The article by boing-boing is 100% inaccurate. Ok, make that 90%, there as been a revision of the copyright law in Switzerland. But beyond this basic fact, the situation is very different. The new copyright law is, compared to the US and the EU, very liberal. Not liberal enough for my taste, but way more so than others. For example, downloading files for personal use is explicitly allowed. It is explicitly allowed to break copy protection technology, as long as you use the file for legal purposes (private copy, education etc). Admitted, the law has its share of absurdities -- downloading is permitted, uploading is prohibited -- but still, it's so liberal, that the "International Intellectual Property Alliance" put Switzerland on its watchlist for it. Also, there has been real public debate about it, with resistance from political parties on the left, as well as free software groups, ngos, and even artists. The fact that the discussion did not take place in English but in German, French and Italian does not mean that it did not take place at all.
I must say, I'm not particularly impressed by this proposal. It strikes me there are two major problems, both related to the fact that the system is voluntary.
First, how do you make the majors join the collective society? Those with the most popular catalogue have the least incentives. I cannot image a major label releasing a major act under such a license unless it's fairly clear that the collective society has real money to distribute. But if the most popular acts are not included, users could face the problem of having paid their fees and still being sued.
The second question is: How do you get users to pay? The EFF suggests that all the 60 million people now using p2p networks will pay. This is, to put it mildly, very optimistic. Because, really, what's the incentive to pay? Users can still download, regardless whether they pay or not, and if a user doesn't share his music files, then the RIAA will never know what he have on his hard drive. In other words, a few 10 thousand people willing to share their large collections would make it possible for a few millions to simply download and then disconnect, gaining all the advantages from the network without paying, and, importantly, without risk of being sued.
A number of studies have shown that p2p networks are, indeed, not all that p2p, because a small number of nodes serves the vast majority of content. But if only that small number of people are actually paying, it will make majors even more reluctant to release their content.
But, on a somewhat more positive note, the failure of such a voluntary proposal would make the case of a compulsory license more stringent (which also the EFF sees as a possibility).
Slashdot Mirror
The article by boing-boing is 100% inaccurate. Ok, make that 90%, there as been a revision of the copyright law in Switzerland. But beyond this basic fact, the situation is very different. The new copyright law is, compared to the US and the EU, very liberal. Not liberal enough for my taste, but way more so than others. For example, downloading files for personal use is explicitly allowed. It is explicitly allowed to break copy protection technology, as long as you use the file for legal purposes (private copy, education etc). Admitted, the law has its share of absurdities -- downloading is permitted, uploading is prohibited -- but still, it's so liberal, that the "International Intellectual Property Alliance" put Switzerland on its watchlist for it. Also, there has been real public debate about it, with resistance from political parties on the left, as well as free software groups, ngos, and even artists. The fact that the discussion did not take place in English but in German, French and Italian does not mean that it did not take place at all.
I must say, I'm not particularly impressed by this proposal. It strikes me
there are two major problems, both related to the fact that the system is
voluntary.
First, how do you make the majors join the collective society? Those with the
most popular catalogue have the least incentives. I cannot image a major
label releasing a major act under such a license unless it's fairly clear
that the collective society has real money to distribute. But if the most
popular acts are not included, users could face the problem of having paid
their fees and still being sued.
The second question is: How do you get users to pay? The EFF suggests that all
the 60 million people now using p2p networks will pay. This is, to put it
mildly, very optimistic. Because, really, what's the incentive to pay? Users
can still download, regardless whether they pay or not, and if a user doesn't
share his music files, then the RIAA will never know what he have on his hard
drive. In other words, a few 10 thousand people willing to share their large
collections would make it possible for a few millions to simply download and
then disconnect, gaining all the advantages from the network without paying,
and, importantly, without risk of being sued.
A number of studies have shown that p2p networks are, indeed, not all that
p2p, because a small number of nodes serves the vast majority of content. But
if only that small number of people are actually paying, it will make majors
even more reluctant to release their content.
But, on a somewhat more positive note, the failure of such a voluntary
proposal would make the case of a compulsory license more stringent (which
also the EFF sees as a possibility).