In Switzerland Downloading Copyrighted Materials for personal Use is Legal

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Delusional? Nope. I intensely dislike lying hypocrites and Bullshiteing about EVERY download is a lost sale does not come close to being part of a percentage of.


[/url]

I don't like lying hypocrites either. But I think it's *just as* dishonest to claim that illegal downloads cause no harm is it is to claim that every download is a lost sale.

And I don't like how people have translated the "not every download is a lost sale" into "stealing is okay." Knowing that every download is not a lost sale is important in trying to figure out the impact of piracy, but it doesn't make piracy a moral act. Nor does the fact that pirates buy more music - for one, that doesn't help me when they steal *my* book...and for another, they might spend *even more* if they didn't pirate.

If the crime were the somewhat similar theft of cable services, I doubt that anyone would be claiming that it was okay because these people would never have subscribed to cable anyway. So I don't see how this somehow makes stealing software, music, books, etc. that you don't own a moral act.

[Quexos]

Nope, she's Canadian, you silly

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Isn't Celine Dion Swiss?

[Giggleton]

The idea that you can own anything is an antiquated one, although there are some who still hold onto the strange belief that I shouldn't be able to read/see/learn unless I pay you for the "privilege".

I think an increase in the tax rate and an end to online anonymity would go along way toward compensating the content providers. We would still have to give all content to anyone who wishes but we can hope that those who have the means will share what they can.

[Belfaborac]

I don't think the idea of ownership is antiquated at all. In fact, try to break into my house and steal my stuff and I'll show you exactly how current and valid the idea still is.

On the other hand there is no doubt that there needs to be some serious thought given to a new and practical set of laws regarding digital content and copyright in the digital domain.

[thebestjeter]

Originally Posted by TGS

But nothing is being stolen, so the analogy breaks down.

This.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

As far as I'm aware (which admittedly might not be that far), all independent research on music piracy carried out to date has concluded that piracy either has no discernible effect on music sales, or does in fact have a positive effect. To a lesser extent this also applies to software piracy, where such has been lumped in with music piracy in some studies.


Probably the first ever independent study was carried out by University of North Carolina, by Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf. The best known study was carried out by the University of London, Industry Canada, and Decima Research in 2006.

A 2009 study funded by Virgin Media again found that pirates buy more music than non-pirates, echoing a similar study from the same year by the BI Norwegian School of Management which found that pirates bought up to ten times the amount of music compared to people who never used file sharing, torrent services or similar.

In any case it seems to me to be a consistent trend here, in that every new piece of independent research on the subject of piracy continues to come up with data negating the message spread by the MPAA, IFPI et al. While I don't think that necessarily makes piracy A-OK or that there's nothing more to debate, I do wish that the debate was grounded in the empirical knowledge that's available, rather than gut feeling and self interest.

I have difficulty believing all these independent studies because you are relying on the honesty of the respondents. If a downloader is questioned about his possibly unlawful behavior, human tendency is to offer an excuse to justify it. And telling the interviewer that you purchase "ten times" more content than non-downloaders is what everyone wants to believe.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In most cases it's perfectly clear. If you download the latest blockbuster movie from a bittorrent site, ...

No Harry. In the vast majority of cases of download it is not clear at all.
I will bet that you have downloaded over a thousand files today. I have downloaded well over a thousand files today and so have other people on this site.

How do you propose to write a law that would distinguish between casual/automatic download of my avatar file or a book that you have so generously provided for our fellow Mobilereaders and download of a copyrighted picture or a copyrighted book? You have to be very clear when writing a law. The file is a file, and it is very difficult to describe the difference between files you can download and files that you can't. The law will be used by:
- clearly thinking fair judge that understands all technical nuances
- judge who is just before retirement and doesn't understand what a file is
- tear-gass wielding over-aggresive policeman that will look for excuse to find anything against you.
- by sleazy lawyers working for RIAA
- by corrupt government official looking for something, anything, to use against the dissident.
- ...

How is the downloader supposed to know whether the file he/she is just about to download contains a copyrighted work? How far should the downloader go when performing due diligence? Is it *possible* for ordinary person to know whether the file he/she is downloading is copyright protected?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kacir

How is the downloader supposed to know whether the file he/she is just about to download contains a copyrighted work? How far should the downloader go when performing due diligence? Is it *possible* for ordinary person to know whether the file he/she is downloading is copyright protected?

You are stetching credibility to breaking point in claiming that someone who goes looking for a Harry Potter movie on a BT tracker site does not know that what they are about to download is a copyrighted work. Please credit people with a little common sense here. Most countries have laws which cover this.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are stetching credibility to breaking point in claiming that someone who goes looking for a Harry Potter movie on a BT tracker site does not know that what they are about to download is a copyrighted work. Please credit people with a little common sense here. Most countries have laws which cover this.

I was talking about different thing.
It is clear that when you are searching for the newest blockbuster on a warez site you know what you are doing. But most files that are downloaded are not so clear-cut. Where and how would you draw a line in law?

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by kacir

How is the downloader supposed to know whether the file he/she is just about to download contains a copyrighted work? How far should the downloader go when performing due diligence? Is it *possible* for ordinary person to know whether the file he/she is downloading is copyright protected?

This was recently decided in the US. A Federal Court told the teenage downloader that it was her responsibility to determine copyright status. He said she could look online or visit a music store personally to check for a copyright notice.

She claimed age as a defense. Rejected.
She claimed ignorance. Her BFF sent her the music file. Rejected.
She claimed not understanding copyright. Rejected.

[Greg Anos]

One of the popular Hollywood anti-piracy ads stuck on DVD's over the last few years apparently used a Pirated background music soundtrack. When I bought a disc with it on it, did I become a pirate?

This is <not> a joke....

[afa]

Originally Posted by thebestjeter

This.

That.

[karunaji]

It is not ethical to enjoy creative content without duly compensating creators of these works. That much we can probably all agree with. The discussion is about what is due compensation. One could say that downloading a file without paying the author is stealing. But if a downloader actually spends the same amount of money and statistically it all spreads out, then the authors have in fact received their due compensation. The aggregate of all these numerous small acts of "stealing" results in approximately zero total loss. Isn't it wonderful? The economy (if done correctly) is not a zero sum game, and similarly the piracy (with proper balance) can be zero loss or maybe even some additional profit.

Finding the most profitable policy towards piracy may not be easy but I think that decriminalizing downloaders and putting blame on uploaders and especially to those who profit from pirating is a good policy.

Another way to deal with losses from piracy is to actually sell digital products to willing customers. Every time a book/movie/game is sold with georestrictions, it encourages piracy in other regions. Internet has no borders and it will be very hard to convince people that these obsolete distribution models are good for society, authors, publishers or consumers.

[starrlamia]

I think it depends on what is being pirated. Musicans make basically nothing on CD sales, it all goes into the pocket of the record companies, whereas books and software, the money is being taken from the creators on a higher level.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Nope, she's Canadian, you silly

Well, I believe she did compete for Switzerland in Eurovision Song Contest. Just can't remember when. Thought she might have emigrated to Canada after that.