, Flamebait)

kixome (1636329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247720)

Why do faggy coders always have something to say. Fuck you. If you got the millions that aren't getting paid to the artists but to the managers labels ect. your bitch ass wouldn't say a word. But as far as that goes, most coders as well as artists suck and that is why only twelve year old girls download their software as well as songs. Eat a cock and quit being suck a bitch. Have you ever heard of OSS? There are people who do things for the love of their craft and if they are really good enough it will show and they will get paid the big bucks bitch! /.

Re:Sanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247810)

You may be a bit slow, but eventually you might realize that artists are suppose to starve for their craft... the distribution is where the money is made. Artists lose no matter what they do. If you doubt this, look up "Hollywood Accounting".

Re:Sanity (5, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247892)

Most of our bosses don't pay us for our code. They pay us to code, and when they stop paying us, we stop coding.

Berne Convention (5, Interesting)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247496)

Interesting that one of the more famous copyright conventions is named after a Swiss city.

Disco Inferno (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247514)

Berne, baby, Berne!

Re:Cisco Inferno (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247650)

With all the content passing through routers, shouldn't that be Cisco Inferno?

Re:Berne Convention (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247606)

The key idea is balance.

Completely ignoring the rights of artists will only discourage people from further creating such works...
Yet, this notion has been brought to the other extreme in some countries (read: US).

Re:Berne Convention (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247670)

NO fuck that. As south park teaches us, if you want to play then you play for the fun and love of your craft. If you play for money then make your money from live shows only as thou art a bitch! That is balance! Fuck slashdot's waiting period to submit a comment. I am kixome but forgot to log in!

Re:Berne Convention (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247746)

Switzerland is a good place to have international meetings. The meeting that brought many works out of the US public domain happened in Uruguay, but I don't think they have all the much to do with that provision.

Holy smoke (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247504)

A government that makes a common sense. Time to move to Swiss

Very interesting stats and observation
  However, these people donâ(TM)t spend less money as a result because the budgets they reserve for entertainment are fairly constant. This means that downloading is mostly complementary. "

My favorite part
"The overall suggestion the Swiss government communicates to the entertainment industries is that they should adapt to the change in consumer behavior, or die"

Re:Holy smoke (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247542)

A government that makes a common sense. Time to move to Swiss

"Swiss" is an adjective. "Switzerland" is the country.

Re:Holy smoke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247588)

YMMV depending on your language. The German term for Switzerland is pretty much "The Swiss."

Re:Holy smoke (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247780)

The next RIAA publicity campaign will equate this policy by the Suise to the volume of Jewish gold and art that ended up in their country after World War II. "Those evil Suise will steal anything. Now they are taking money from our poor executives ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hartists."

Re:Holy smoke (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247878)

I'm moving to Switzerland. In fact, I'm having my Nigerian banker transfer my accounts there ASAP.

That's it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247508)

I'm moving!

Re:That's it.... (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247578)

I have wanted to move my servers for quite a while. No one is going to ask to look at your logs... You can proxy through there and enjoy their sane legal system...

After getting shit on by Duke Nukem 4ever, (4, Insightful)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247524)

I don't condone piracy but I can understand it.

Re:After getting shit on by Duke Nukem 4ever, (5, Funny)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247544)

I don't condone piracy but I can understand it.

Yeah, well... I condone quantum mechanics, but I don't understand it.

Re:After getting shit on by Duke Nukem 4ever, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247586)

I completely condone piracy as well as understand it. Don't be a pussy take a stand or shut the fuck up!

Re:After getting shit on by Duke Nukem 4ever, (4, Funny)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247626)

I don't condone piracy but I can understand it.

No kidding. I pirated DNF in the first place and thanked Gearbox in my heart for making it. Figured I'd buy the Balls of Steel edition if the game was decent and make sure they got some profit. After 5 hours of game time I sent them a bill for $3125.

I demanded $25 an hour for 5 hours of game time, and $3000 for psychiatrist visits - therapy to recover from the rape of my childhood.

Haven't heard back yet....

Careful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247536)

This might become like one of those Ubisoft Shrugged [thegamesaver.us] type events.

Huh? (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247538)

"...the copyright holders won't suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."

How do they reach that conclusion? Every dollar I don't spend buying a song or book or movie is not necessarily a dollar I spend on some other piece of media. Those dollars go into the general fund, and get spent on food and gas and rent and utilities. If there's money left over, it goes to general entertainment, but that includes stuff like restaurants and bars and sports tickets and travel. Things that in no way support the people I didn't pay. Maybe some small percentage ends up buying some other piece of media, but it would be a very small percentage.

So now we've got one side claiming that piracy costs a quintillion dollars a year, and the other side claiming that it costs absolutely nothing. Can we please get some sane leaders to acknowledge the obvious fact: it costs the media companies something, but nowhere near what they claim? That it's bad enough that it should stay illegal, but not so bad that people's lives should be ruined over half a dozen songs? Why does everything need to be black and white?

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

capedgirardeau (531367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247572)

I only have 1 anecdote, but for sure I would not spend money on buying TV series on DVD if I didn't download some of the series first.

I have spent hundreds on TV series in the past 4 years that was only spent because I could preview the show via download.

I had never spent a dime on a DVD and didn't intend to until I started downloading.

So for some people at least, the industry don't lose one red cent of money from downloading, but instead makes money it would have never made if downloading didn't exist.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247602)

and if you had to spend that money on "food and gas and rent and utilities", but instead spend it on a legally purchased movie:

Who would you be benefiting?

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247672)

You're missing the point, either deliberately or not by a mistake. First of all, with or without pirated content you're still going to pay for food, gas, rent and utilities, so you cannot count that money. Nor can you count the money you wouldn't use on media anyways. Secondly, they mean the money you'd use on media you're likely to spend on media anyways, with or without pirated content available. There are of course always individuals who differ from the general norm, but it does hold true for the general populace.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247938)

It depends what you mean by 'costs'.

Fundamentally the Swiss argument is correct.

Let's say you spend 10% of your disposable income on music. Now Napster comes along and you download all your music for free, depriving record company executives - I'm sorry, starving artists - that 10% of your disposable income.

Now, the key question is: what do you do with the savings?

Your piracy is only ultimately 'costing' the overall economy anything if you then reduce your working hours and take a pay cut that exactly offsets the money you would otherwise have spent on music. If instead you do the same amount of work and take the money and do something else with it - anything else - then the overall world economy has lost precisely nothing. That money winds up going to someone, somewhere. It stays in the system. It isn't magically destroyed.

There's some interesting subsidiary questions, of course. Like 'what do you spend the money on instead'? At _this_ specific point the Swiss argument is on somewhat shaky ground; I'm not sure they sufficiently proved that the money would be spent on other entertainment products. It would seem more reasonable that maybe people would spend it on _other_ discretionary spending instead. Maybe clothes, put it towards a car, drinks - it doesn't really matter. The point is that if you take the saving and spend it on something else, you're now not just 'costing' the specific music artists in question money, you're 'costing' the entire entertainment industry money.

This is the key point: this is really what the entertainment industry is worried about. And to a degree it's a legitimate worry. Making it very easy to pirate stuff probably _does_ cost the entertainment industry some amount of money, overall, compared to what they could theoretically make if it wasn't possible. It's a complex argument, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but the point of view that it does can at least be sustained.

Now, the entertainment industry is of course entirely self-serving and therefore attempts to portray this specific loss of economic activity in their sector as if it is some sort of magic overall loss to the economy. It Costs X Billion Dollars, they say - though those X Billion Dollars are not, as we've already seen, magically destroyed. They just go somewhere else. It Costs X Hundred Thousand Jobs - again, it probably doesn't. The jobs just wind up in some other sector.

However, the entertainment lobby again has a legitimate argument - to some degree, in some jurisdictions. See, you can make the argument that there is an overall cost to an even bigger entity than 'the entertainment industry' - it can be reasonably sustained that there's some degree of overall concrete negative effect on the economies of specific countries. Particularly those countries which are dominant in the entertainment industry.

Now maybe it becomes a little more clear why America is always pushing for jackbooted copyright laws: America is at the forefront of the worldwide entertainment industry. Hollywood probably represents a huge net trade surplus to the American economy: lots of people who aren't Americans spend part of their disposable income on American movies, American music and so on. Maybe if you go spend that money on clothes instead, more of it winds up in China. Maybe if you go spend that money on a computer instead, more of it winds up in...er, China. Maybe if you go spend that money on a vacation to Beijing instead...hey, okay, I kid. But you see the point. While it's almost inarguably true that piracy does not have any overall impact on the global economy, it's certainly plausible to argue that, to some degree, it hurts America and benefits just about everyone who isn't America.

That degree is probably proportionally tiny. But you can bet it's a scare card the entertainment lobby plays as hard as it can to politicians.

Swiss do not criminalize their own population (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247540)

Also they pay 'copyright tax' on every blank media, hdd and ssd sold that get redistributed to registered artists.

Common sense? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247548)

I never thought I would see the day a govt used this. I and many others will never give up free entertainment that is not live! I love that some one see's that we will always download and find ways around them no matter what so you should just let it go.

Makes you wonder why this doesn't happen in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247554)

If this study the Swiss government did is accurate in that even with piracy, the amount of money spent by households on entertainment remains the same, why would any film, music, or game studio bother going after pirates? If anything, they should lobby for a better standard of living and wage increases so people have more money to spend (not a larger percentage of income, but it would be a larger dollar amount) on their products.

Indentured servatude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247560)

I for one would prefer to be dominated by a nameless corporate authority in order to control the flow of money. After all, the name I use requires me to as the government owns it. I pay lots of taxes to this nameless sky daddy to make sure the people around me are as miserable as I am, and as such I enjoy being dominated by people stupider and more socially decayed than I am. Bring on the fictional liabilities, my life exists to generate wealth for psychotic people with fucked up priorities, and yours should too.

Highly compelling, however... (3, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247574)

These are great results, but they apply only to a small number of European countries. The people who are about to say: "See! If only RIAA would back the fuck off they'd make the same profits anyway!" are completely unjustified in using this particular study to support their argument.

Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. all have more socialism and more general social trust (as I understand it) than most countries. Lots of people don't even lock their doors in Denmark; they leave strollers with children in them outside the store while they grab a gallon of milk. I'm not saying there are no criminals and no extreme downloaders, but in general there's more respect for others' property and more belief that everyone is in things together. It's not surprising that such people still spend a great deal of money on entertainment in addition to some downloading.

In the United States, however, it's totally different. Individualism and extreme selfishness are far more common. I know tons of people who download in excess of 5 times as much as they buy, and I myself download literally 99% of what I consume.

I'm not here to say that RIAA and the MPAA are right/wrong, or that they're making/not making enough money even with downloading; those are all separate talks. What I am saying is that a study about the Netherlands (this study is based on data from the Netherlands, which the Swiss consider highly analogous to their own country) doesn't prove a damn thing about intellectual property law or the state of entertainment businesses in the US, so stop drawing stupid parallels before you start.

Re:Highly compelling, however... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247766)

You are missing the point.

Let's say inflation and your salary stay consistent. For 5 years, before you discovered piracy, you always spent $200/year on entertainment. Now you discovered piracy, you increase your entertainment consumption by 5x but increase your entertainment spending to $300/year. Is piracy helping or hurting the entertainment industry?

On one hand you are not paying the full amount On the other hand, the entertainment industry would only get $200/ year from you without it.

Re:Highly compelling, however... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247848)

The RIAA will impute a $1000/yr charge. Or maybe they'll use your $300/yr expenditure and 5x consumption and bill you for $1500/yr.

Regardless of whether you'd have to starve your kids to actually spend that much. You've got it. They want it. The damned kids can go hungry.

I don't get it (3, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247582)

I don't get this. Why would someone pay for something they already got for free? Are people really still using the argument that piracy is "free advertising?" The article claims that game pirates play more games and music downloaders visit more concerts, but that doesn't mean piracy is contributing to that--it just means that people who are more into games and music than average are therefore more likely to be obtaining them in as many ways as they can, piracy or otherwise. If there wasn't rampant piracy, how many more games would they be purchasing or albums would they be buying?

I mean, it's not as if a system works where everyone just works for free without any compensation. It's probably just too difficult and expensive for the Swiss government to try to squash piracy, so it's easier to throw up their hands. Plus, this article is posted on TorrentFreak, so it's not exactly an objective analysis.

I just don't get the mindset that not only thinks they are entitled to something they didn't pay for but also justifies it as some kind of culture movement, or a strike against the RIAA, or whatever. I've never respected that mindset. The only mindset I respect is the one that admits the basic human desire of getting something for free, because they're at least being honest about what exactly is happening. The lengths some people go to try to establish themselves as freedom fighters, setting up a "Pirate Party" or ranting about the evils of copyright (but don't you dare steal copyrighted GPL code!) signifies a level of denial I can't even begin to imagine suffering under.

I'm posting an anti-piracy position on Slashdot, so I know I'm opening myself up to a possible modbombing of epic proportions, as this site has become extremely pro-piracy in the last 10 years (getting Linux software for free means everything must be free, apparently), but I felt like I should risk the karma and make whatever points needed to be made.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247748)

The Swedish Pirate Party does not infact stand for open piracy: they stand for copyright reform and open government.

Ideas that if you spend five minutes talking with a sane human being, you'll likely agree with.

Switz media only? and us media from us uploads (1, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247604)

can still get you sued?

Score one for reality (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247686)

Sony, Apple and all their minions can go to hell. After all in Switzerland there is still open internet radio like this http://glb-stream11.streamserver.ch/1/rsc_de/mp3_128
Whereas here in backward north america us classical music folks are mostly screwed over by either itunes, silverlight crap, or locked out flash based shit stations. Of course I can always go back to Europe and get real music from great stations like http://lyd.nrk.no/nrk_radio_klassisk_mp3_h or better still, http://amp.cesnet.cz:8000/cro-d-dur.flac
So what if I record some or the content with vlc so I can listen later...who gives a shit. I do not redistribute or profit from my action.
Sony, Apple, Microsoft and all the RIAA assholes everywhere can go fuck themselves. What you have done to classical music world wide is inexcusable and I hope you suffer the consequences of your short sighted pop centric view of the listening public and music!

good to hear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247750)

The Swiss have traditionally been a no bullshit country.
Good to hear that is still true. :)

US should invade them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247802)

the US should invade these fuckers and put some fear of god, taxes, republicans and RIAA in their souls.

also, the democracy thing. yeah. more wars.

anybody invent a car that runs on moose yet ? bet they're holding out.

Anyone else simply stop watching movies/tv? (3, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#38247814)

Because of all the harassment of the RIAA and MPAA, I won't go watch things in theaters anymore or buy music. I'm not pirating either. I simply stopped consuming because I feel rights holders are causing problems in society such as suing grandmothers for millions and lobbying congress for laws that impact the freedom of speech. I know I'm in the minority and they'll make money from others, but if we vote with our dollars, I'm done voting RIAA and MPAA.

Re:Anyone else simply stop watching movies/tv? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38247850)

Plenty of good, free (as in freedom) community music from the likes of sites like Jamendo [jamendo.com] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...