Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal

[01Lude]

Thought experiment:

Say I DVR a song on MTV or VH1, transfer it to my PC, and convert it so that I can listen to it in my car. At any point here have I "stolen" anything? HD radio has high quality music. If you record a song off of HD radio have you "stolen" anything? I say that once your music is out there it becomes public domain. Artists can make money in many different ways besides direct CD or mp3 sales.

[Clint]

Bullshieit.

The above is just meaningless semantics.

Hohumm, ok. Lets say you or some other random dude by 'mistake' touches a co-workers butt on the christmas party. Now, if she would start screaming "RAPE!!!!" wouldn't you object to the exaggeration based on that the action is not in parity with the attention that the "RAPE!" scream attract? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be happy with someone saying it's "meaningless semantics, right? What I'm trying to point at is that the media industry, as yourself, is using definitions of actions on a flawed basis, only to motivate a greater attention to their case. I prefer to protect the definitions in the legal system to keep me and my nearest safe. Also, I refuse to be quiet when whatever interests is peeing on the REAL victims, because that what you in effect are doing when you are "stealing" (pun intended) the attention for their suffering for your own purpose. Copyright infrigment < Theft....simply becuase the owner still has his copy.

The point isn't that when you download something illegally the actual physical original gets removed somewhere else. I know this. You know this. Everybody knows this.

!

The issue is

1. getting paid for the hard work one has done.
2. others not making money off of your work without you getting paid.

! ...If you meant others making money without you not getting paid? If so, then I agree...still doesn't change my objection against using definitions of actions on a flawed basis though.

And yes, when you download something from a site with advertising then some s are making money off of the hard work of the people whose stuff you're now not paying for. Sounds fair?

Now you basing your argument on a generalization, which is flawed as well. You will not find many sites where you find both illegal material and advertising. ...still have nothing to do with my post where I object against using definitions of actions on a flawed basis.

How about I do something illegal so that you are no longer paid for your work, and then we can engage in a discussion about what that's called? Sounds fair?

Now you basing your argument on a generalization that is beyond logical frames, cannot reply. Anyway, the fragments you state still have nothing to do with my post where I object against using definitions of actions on a flawed basis.

[MattiasNYC]

first of all revenues drop for lots of reasons. the entire economy was in recession for the last few years.

The decline in music and entertainment sales begun before the most recent recession.

lol are those the only 2 choices? this is what we call a "false choice" or a "false dichotomy." the assumption in your question about "what's right" bothers me more than anything else. you should probably google that for your own information. I apologize I don't have the patience to elaborate fully here.

In other words, you know I have a point and you can't refute it so you'll "gracefully" decline to respond.

personally i wouldn't listen to your crappy music if you paid me to do it.

You have no idea what kind of music I create, or even if that's my occupation. Since that's the case, what you just said speaks volumes about you and your line of reasoning.

art is one of those tough industries where you bust your butt and feel that you deserve to get paid something, but if what you created SUCKS, then people simply won't buy it. music is not one of the "essentials" of life. unfortunately you are not entitled to get paid for your hobby.

And did I ever say that people deserve to get paid for stuff they do that nobody wants?

Or did I say that when people use the product of the labour of others the people who created the product deserve to get paid for their work?

It's a 50/50 chance you'll guess right.....

let me ask you this: if you got paid nothing then would you stop making music? i would wager that most artists would keep making music just for the love of it, or for the chance that they might make that 1 hit wonder that gets their name out there.

So what? Is your point that taking music without paying for it is ok because those who do it "for a living" will keep doing it anyways? If that's not the point, then the above is completely irrelevant.

[MattiasNYC]

Thought experiment:

Say I DVR a song on MTV or VH1, transfer it to my PC, and convert it so that I can listen to it in my car. At any point here have I "stolen" anything? HD radio has high quality music. If you record a song off of HD radio have you "stolen" anything? I say that once your music is out there it becomes public domain. Artists can make money in many different ways besides direct CD or mp3 sales.

"Thought experiment"? Meaning, the above is what you think it should be like, right?

Then "no", I don't agree with that. I think that if you create something you should be the one who determines what happens to it, IF we choose to have a capitalist system in the first place.

[MattiasNYC]

Hohumm, ok. Lets say you or some other random dude by 'mistake' touches a co-workers butt on the christmas party. Now, if she would start screaming "RAPE!!!!" wouldn't you object to the exaggeration based on that the action is not in parity with the attention that the "RAPE!" scream attract? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be happy with someone saying it's "meaningless semantics, right? What I'm trying to point at is that the media industry, as yourself, is using definitions of actions on a flawed basis, only to motivate a greater attention to their case. I prefer to protect the definitions in the legal system to keep me and my nearest safe. Also, I refuse to be quiet when whatever interests is peeing on the REAL victims, because that what you in effect are doing when you are "stealing" (pun intended) the attention for their suffering for your own purpose. Copyright infrigment < Theft....simply becuase the owner still has his copy.

The "theft" is of the income that now is not realized. That's the point.

If you're going to argue against copyright protection, against intellectual property, in favour of copyright infringement, then the argument you put forth is completely irrelevant.

If your argument is that we're using the wrong language then you're right, and I guess it's a nice PSA.

! ...If you meant others making money without you not getting paid? If so, then I agree...still doesn't change my objection against using definitions of actions on a flawed basis though.

You're right.

Now you basing your argument on a generalization, which is flawed as well. You will not find many sites where you find both illegal material and advertising. ...still have nothing to do with my post where I object against using definitions of actions on a flawed basis.

There are actually quite a few sites that do this.

Now you basing your argument on a generalization that is beyond logical frames, cannot reply. Anyway, the fragments you state still have nothing to do with my post where I object against using definitions of actions on a flawed basis.

Ok, you've mentioned three times that your argument is that the wrong terminology is used. "We" are corrected.

[m^2]

The "theft" is of the income that now is not realized. That's the point.

Nonsense. They didn't have the income in the first place, so they lost at most a hope to get it.

[MattiasNYC]

Nonsense. They didn't have the income in the first place, so they lost at most a hope to get it.

Whatever.

We're talking about human beings who desire to produce things that bring joy to people like you and others. They spend years in training for this, and 10's of thousands of dollars in student loans to gain the knowledge needed. Then they have the same costs other people do, rent, telephone, food, transportation, clothes, schampoo whatever.....

And here you are telling them all they've lost is "hope".

So, whatever dude.....

[Mechanical Man]

Whatever.

We're talking about human beings who desire to produce things that bring joy to people like you and others. They spend years in training for this, and 10's of thousands of dollars in student loans to gain the knowledge needed. Then they have the same costs other people do, rent, telephone, food, transportation, clothes, schampoo whatever.....

And here you are telling them all they've lost is "hope".

So, whatever dude.....

World changes, trades change with it. Do you know lots of carpenters nowdays? If business cant change with changing world, then its only normal for it to die.

There is lot of people who use thousands and thousands on training on trade and then they find that they are not needed. Do you yell for them too?

[davidkozat]

Nope, this has been the rule in Spain for years now. As long as you don't earn money with the downloads, you are free to download whatever you want.

It is only piracy if you earn money, ie, if you sell pirate copies etc.

Last time I heard Spain has been involved with Antipiracy companies to stop the illegal donwload so am not so sure about that...

Saudades desde Conuña

[MattiasNYC]

World changes, trades change with it. Do you know lots of carpenters nowdays? If business cant change with changing world, then its only normal for it to die.

There is lot of people who use thousands and thousands on training on trade and then they find that they are not needed. Do you yell for them too?

And how many of those carpenters are making stuff that people use but don't pay for?

[Mechanical Man]

And how many of those carpenters are making stuff that people use but don't pay for?

So you dont even want to see my point as you are answering totally on side of it.

[p2501]

Whatever.

Whatever yourself dude. Not only the swiss study on which this ruling was in part based found out that the numbers of losses the entertainment industry is suffering from downloading activities are grossly overblown, even in your own country and many more this has been realized. The problem is that independend studies don't get lobby'd. Reality is that not only must we all pay for crap we don't want because of the media industry (problem in Germany: GEMA takes money on every blanc disk, hdds, printers, etc. because you COULD possibly reproduce something which isn't paid for; resulting in you paying the mob for producing crap you don't want; I say mob here because they also taken rights on age old songs for children or Christmas music, none of the originators still lifes to this day, still we must pay the mob so we can listen to music on Christmas market, in turn this leads to most markets in this country for several seasons don't play any music at all anymore since they don't have the money to pay the mob.) you also get victimized if you buy something (copy protection, for what reason should I pay twice for a CD I bought only to be able to listen to the music on my mp3-player also; masses of legal warnings on DVDs and BDs implying that I'm on the brink of being a criminal just by using this disk, are you in your right mind?!).

If YOU don't get paid for something you produced because people don't buy it, try again. Our legal system isn't in place to force people to pay for your crap.
THIS is capitalism, in case you didn't notice. If something doesn't sell, it's been replaced by something better or just too useless.

The capitalism you are talking of, were artists and people in the industry don't get paid, is a system were few people on top ruin everything for the masses just to make themselves that bit fattier. Were the media is an industry which has to produce ever bigger yearly earnings for the shareholders and fails to do so (see, shareholders, they are the real and only customer in this industry; the little guy is just a pig to be farmed and gutted). Who get's the blame? The little guy who sometimes downloads stuff to sort through the trash before s/he actually goes out to buy something s/he really wants and is apparently the very same person the media industry mostly relies on, because s/he is actually their biggest fan.

This whole industry makes me feel sick. You are supporting something that bribes governments to corrode human rights in their favor. I know it's not you actually takes part in their activities, you're only doing what you do because you can make a living off it and you probably like it. But that doesn't make it right for the party you represent to pay government officials around the globe to behave in favor of their earnings. And now please don't tell me this isn't happening, see what bills get passed and who actually benefits from them. No, our governments don't work for us anymore.

Brave new world.

Edit: Swearwords in this post are in no way directed at you personally. I just needed to vent for a bit for reasons posted.

[MattiasNYC]

So you dont even want to see my point as you are answering totally on side of it.

Huh?

It seemed to me as if you were saying that if people in arts and entertainment spend thousands on an education and then people don't pay for their product, then they - like carpenters - will die out and that that's natural.

I'm just pointing out that the comparison is flawed. Some people consume art and entertainment without paying for it. The comparison would be if the carpenter kept on working without getting paid yet consumer used his products.

Sorry if you meant something else and I misunderstood it.

[Mechanical Man]

Huh?

It seemed to me as if you were saying that if people in arts and entertainment spend thousands on an education and then people don't pay for their product, then they - like carpenters - will die out and that that's natural.

I'm just pointing out that the comparison is flawed. Some people consume art and entertainment without paying for it. The comparison would be if the carpenter kept on working without getting paid yet consumer used his products.

Sorry if you meant something else and I misunderstood it.

Current business model clearly is not viable if they "loose" so much money that they cant work anymore. World has changed. What they need to do is to refine their business model so that piracy is not in so big advantage. I recon one most contributing factor is ease of accuiring. Spotify is right way to go.

With games, music and movies, must be remembered that most that do not pay, would not pay but would be without if they could not get it trough other means. With games electronic distribution is already easier than it is to pirate a game, steam & origin are right way to go.

[MattiasNYC]

If YOU don't get paid for something you produced because people don't buy it, try again. Our legal system isn't in place to force people to pay for your crap.
THIS is capitalism, in case you didn't notice. If something doesn't sell, it's been replaced by something better or just too useless.

Can you read? I've been saying all along that I have a problem with people using a product without paying for it. I did NOT say that it's a problem when people don't buy something they don't like and then also don't use it.

Get it? If you're going to attack my positions on this issue at least represent what I say properly.

The capitalism you are talking of, were artists and people in the industry don't get paid, is a system were few people on top ruin everything for the masses just to make themselves that bit fattier. Were the media is an industry which has to produce ever bigger yearly earnings for the shareholders and fails to do so (see, shareholders, they are the real and only customer in this industry; the little guy is just a pig to be farmed and gutted). Who get's the blame? The little guy who sometimes downloads stuff to sort through the trash before s/he actually goes out to buy something s/he really wants and is apparently the very same person the media industry mostly relies on, because s/he is actually their biggest customer (also proven).

Let me put it like this then:

First of all, it's up to each artist to sign away their rights or not. It's up to them to enter into agreements with film studios and record labels. Not up to you or other consumers. If they enter into bad business deals then that's their problem. And as I said, not paying for media doesn't help the artist who signed a bad deal, it only makes it far worse.

Secondly, traditionally, in the music industry for example, the artist was signed to a label and the label hired personnel to produce a product. This included a producer, composers, musicians etc, all the way through marketing. And, they paid up front so that the artist had time to live normally and produce the product for the label. So the label took a risk and then hoped that it'd pay off.

As a former musician I've seen many new "indie" artist that certainly had "something", but that couldn't bring that out to the masses. They needed collaboration to make that happen, professional collaboration and money. With a music industry that was "suffering" they simply focused on fewer artists that made more money. So these newer indie artists faced a problem.

What I'm saying is that record labels, while they certainly made "too much" money off of the deals, actually contributed greatly to the process and final product.

Thirdly, the figures for "us" who work in the trenches are disheartening.

This whole industry makes me feel sick. You are supporting something that bribes governments to corrode human rights for their favor. I know it's not you actually takes part in their activities, you're only doing what you do because you can make a living off it and you probably like it. But that doesn't make it right for the party you represent to pay government officials around the globe to behave in favor of their earnings. And now please don't tell me this isn't happening, see what bills get passed and who actually benefits from them. No, our governments don't work for us anymore.

Brave new world.

I know governments don't work for us. I'm an anti-Capitalist. But what human rights are you talking about now? Is it a human right for someone to use what I produce without paying?

Look at this from a practical standpoint:

Do you want talented musicians, artists, directors etc to produce stuff for you to enjoy? Then we need to have a way to pay them properly for their efforts because otherwise they won't continue. The issue I have is with people arguing that copyright infringement is somehow ok, because it's not. That doesn't mean that I like copyright protection (I don't) or ads that I can't skip on DVD's (I don't) or that I think the distribution of wealth between artist and label/studio is good (I don't), but if we continue down this path it ain't gonna be pretty.

At my level of this industry people are struggling, and everyone is trying to stay afloat. Nobody is getting rich. The compromise that we make is on quality. I'm going to repeat this because it's important: we compromise on quality. That's everybody's loss. It's no surprise that a lot of TV is sheit. A bunch of reality shows for people who like to not think. It's because it's CHEAP to produce, and it needs to be because people don't want to pay for content. Less revenue, lowered costs, less quality.

I'm not supporting the industry because I think it's great or anything, I support it because I'm forced to live by the rules of this nation (and the rest of the world), which is capitalism, and I need to pay rent, food etc, so I support the organizations that'll make the people who use my products pay for it. Because I need to get paid for my work.

And what other professionals are questioned about whether or not people should pay for their work when they use it?

Carpenters? Accountants? Plumbers? Farmers? Hair cutters?

[MattiasNYC]

Current business model clearly is not viable if they "loose" so much money that they cant work anymore. World has changed. What they need to do is to refine their business model so that piracy is not in so big advantage. I recon one most contributing factor is ease of accuiring. Spotify is right way to go.

I agree in principle, though from what I understand Spotify compensates very poorly.

But yes, I absolutely agree that services like that are the future and can solve a huge amount of problems.

In addition I think they could be great if the consumption of music could be better weighted. "Indie" artists would hopefully get paid better. In addition it's a HUGE gain for humans in general when they get access to all that music.

With games, music and movies, must be remembered that most that do not pay, would not pay but would be without if they could not get it trough other means. With games electronic distribution is already easier than it is to pirate a game, steam & origin are right way to go.

I agree with the last thing you said. When it comes to whether or not they'd pay I'm not so sure. I admit that this is just an anecdote, but I think it says something about humans: I once looked for an apartment and one of the guys living in the one I was looking at was ripping DVDs. He got Netflix and just started building a library. Now, the point isn't really that he was violating copyrights, which he clearly was, it's that he worked on Wall Street! So here's a guy that's most likely making at least $80,000 per year, possibly 6 figures, and he chooses to build a library that way to save money. He could just as easily have gone and bought whatever he wanted. But I bet you that he would have bought it if he didn't have the option.

[Mechanical Man]

I agree in principle, though from what I understand Spotify compensates very poorly.

How much artist should make in a year? 100000$? dont know how much time is taken for one song, but lets say four months. Now how much is enough for work of four months? Plummer would get what, 15k$? would that be enough for artist for same work time? If not why?

But yes, I absolutely agree that services like that are the future and can solve a huge amount of problems.

In addition I think they could be great if the consumption of music could be better weighted. "Indie" artists would hopefully get paid better. In addition it's a HUGE gain for humans in general when they get access to all that music.

For spotify and spotify like services to evolve, artist need to start support them. See the potential not what it is now.

I agree with the last thing you said. When it comes to whether or not they'd pay I'm not so sure. I admit that this is just an anecdote, but I think it says something about humans: I once looked for an apartment and one of the guys living in the one I was looking at was ripping DVDs. He got Netflix and just started building a library. Now, the point isn't really that he was violating copyrights, which he clearly was, it's that he worked on Wall Street! So here's a guy that's most likely making at least $80,000 per year, possibly 6 figures, and he chooses to build a library that way to save money. He could just as easily have gone and bought whatever he wanted. But I bet you that he would have bought it if he didn't have the option.

And what was easier for him? to pirate or buy all of them? Also would he have bought them all? And the most important part, your average wallstreet guy is not average guy. I said most would not buy. That means most would buy some, but not nearly as many as they are using by other means.

Then there is this thing, we have the same as germany, with every cd, hd etc. there is certain cost that goes for copyright firm. Reason for that is that one could copy some copyrighted material on it. That alone puts it on certain light, if one is already paying for as he could copy, then why would he not?

[panzerchaos47]

Huh?

It seemed to me as if you were saying that if people in arts and entertainment spend thousands on an education and then people don't pay for their product, then they - like carpenters - will die out and that that's natural.

I'm just pointing out that the comparison is flawed. Some people consume art and entertainment without paying for it. The comparison would be if the carpenter kept on working without getting paid yet consumer used his products.

Sorry if you meant something else and I misunderstood it.

What's sad is this stuff doesn't really matter. If your going start a career in music you might as be prepare you may not even be that popular like thousands of artist I never heard about. What I hate is people do this for money like business than entertaining people. Also there is always people buying the music. You still see rapper that can afford 55 million dollar private jet. That's a lot of money he made not even pass 21. There are people who make songs for free because they have spare time and enjoy it as a hobby.

Don't get started with schooling. Beethoven didn't go to some expensive university and makes great music.

[p2501]

Can you read?

Certainly. And what I can extract from your post (thanks for answering my little rant above and taking it serious btw) is that you are not satisfied with the current situation in general, from a systemic point of view. You acknowledge that the system we live in is rotten and inhumane (you're an anti-capitalist, after all). Why is it then that you don't employ all the creative energy you must be having and all that energy from where your posts come from and use it not to reiterate the state we are in or victimize yourself and the whole of your kind (creative spirits, that is), but to make your voice heard by the ears of the elected or to gather people to change the system itself? You are creative, you will be able to get the apathetic masses to know their own state and move.

It is that state of mind I don't like. Everyone crying foul and barking up the wrong trees. If the industry is going down, let it go down. There will always be tomorrow and it will be what you make of it, but if everyone just clings to the current state nothing will ever change. Always cowering in fear of loss of your moneys is no way to live.

It seems as if you loose your current income or way of life, there will be nothing else, nothing that follows, so the only choice is to hang yourself. Nice way of keeping the hamster wheel going.

[Mungri]

This is ok for movies and music because movies make money from cinemas, and musicians by performing.

However with software, sales are the only source of income.

I dont think that software piracy should be illegal, but developers should look for non DRM means to prevent piracy, like that unkillable enemy that follows and attacks you though the whole game if you have a pirated copy.

[Linchpin]

Developers should look to release stable software 1st and foremost, these days 80% of software come with an endless supply of bugs that should never make it past a half decent beta phase. It gets kind of hard justifying paying $50 for something that barely works and then waiting and hoping that 6 months down the line it'll get fixed. A lot of people pirate just because they're not willing to put up with such ty quality in software they spend money on.

[Mungri]

most games that I've bought have been stable since day 1.

I really dont believe that theres any reason for piracy other than people wanting to get stuff without paying for it.

Even if a game was 100% perfect and bug free, it would still get pirated.

[Pokerface]

They need to think of new ways to make money from pirates, advertising or something. There is a large market of pirates to tap into!

[01Lude]

this is also a long-term historical trend where evolving technology has been replacing jobs going back to the industrial revolution. the music industry is simply one example out of many.

when technology allowed music to first be recorded musicians lost lots of money because live performances were not as necessary as they once were. why should anyone pay for a full band or orchestra when he/she can simply play the record through loudspeakers? soon tapes, CD's, and eventually computers allowed further streamlining. a full orchestra could be replaced by 1 computer digitally mixing music all by itself.

as another poster pointed out, the key question to ask is who benefits from all of this? not the little guy. sure consumers get lower prices, but if consumers have no job and no income then lower prices don't really matter that much. overwhelmingly the beneficiaries of advancing technology have been a small group of wealthy individuals who claim "ownership" of everything. as i mentioned before, patent law is one key battleground of this class warfare. another key battleground is the U.S. political system that just so happens (not coincidentally) to control the world's most powerful military and also allows (again not coincidentally) unlimited money to fund political campaigns.

true, jobs were also created by technology, but by and large the overwhelming trend is that there are simply less and less jobs available as time progresses. this is true for every industry.

[01Lude]

How much artist should make in a year? 100000$? dont know how much time is taken for one song, but lets say four months. Now how much is enough for work of four months? Plummer would get what, 15k$? would that be enough for artist for same work time? If not why?

I think this is a very important point and really hits the nail on the head.

someone also said something about how the company works for the shareholders. actually in many cases the common shareholders take all the risk but when the company does well then only a small amount of people benefit the most. the CEO's and board of directors take their million dollar bonus whether the company does well or not. and if the company goes bankrupt they don't care because they still take their bonuses while the shareholders lose everything.