Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal

[XSAlliN]

You know what the problem is?

Its that they go after everyone and not those who are doing the pirating to profit from it.

That's exactly the point of a law like that in Switzerland - meant to protect both the artists (since even there - you can't make money of somebody work) and "the people". Wile in other regions - they have laws that protect "only the corporations" - a new form of communism (one where the corporations are in control) if you will... hiding under a thin lair of democracy - which is suppose to be the official status of the countries in question.

[nn_step]

Uh, no. Stop trying to justify it.

No you stop, Trust me; when Clint says something he is by defintion right.

Now if you wish to argue that the dictionary defintion for a word is wrong, fine; we can discuss that point but nothing that Clint has said is incorrect per given the definitions of those words.

[Mechanical Man]

And what's the price for the work of the plumber versus one CD?

You cant compare work done by a plumber to cd. You can compare it to creative work done by artist, after that its just copying.

If the price is the problem, or the compensation to the different professions, then support the ones you think need support by buying their products, and don't support the others by not buying and not using their products....

Here, have a look at this.

[STEvil]

You cant compare work done by a plumber to cd. You can compare it to creative work done by artist, after that its just copying.



Here, have a look at this.

bought it

[p2501]

The internet has not caused an.explosion in piaricy, i download heaps of music, i still also buy a few films/cds etc if i like them but i also "stole" music befor the internet, i remember buying blank tapes and recording the top ten off the radio, trying to time pushing the record button perfectly avoiding the dj talking lol.

Hehe, thx for pointing that out. When tapes first became mass adopted the music industry wanted to criminalize the people for illegally recording music. The people won.

'Nuff said.

[Andrew LB]

Think about bigger picture, it was not meant to be straight up comparison. But still what is enough? That plumber does not get paid royalties every time someone uses his plumbwork. Why should artist be any different?

Not a very good comparison considering a plumber does not create a product which must be marketed and sold. A plumber is compensated either hourly or by the job for providing a service to a customer. The only way your comparison would be valid is if the plumber had an invention like a new type of valve for example. In this situation, the plumber's invention would be protected by both patent and intellectual property rights in order to prevent competitors from stealing his idea.

[XSAlliN]

Hehe, thx for pointing that out. When tapes first became mass adopted the music industry wanted to criminalize the people for illegally recording music. The people won.

'Nuff said.

They wanted to ban all recording devices... ^^

[MattiasNYC]

You're missing the obvious - "only artists paid to complain about piracy" do this occasionally... most don't for the obvious reason - IT'S WHAT MADE THEM FAMOUS, IT'S WHAT GOT THEM WELL PAID CONCERTS, IT"S "WHAT MADE THEIR MUSIC SALE BETTER"...

Really? How do you know this?

[MattiasNYC]

The labels are at fault, where have you been hiding for the last 10 years?

I've been in the music / entertainment industry for more than a decade and a half. Have you?

No, we attack labels because they are the ones stealing the money 10000:1 compared to anyone else in the game.

They're not "stealing" anything. Curious how some people get bent out of shape when the word "steal" is used incorrectly - i.e not literally - when those attacking copyright infringement are using it, yet not when it's the 'opposition'.

Labels aren't "stealing" anything:

1) you don't have to buy their products
2) whatever agreement the artist comes to with the label is their problem, not yours. It's neither your right nor your responsibility to act to resolve what you perceive as being a poor agreement, not to mention to do so by breaking laws.

("you" not being you personally of course).

Most artists are smart enough to know that going after "pirates" is not efficient and doesnt really bring them any paying customers because pirates will attend their live shows if they really like the artists music, which is the venue that the artists really make their money from.

Strange reasoning from a standpoint of discussing "morality".

Additionally, just as there's a cost in composing music, arranging music, rehearsing, recording, mixing, mastering, creating cover art etc etc.... there's a cost in playing live. Previously, when artists actually made money off of recorded music, they could use that revenue to help touring.

[MattiasNYC]

Back on topic. My view of the matter is:
In order to ask for compensation for damage you must first prove that there has been damage.
Prove that my not buying your CD has damaged you.
Prove that I decided not to buy your CD because I pirated it rather than because I didn't like it.

You can't. Nobody can.

Actually, I'm guessing one probably can do that, albeit in a "roundabout" way.

If it can be proven that the industry as a whole has suffered by a group of people acting a certain way and you belong to that group it stands to reason you are "guilty". Thus, it's not your acts as an individual that is proven to harm an individual artist, but rather your participation in an illegal activity along with others in that group that constitute the "damage".

[MattiasNYC]

You know what the problem is?

Its that they go after everyone and not those who are doing the pirating to profit from it.

I somewhat agree with you.

But I'd point out that they indeed are targeting those that profit from piracy and not only teenagers that like music.

The thing to remember too is that the industry is still searching for new ways to both protect their investments and find new revenue streams (and by "industry" I'm not only talking about big business). I'm guessing their "fishing with big wide nets" and are yet to find the "correct" strategy.

[MattiasNYC]

The internet has not caused an.explosion in piaricy, i download heaps of music, i still also buy a few films/cds etc if i like them but i also "stole" music befor the internet, i remember buying blank tapes and recording the top ten off the radio, trying to time pushing the record button perfectly avoiding the dj talking lol.

I used to do this too, and I never had a second thought about it being "piracy".

Having said that however, as soon as the CD took over from vinyl / tape I stopped it, simply because the quality of the CD was superior to vinyl copied to tape... well, to tape in general. And I think there's something to be said for that. The damage IS larger to the industry as a whole simply because you can make EXACT copies of the product. Before copying a tape that a buddy copied from a buddy who recorded from vinyl resulted in an inferior product, and as soon as the consumer got funds they bought the original simply because they "had to" in order to consume it. Very different today....

[lutjens]

Its refreshing to see a government not controlled by corporate lobbyists or special interest groups and one that recognizes that there are far bigger and more important judicial fish to fry.

[01Lude]

MattiasNYC,

Your failure to comprehend arguments does not invalidate them.

[MattiasNYC]

MattiasNYC,

Your failure to comprehend arguments does not invalidate them.

Perhaps you should try making one on topic then?