Slashdot Mirror
Swiss Gov't: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal
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."
Slashdotters = fags
Go suck a dong, idiots.
Slashdot = stagnated
It's a Beige Alert!
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.
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
...it's nice to see it in action once in a while.
Interesting that one of the more famous copyright conventions is named after a Swiss city.
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"
I'm moving!
Berne, baby, Berne!
I don't condone piracy but I can understand it.
This might become like one of those Ubisoft Shrugged type events.
"...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?
Also they pay 'copyright tax' on every blank media, hdd and ssd sold that get redistributed to registered artists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
can still get you sued?
With all the content passing through routers, shouldn't that be Cisco Inferno?
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!
The Swiss have traditionally been a no bullshit country. :)
Good to hear that is still true.
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.
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.
God spoke to me
Have you see the amount of money they make via litigation?
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I'm curious about when wikileaks has published such information. Can you provide a citation?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
As far as I know, this only applies to _downloading_; their view is that when an infringing copy is performed (and it works the same for counterfeit goods) the producer is to blame, not the consumer. Uploading, on the other hand, is still reprehensible.
So, Usenet or Rapidshare: safe. P2P, you are still screwed.
Real artists want everyone to enjoy their performance regardless of monetary reward. Real artists are also pirates that have chosen to spend their money wisely. Real artists are not complaining about supposed theft of digital copies because the poor artist is well-known. Burn, Hollywood, Burn!
Pixels keep you awake!
It doesn't make you wonder anything because the "study" is idiotic. It's based on the little known theory of (lol) "it all evens out!". I mean if you murder someone, their family will murder someone in your family - it all evens out!
They should be embarrassed for presenting this "study", and anyone who buys it should be embarrassed for believing it. It's risible. The reason they go after pirates is because "game studios, film, music" companies aren't one nebulous blob where as long as the money goes in somewhere it's all the same.
I'm going to do a study on how allowing people to steal in Wal-Mart would actually be good for the economy because the money they save would then be spent on other "retail stores". I mean, they're all the same so why would Wal-Mart care that Target is making more money off the theft of Wal-Mart merchandise.
This has NEVER been true. This same argument has been applied to taxing those who make millions, that somehow this sort of regulation (or deregulation in this case) will discourage the creation and perpetuation due to lost revenue. Theoretically huge budget movies could be affected by long-term piracy but that's about the only area that could discourage investment due to lost revenue. To cut an album and then go tour is miniscule for an independent band, to make a funny movie or even a classic without it being an epic retelling of a Greek war or Lord of the Rings costs far less than what people think. Ideally this will shift media back towards a pay-for-play ideal where production costs will step back in line with profitability. For decades with the VCR movies have been able to recoup all losses in the box office by simply waiting it out. Music has a similar low overhead except for the mega-hits who spend ten times as much promoting it as they do recording it. The money in music though is in concerts and selling out smaller venues makes more sense than trying to fill a 30K arena every other night.
So your argument really has leg to stand on. You're playing into a false dichotomy in an effort to come across as the sensible middle. It doesn't work since the sensible argument is to do nothing about this sort of piracy and reinvent how you do business.
What's not to like about Switzerland?
I'm a Swiss citizen and I can confirm that while downloading is legal, uploading is technically illegal. On the other hand, mass-discovery methods to detect uploaders ARE illegal here as well, and there are no political intentions to criminalize copyright laws. Switzerland is a direct democracy, meaning that any new law that is passed may be challenged by the people by collecting at least 100K signatures (that's about 1.5% of the population) against it.
About two years ago, one of the three judges of our Supreme Court made it clear in an interview that he was personally against going after people for "personal copyright infringement", stating that when the majority of the people is found to be infringing some law, that law was likely to be biased against the general interest.
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."
What sort of entertainment products?
Entertainment products produced by who and where?
When your backers commit a substantial amount of money to a production, they expect to see a direct and measurable return --- or they take their busines elsewhere.
Mozart didn't record it's music on CDs, but does it means it was not a good musician. I read everywhere that if peoples don't buy CDs, this will stop artist creation. Monet didn't make money from his paintings, but it still did wonderful work. For centuries, it was said that great art was the hand of god. Art belongs to human not to artists. And if nobody pays for CD, art and music will still be there. Maybe there will be less shit music but who cares.
but the copyright holders won't suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products.
So its ok not to pay for one thing, because the money might be spent on something else? Just because someone creates something, and publishes it doesn't mean you have the right to it for free.
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.
The property rights in question are the copyright holder's exclusive right to control distribution --- and the right to profit from his work if he chooses.
You know you haven't paid for your copy.
You know you haven't paid for the right to redistrbute his work through the P2P nets.
You lnow you can't undo what you have done after the file has been uploaded to the P2P nets.
You know that if the feds do come down on you, you will cop a plea rather than risk a trial by jury. You know you are not Jamie Thomas and you are not going to be next year's poster boy for the EFF.
Whether you survive or not, I will still say hello to your wife....;-)
DON'T SHOOT, I was just kidding....I don't even know your wife!
*runs away*
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
If anyone downloads music over the net illegally, i don't think the money spent on other stuff will ever reach the artist.
Why cant we just ignore the ones that demand money for listening, and support the ones that don't mind, like jamendo.com and the likes.
Do note that Swiss pay a hefty copying levy. In particular, we pay a fee on the amount of memory in smart phones, iPods, MP3 players, and the like. This fee is supposed to be compensation for the copying that goes on. Since we've paid for it, it is really only fair that we are allowed to copy.
Also note: while downloading is legal, uploading is not.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Recorded music should be considered advertising for live performances. Not a gravy train for life. Everyday coders dont get this - the people who do the actual work. it's the software companies who can sell the work on. In the same vein, it's the recording industry who should profit, not the artists. So, who cares about the recording executives? Hands up? Thought so.
they leave strollers with children in them outside the store while they grab a gallon of milk
You mean they go all the way to Liberia, Myanmar or the United States for a frigging gallon of milk? Aha! So they spend the money that they don't spend on music on air travel instead!
Now, I've encountered a Danish asshole or two in my life (Ove A. - are you listening?), but Danes never seemed stupid to me.
Your murder analogy takes top prize for "terrible analogies from the entertainment industry fans". Are you guys running out of actual arguments?
There is NO cost to the copyright holder if someone pirates their stuff, unless they were running the servers it was pirated from. There is a loss of potential income, but income from sales are never guaranteed unless agreed-upon before the work is done. The anti-pirates might as well go after subsistence farmers in Africa that never have bought a CD in their life, for their non-payment as well. Or maybe a band like Train can go after Lady Gaga for "stealing" potential customers since many people bought Lady Gaga's albums instead of Train's...
There is no entitlement to success in business.
And again the comparing of unlicensed copying of digital files with stealing physical objects. Are you guys dense?
Sydney rental properties . It seems "Fraud." So many wouldn't say that you stole from the other customers. Kids bedding . Although, please enlighten... Real estate .
Okay, let's thrash out the realm of Digital Products a bit more.
I also agree that the *costs* don't change, it's the *revenue* side that's the problem.
Producing digital products, including both music&movies and software, sinks all 100% of the costs up front. Then the producer is stuck trying to recover those costs. Previously, every issued copy was a sale, let's say 10% slippage from favors to friends, etc. So rephrasing the line above, "a digital product comes closer to breaking even and then making a profit the more people use it."
Now we get to you and your 200. Your mistake above was that we start with you at the beginning of your purchase cycle. You know about my game, you have 200 to spend... and you decide that my game is not worth spending it on to you. However, you still want to play it. (Since it's the "zero" that does strange things to lots of equation, let's say it's "worth a penny" that you dig up off the floor of your car.) You're now essentially walking up to me with the following theoretical conversation:
"Hi. I want to play your game. How much?"
"Hi. My price is $20."
"Hmm. Nah, I don't want to pay that."
"Okay. Have a nice day."
"No, I'm going to play it anyway. I copied my friend's CD."
"So when do I get my $20?"
"I dunno, I don't care. I'll tell a couple buddies, maybe they will buy a copy. I'm going to go play now, bye."
I'm pretty sure every downloader doesn't really think they have fully satisfied the requirements for their digital item. It's a gut level reaction to these upfront cost vs duplication cost changing equations. Admit it, there's a bit of "rebellious excitement" going on. Paying is "boring". Harnessing technology to copy it for free is "fun". So since we're still in thought experiment land, I'll send Security over to you and demand that you either pay me my $20 or delete "your" copy of the game.
Accounting and Game Theory have half solved this puzzle 40 years ago. It's a deliberate psychological refusal to allocate the Sunk Costs to make the digital item. You made your copy, so you purposely stop caring where my revenue comes from. It's not your right to make me "hope that if enough people copy the game to make it go viral, someone eventually will actually pay the real price for it". That *is* the modern emerging strategy, but you shouldn't be forcing me to delay my revenue at your whim.
This is the rough internal dialogue occurring in the minds of each and every downloader. "I've ripped my copy, I'm done. Your rent is not my problem". The last missing part is for you to provide me with something of *guaranteed* equal value to my purchase price, like a signature on a petition backed by someone who says "for every signature on this petition I'll grant the producer his purchase price in your name as a creative subsidy". By not providing that alternate value, THAT is the unstated implicit lost value caused by digital copying.
This is essentially the last word on the copyright dilemma at this time. It will occur with every digital item, times every downloader, forever until we get Non-Purchase methods of giving value back to the producers.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
So I heard today the swiss government ruled gnu gpl invalid, they said it was ok because you've probably got money coming in from somewhere so you wouldn't mind if someone else made some money off it too. Why are you applauding some dumb thinking it's just as dumb as MIAA and RIAA
This is what many just don't get. People don't have an unlimited amount of money. The ridicolus amounts of money that publishers claim to use due to piracy doesn't exist. Most of the time, the amount of what people spend on entertainment is constant. When they can pirate films and music for free, they will spend the remainder to go to cinemas and concerts. Of course, that changes the structure of the whole business, with new players entering and the old ones losing money, and those who can't change will try to use legislation to stay in business.
The house painting analogy seems to be falling apart, so how about this... illegally downloading copyrighted media is like sneaking into a less-than full movie theater or concert. As long as your presence isn't preventing a paying customer from entering, you aren't "stealing" money from the artists, right? After all, the movie or concert was going to be performed anyway, with or without you there. Yet I think most of us would see sneaking in as theft, although no physical object was taken from an owner and not given back.
Hail our new brain toting Swiss Overlords!
As a broke ass grad sudent my appetite for metal is significantly greater than my budget. I realize that it is very important to support smaller metal bands because most of them have to work an actual job in order to not starve. Whenever a band I like tours I always try to go see them. Which is rare because most of my favorite bands are european and don't tour canada often. Whenever I can afford it I spend a bunch of money on cds from smaller bands. I won't buy a cd from a big band (unless its blind guardian) because they don't need my money. I am pretty sure smaller bands survive through piracy (either standard bit torrent downloads or youtube posts). Its like the mix tape trading in the eighties (only better). I would not have found many of my favorite bands if not for piracy. Now that the conservative party is going full retard on its quest to make Canada like America. It its only a mater of time before they pass some retarded copyright legislation. Maybe I should relearn some french and move to Switzerland.
What you don't have to pay out for music, movies and games in Switzerland, you have to pay out for food. I was applying for a position at CERN at one point (didn't get very far into the process, gave up as I realised I wasn't interested enough in particle physics to fight for the place) - the advice they give to visitors is "If you want to go shopping, go to France"
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
but the copyright holders won't suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products.
The Swiss should know. The MAFIAA keeps their money in their banks to avoid tax collectors.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
This is essentially the last word on the copyright dilemma at this time. It will occur with every digital item, times every downloader, forever until we get Non-Purchase methods of giving value back to the producers.
What you mean like directly donating to the artists of a product without going through the corporate execs who suck 90% of the profits away? Could that actually be done? Going up to a person and paying them? I think it's a bit farfetched to think us mortals could just pay artists/developers/actors/etc. /sarcasm
But seriously. Not purchasing a product != Not paying money for it.
The music industry gives ~10% of the revenue to the artists, the rest goes to people who _DO NOT ACTUALLY ADD ANY ARTISTIC VALUE TO IT_ Why would it be moral, much less desirable to pay such leeches? We live in an age, where being an professional artist/developer etc. does not cost significantly more than doing said activity in free time. A keyboardist needs there instrument regardless of whether or not they have a CD on the shelves, and if they can compose music, they will. I for one create electronic music and yet.. noone pays me for it! How could this be? Someone doing something purely because they enjoy doing it? Blasphemy!
The multiple layers serve a purpose: they promote the product to people who don't live their lives on the Internet. Some genres of music are popular with people who rarely or never listen to music on the Internet. The major labels are especially skilled at getting music into rotation on big corporate FM radio. It just so happens that a recording artist can't have it both ways, both self-promotion on the Internet and label promotion on media other than the Internet, because major labels stipulate exclusive rights to an artist's entire output.
selling out smaller venues makes more sense than trying to fill a 30K arena every other night.
But then that becomes difficult when your music is popular among high school students and college underclassmen, whom the smaller venues won't admit because the smaller venues depend on alcoholic beverage sales. What kind of all-ages concert venue other than these 30K arenas is commonly used?
...anti-usa sentiment runs high... as if any government is altruistic ... (note sarcasm...).
ranting about the evils of copyright (but don't you dare steal copyrighted GPL code!)
I see two differences. First, a lot of the works that copyfighters rant about are old works whose copyright should have expired in their opinion, such as the film Song of the South. United States copyright under the Copyright Act of 1790 lasted 28 years, with a maintenance fee due at the end of the fourteenth. Had the copyright term not been extended four times since then, everything published before 1983 would have entered the public domain. The GNU project didn't even start until 1984.
Second, if copyright in computer programs were to disappear, all software either would be free or could be made free by college students who disassemble and document software as a hobby.
Also, you haven't really quantified the matter of 'do not have the protections of copyright'. At what point do you feel that this happens?
I expect copyright to expire no later than when the net present value of the future revenue that the copyright owner expects to realize from the sale of copies becomes negligible, when considered along with the typical market performance of the medium. For example, movies and video games do most of their sales in the first year, so what is the net present value of future revenue from the film Song of the South or the video game Earthbound?
In the recording industry, not so much. The labels don't pay for anything. They give the artists a "loan" which consists of all of which you mentioned and more. Which the artist have to pay back. On top of that the labels get a majority percentage of each sale. So the labels put out none of there own money. Being a label is pure profit.
Information that has previously been published "wants to be free". The only use I can see for publishing someone's banking or tax identification number is to make fraudulent use of someone's identity.
I am of the firm belief that it is the media companies' obligation to adapt to the modern world. Their dinosaur-age business model has no place in a society where digital information flows free-er than water. Plus, aside from what Sony, Universal or Warner would like you to think, for every Lil Wayne there are 20 talented artists out there willing to provide their entertainment for little to no money.
So if you go on holidays, and I take your car without permission, but return it before you get back, then it's not stealing?
If you managed to use zero fuel and put zero miles of wear and tear on it and to return it before I wanted to use it next, then I probably wouldn't call it stealing.
or if you have sex with a women while she's passed out drunk, it's not really rape.
I don't have the time at this second to go into a full analysis of date rapes assisted by alcohol and/or flunitrazepam. But for one thing, a chance of spreading VD (sexually transmitted infections) and one's seed is still rape.
So how would one get a recording onto FM radio without the help of these usurious lenders?
You have to find an independent station which now days is much more difficult. Or College/high school station.
They are the real bankers(not funny money bank of america), they have 1200 tons of gold backing their currency (enough to back 20% of their currency) and their adult males keep fully automatic rifles at home. They also have direct democracy and really awesome fondue...did i also mention they have universal healthcare.
Essentially if one nation allows copying it sort of opens up the issue for the entire world. Obviously all kinds of people in Switzerland will be posting what is now declared legal materials and that should cause huge legal issues in other nations. The folks that made Toy Story may feel one way but it is very hard to argue that a guy sitting in the US downloaded from Switzerland an item considered perfectly legal to copy. There simply has to be some serious legal conflict in downloading an item from a nation that says it is legal to copy it and copying the same material from a nation that declares that it is illegal. This issue gets funny at times. Cartoons could focus on this issue.
Uhm.... okay whatever I think I understand what they're saying.... but.....
in the light of things I don't think I've bought a movie in more the three years, (about a year since I've stepped foot inside a movie theater) I listen to the radio not cd's..... the one thing I have bought are computer games BUT those have been from discount stores or from thrift stores. So here's my thing: What about that? Okay one person buys ONE game, decides they don't like it and donates it to a thrift store (remember also donating to a thrift store is able to be listed on yours taxes so here that person that bought the game in the first place might have made money off that game themselves) anyways... here I come and buy it from the thrift store... the artist/whoever doesn't get anything from that.
Not to mention the ever wonderful FREE library where you can rent for FREE books (I don't re read novels, so really who do I buy any books?) DVD's (again hardly EVER rewatch a movie, kinda boring knowing how it ends) and CD's. And actually at my library (I don't know if others do) you can actually rent some computer games. So..... where's the money that went to the artist with those MANY people that borrowed the book/dvd/CD?
The Swiss, realizing that they didn't have many resident inventors, but were next door to Germany, signed the treaty... and then gave no patent protection to their own inventors. Or any others.
That lasted for a few years until Germany got really angry and threatened to cut off trade.
Does FM radio even matter anymore? We've got all sorts of music streaming services. Most of what I hear on FM radio is either pop/corporate crap or oldies. So to answer my question, no. FM radio doesn't matter. It's totally irrelevant.
Does FM radio even matter anymore?
Yes, because it works in a car or bus.
We've got all sorts of music streaming services.
Which don't work in the car unless you subscribe to an expensive data plan. Some genres of music are more popular among people who don't use smartphones. Or should all independent recording artists switch to genres currently popular among the iPhone/Droid set?
to make sure people have a decent standard of living without living in debt. American piracy has skyrocketed, but the annual salary per worker in America keeps dropping, the percentage of the working-age population employed keeps dropping. So what do people who don't have money to enjoy entertainment do? They pirate. They may still pirate if they have money, but they'll also have money to spend on products to reward the artists and filmmakers they liked. Americans get paid less and less, jobs keep getting cut, music and movie sales drop, but they only blame piracy.
The multiple layers serve a purpose: they promote the product to people who don't live their lives on the Internet.
...and so why are people who live their lives on the internet having to pay for this, exactly? The majority of people consuming this type of entertainment DO live their lives via social media these days. For those few who still listen to the radio and then go buy the music in a B&M store, wouldn't it make MORE sense to level the playing field, and prevent the radio lock-in and payola corruption we currently have in place? After all, it's that payola you're arguing to protect. You're saying that self-promotion won't work because these big labels have a racket going that's funded by the current model that prevents it.
Instead of protecting the racket, doesn't it make more sense to fix the problem?
Of course, the labels (big and indy) do more than just get your music on the airwaves... they also do strategic market integration, organise and coordinate global release schedules, bring together visual, audio, written and performing artists, etc. But they do this as a paid service. They could still offer these services to artists without requiring lock-in (you don't buy the entire package from us with this glitzy cash advance, you don't get nuthin') like they do today. This isn't acceptable in any other form of business, and in the tech industry, many companies have been taken to task for doing exactly this.
The general interest can tip the other way due to external pressure, however. It isn't just a change of conscience that is making the Swiss change banking privacy laws to help the US collect taxes.
Commies. We need new technology to ensure stuff gets paid for.
Masses are never right. Period.
Look who is the ignorant calling others stupid. He said in Denmark, which is not the Netherlands. I have also seen people leave strollers outside of stores there (especially bakeries), a lot. Also, take this from an American who has been living in Europe for ten years: if you lose your job in Europe, you are nowhere near as fucked as an American. Americans without work fucking starve on the street. Do you understand that? If you have no job, no friends, you fucking die.
I have been unemployed in Belgium. The state gave us almost 1000 Euro a month, and guaranteed our apartment. Our landlord could not evict us even though we could not pay (the state paid him about 70% directly). In the US, I would have been in my mom's basement, except that she died 4 years ago. My kids would have been taken by CPS. Yeah, if you lose your job here, you are pretty fucked, but nowhere near as fucked as an American.
You have a social system. Appreciate it.
This is essentially the last word on the copyright dilemma at this time. It will occur with every digital item, times every downloader, forever until we get Non-Purchase methods of giving value back to the producers.
I hate to break it to you, but we already have non-purchase (and pre-production) methods of giving value back to the producers. The only impediments to using these methods across the board are vested interests who are locked into the current purchase methods and don't want to take the hit on their currently functioning-very-well-thank-you-very-much business model. They already have enough power and clout that they're finding methods of perpetuating their model which are in turn affecting our social structure, such that the argument you made actually makes sense to a lot of people... and they never realise all the assumptions the argument's conclusions ride on.
The entire concept of "forcing me to delay my revenue at your whim" shows how far our society has shifted. In MOST lines of work, we ask for a contract that guarantees revenue in an on-going basis. Even contract work generally doesn't wait until the contract is completed before all "debts" are called in.
Believe it or not, I work in an industry that produces no physical product, similar to the entertainment industry. The results of my work are sold to millions of people, and my company makes a nice profit. However, society at large also benefits from my work, and a lot of the core information generated by my work enters the public domain daily.
Why does this work? Because if I stopped producing intellectual property today, all the work I did in the past would eventually lose relevance in the current cultural space. Unless society is stagnant, there is a continual demand for new ideas and new implementations of old ideas.
Something else to remember: the entire concept of purchasing and product value is a fabrication. If people find that they make less money based on what they do, they have to personally decide if it is worth doing that. If they decide it's worth doing, that means they'll be contributing product into their society with fewer demands on society, so society as a whole benefits. If they decide it's not worth doing (for example, I've never sold any music for personal profit despite the fact that I'm a fairly decent musician), they can choose to produce for some other reason, or choose to do something else with their free and not-free time.
The reason we have inflation in western society is that there is a gap between actual value of work and the amount being paid to certain segments. Since this gap has to be filled from somewhere, it is usually filled by devaluing the currency of the other market segments... in essence, stealing from the balanced segments to prop up the inflated segments.
Getting back to my point... the common reason a producer of intellectual goods sets, say $20 as the value they're willing to charge for a product is that that's the top value they feel they need to be enriched by that the market will bear. If the next guy over is selling a similar game for 99 cents, and so is the guy beside him, the average cost in that segment is significantly lower, and the guy charging $20 is going to find that the market won't bear the price. Propping up that price effectively skews the market segment and causes inflation -- he is in fact stealing from society at large to attempt to gain an advantage.
Society's response is to: give him the advantage (happens all the time) and let everyone else cover the discrepancy in order to enrich society with the products of his work, ignore his demands and take the product at or below market value (also happens all the time) toward the same ends, or ignore the product altogether, thus resulting in a lot of effort that a single person is hoarding from society as a whole, as they've produced a work based on those who came before them, and then given none of the results back to society to enrich it.
The
I suspect various governments around the world will bow to the vested interests of media companies and introduce a copyright tax/levy on all entertainment products. The big issue is just how much of the revenue obtained from such an indirect tax would go the government and how much would go the media companies.
Majority of the people used to be able to get away with murder before we had society.
I guess we shouldn't be that fast...
One target was a hosting firm located in Switzerland.
The problem with that argument is that if I was never going to buy it its still not a lost sale (you were not getting my 20 regardless). The strength if that argument is that maybe if I did not have the option of downloading I would buy it. This is where I think the way digital goods are sold could change to make buying something i wanted more likely. As many people have pointed out (and something I know iv done) they download something to try it first. The problem with that is once you have it downloaded its easy to say "well ill buy the next one because I have something else I can spend that money on right now". I think part of the cause for this is because you cannot return software (games especially). If I buy a board game and it does not live up to my expectations I can return it. If I buy a shitty game (DNF is a prime example) i'm stuck with it. Most games don't release demos anymore and even if they do they only show the parts that are decent.
Gabe Newell pointed out recently that price does not make a huge difference for pirates and its more that its harder to buy stuff then it is to download it. While I don't agree with that completely it does have a lot of truth to it. There is a lot of risk related to buying a game, it might suck and im still going to be stuck with a shitty product that was not what was advertised. If you make a shitty physical product and everyone who buys it returns it your going out of business any make no money. If you make a shitty game and advertise the shit out of it your going to make money (you might not make another game but you will already have the cash you got from that first shitty game), and something is wrong with that system.
when the majority of the people is found to be infringing some law, that law was likely to be biased against the general interest.
This!
If the majority of the population breaks a law regularly, it's the law that's wrong.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It is producing a product of value in exchange for payment, same as any other service or product produced.
Slight quibble, with most goods or services, you sell them and when the sale is complete, you have no right to determine what is done with them by the buyer afterwards. Your examples of crops, cars, gold, and houses all are yours to sell at any price or give away after the sale is complete.
That isn't to say that you are wrong about the fairness of it. Copyright is an attempt to treat information as a product and ignoring it means that the work produced with the expectation of copyright protection is devalued when that protection isn't given. Switzerland has chosen not to extend protection that is offered in many other places. It may be that artists and craftsmen there will choose to produce work only if they are granted fair compensation before releasing their work, and that could end up making the artists more money than they would elsewhere, thus making it a Mecca for the aspiring artist. Where else can you go and demand fair payment before release? On the other hand, a global market may mean that it is simply more cost efficient to import (piracy included) work from outside, thus eliminating the incentive to produce there.
As a software writer (albeit minuscule) I can certainly appreciate the draw of producing work based on what it might be worth to the buyer rather than hoping that other people will choose to pay later. I'd rather have a clear cut contract to produce a software product that does X in exchange for Y, than producing X hoping that Y^n will come to pass.
As a side note, this is what SaaS is all about and why I believe it has started becoming so popular. When you use a hosted service (as we do in my professional life) you aren't paying for the right to use X software so much as you are for using X services for a period of time. Napster is a perfect example of a SaaS gone wrong and there is much to learn from it. What if Napster had chosen/had to pay the artists up front for distribution and the method had been just a part of the business model? Metallica and Madona could have made a huge sum of money by licensing their work for distribution through Napster if they'd received a gross fee based on trends. If Napster had done this then it might be a big player today instead of a historical footnote.
"Give me product to distribute, and if it does well, I'll pay you Y per instance."
"No, you figure out what it is worth to have X and pay me that, and THEN I'll give it to you."
Which one is fair? It seems that Switzerland is banking on it being the second.
I am the son of a farmer. I've never observed my father to receive payment after he sold his crop because people bought it or failed to receive payment after he sold it because it wasn't distributed well later.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
www.firmarehber1.com
i will buy some of your cheese this week
There are not enough jails, not enough police, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people.
Hubert H. Humphrey
One can only hope.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
I have never understood why anyone thinks it's OK to violate a copyright. If a legal download costs $0.99, and you get a copy of the same thing for free, what is the logic? If someone is making too much money in your mind, is it OK in your mind to just take it? If your boss comes to you on Friday and tells you that because you had an easy week so he's cutting your pay, will you accept that? In his mind you don't deserve the pay you are getting. Is it OK to walk in to a music store and walk out with free CD's? It's different because it's physical? I don't steal music, nor do my children. I just don't get it.
I've been doing radio since the early 1980s and am one of the few DJs embracing the "netsician" movement: unsigned and unknown novices posting their music own their own websites, or through netlabel collectives. Most netsicians do this for free, so anyone who downloads this music isn't breaking any law. Free music comprises about 90% of what's downloaded on the web, despite all the rants about alleged piracy.
What people don’t realize is that so-called anti-piracy laws are really part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate the free transfer of media and information on the web. Several forces behind this are motivated by the desire to control. Ignorance and ideological extremism are aiding this ploy.
Powerful music moguls are trying to regain the choke hold of control on music publishing they had 20 years ago, before the web's netsician revolution. With the help of ambulance-chasing lawyers, big record companies are falsely accusing downloaders of music piracy. Ignorant politicians are passing laws to prosecute "illegal" downloaders without due process. In May 2011, New Zealand's parliament, behind closed doors, passed a law saying anyone accused of pirate downloading can have their internet access suspended for six months and be fined $15,000 (NZ). Last month, France enacted a similar law, supposedly over concern about artists receiving their “royalties.”
Incredibly, even artists who upload their works for free are being accused of violating their own copyright; ASCAP stated this in August 2010 while declaring war on the web's music license protocol, Creative Commons. Canada responded the following October by banning all Creative Commons artists from receiving airplay on any of its (government run) radio stations.
Most computer users are outside of Apple’s iCult and regard that company, along with its fanatical supporters, as a laughingstock of self-centered blowhards. But Apple thinks it can control all music publishing by forcing every consumer and musician into its iTunes cabal. Most of the media is run by partisan simpletons on Apple's payroll, hence the continuing wave of propaganda spinning this company into the phony image of significance it enjoys. Most Apple users believe any web music outside of iTunes is illegal - yet another testimony to their utter stupidity, and the danger to everyone's freedom these morons pose whenever they ascend to any position of power.
People who say "they'll never regulate the internet" don't realize it's already happening. The two outfits mentioned above are motivated by money and a desire to control all music publishing. The future of all free transfer of media, information and ideas on the internet is under real assault when also considering totalitarian governments are trying to export censorship beyond their borders and into free nations. Other conspirators include radical political activists who demand their crank ideologies be inserted every art form, ultimately to turn all free expression into nothing more than old Soviet propaganda posters.
Most of human history has been represented by feudalism and enslavement. Man has recently enjoyed an unprecedented era of freedom, but the world is now reverting to its previous propensity for dictatorships. The difference is that today people in the free world have a choice. Unfortunately, they’re being manipulated by thugs with sugar coated schemes designed to take away freedoms. Technologies like the internet, which have spawned new outlets of creativity, may end up being used by those in power to persecute opponents.
That is insightful. I'd mod you up if I could.
Temporarily adopt an unacceptable position to force an opponent to execute an expensive move in your favour.
Excellent strategy! Well spotted if this turns out to be the case.
In the mean time, it will be interest to see how this plays out for the profit margins of media companies for Swiss sales.
IIRC sales are usually on the increase right before this type of sanity is killed. Napster? Morpheus? .. firstly 1) Can't be purchased and secondly 2) are deemed to be 'illegal'. )
(and yes, for the record, I purchased a playstation 2 and got Final Fantasy X just because of several AMV music clips featuring FFX. Same goes for several anime series including Inuyasha... it's a real pity that AMV videos and the like
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
There's a media executive somewhere in the US who's blaming Europe's economic crisis on this realistic, rational approach to copyright law.
I can also see them signing all of their letters with their name and the slogan: Fuck facts, I'm rich.
A friend of mine makes music. He's been on the local radio station, and more recently some other stations across the country. AFAIK, without any major label backing.
Beyond that, the relationships between radio and studios changed. Online radio, for example, is something the studios want to *CHARGE* for, as opposed to using them for promotional purposes.
Add to that, in many places playing music from the radio in a coffee shop or whatever still requires a special license, even though anyone could tune it in for free individually.
Music execs wonder why their house of cards is falling... some of the above are just a few examples.
So if I download stuff from a server in Switzerland, do the laws of Switzerland apply or do the laws where I live apply?