Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal

reply to post by SaturnFX

But i could make, right now, a burger that is identical to a big mac (including the special sauce) in my home with ingredients I bought and prepared (assembled). Should that be illegal? Should I have to pay McDonalds because they "designed" the first one?

Plus I'm sure that there will be plenty of people sharing replicator recipes just like they share regular recipes today that are better than commercial products.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Why does it bother you? Is it just because we are getting something for nothing?

Why do you believe that that is acceptable?




Edit: How many of the pirates in this thread copy written work and pass it off as their own? Is that acceptable? The writer after all, didn't create the words, he just compiled them into a specific order first.

reply to post by eNumbra


Why wouldn't it be? See my post above.

Sharing someone elses work and claiming it as your own are apples and oranges.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by eNumbra

 

Why wouldn't it be?

You have not answered the question.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by eNumbra

 

Sharing someone elses work and claiming it as your own are apples and oranges.

If you're willing to take something for free then you admit that it has no value. The reason plagarism is akin to theft is because it is understood that the original work has value.

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Downloading Copyrighted information is stealing no matter how hard you want to defend it. You can justify it all you want, but it is still stealing. It would be a much better world if we were rid of the people that think stealing is ok. I'm sure you will all grow up thinking it ok to steal the extra money people have in their bank accounts that they aren't ever going to spend.

Just one more example of the complete moral void which encompasses the world.

I agree that stealing is wrong, but the best way to get a nicer world would be to get rid of all the greedy people...
2nd.

Get rid of the stealers and you stop the "greedy" people.

Sadly enough I can say for a fact (almost at least) that we will not.
Of course I agree with you that the world would be better without people stealing, there is no argue there.
But there would still be allot left to make it better.
So many things can not be done just because humans are greedy.

For example, take technology, we have some rather cool things today, but we could have so much more, that would help humankind. So much more things that already exists, just waiting to get released.
But why do we not see it? Because the companies designing and selling these things would not make any money on all the models in between, having us wait for just a small update to be able to sell the entire product once again.
Imagine Apple releasing iPad 10 right away, they would loose all the money from the models in between.
This attitude goes for everything (almost) in society.
Do not give anything away for free.
Make as much money as possible.
If one have the chance to trick people with fancy marketing schemes and promises based on thin air, go ahead, it is just smart business.
Our entire planet are controlled by greed and that greed sets us back hundreds (thousands?) of years compared to where we could be.

So my first comment was meant not to say that you are wrong, but rather that you "forgot" a big part of the equation.

reply to post by eNumbra


I did in my previous post.

In the case of digital information I'm paying for the means of distribution not the copyright holder. For the equipment, cost of electricity and internet. Like in my burger example if I'm paying and putting things together then why should the copyright holder be entitled to payment for something I put together.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Thats it, I'm moving to Switzerland!

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by eNumbra

 

I did in my previous post.

you mean this?

All these film producers and record labels create their product knowing fine well that it will be downloaded illegaly. It's their choice to bring it out. Nobodies taking anything, I'm downloading lots of bits of info on to my computer. No crime. If i'm making copies of that and selling it, however, is a crime.

That answer was a cop-out and a non-answer. Why is it okay to take something for free that would otherwise cost you money?

In the case of digital information I'm paying for the means of distribution not the copyright holder. For the equipment, cost of electricity and internet.

Paying for the means of distribution is entirely separate to the artist, how is it okay to rip the artist off because you have to pay the cable and electric companies?

Like in my burger example if I'm paying and putting things together then why should the copyright holder be entitled to payment for something I put together.

Except you didn't put the digital information together, you downloaded a copy of it, the copy comes fully assembled.

If you were to actually assemble ("cover") the song then you still have to claim it as a cover and the artist still holds the rights to that property because it is theirs.

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Thats it, I'm moving to Switzerland!

I'm with ya! A neutral country? I can do that. A free country? I can do that.

No police state? AWESOME.

Lets not throw it all onto just people downloading for the sake of it.
Dont forget that they released MP3 players years ago. It was all about the downloading music then, "You can fit 100 songs on this?! TIME TO DOWNLOAD SOME SONGS"

Most people only download music 'to put on the mp3 player', if mp3 players ceased to exist, the amount of downloaded material would definatly decrease.

Perhaps if they had kept computer/movie mediums seperate, then we would not be able to pirate any movies either, I mean, if we still used VCR, i don't think you can 'rip' a video casette to your computer (not without some expensive equipment anyways)

reply to post by eNumbra

I little misunderstanding of copyright law. The artist does not own the piece of art once it's made public but instead holds the exclusive rights to reproduce and distibute so the means of distibution is all the copyright holder really has a right to and since I'm paying for that then yes I have no problem with downloading.

It is still copyright infringment but that changes from country to country and since copyright is a form of monopoly I don't really agree 100% with it anyway.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic

Originally posted by Maslo
Does this apply to torrents? In that case you are not only downloading, but also uploading to others.

Anyway, is it stealing? I wouldnt steal a car, but I would probably download one, if I could..

But I also do think that creators of content deserve some compensation, too.

Give it a couple of years and you will be able to download and print your own car

www.the-blueprints.com...

www.techthefuture.com...—-repraps-improved/

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, see, now this is actually a very interesting (if a bit geeky) subject matter to be had.
In the future, and perhaps not too distant future, the development of nanotech will in essence allow for the instant building of anything you can think of, be it a hamburger, a house, etc.

So what then...then the only thing people will have is information..and how should piracy be considered then? hmm..I think that what we are dealing with here is a pre-emptive move before the release of assembler tech to the public..see how its dealt with..will it be a pirate parade or a viable economic model of information trade and trademark/patent enforcement.

I would like for it to be a free for all type thing mind you, but there is no incentive for it to even be released if that is the main focus..

Anyhow, ok, so you pointed to 3d printers, but thats too small. do a google for nano-assemblers. now that is some impressive theoretical stuff being worked on...and suddenly this topic of information theft becomes far more than just a trivial matter.

Yes interesting indeed. And geeky = lovely, cool and interesting right

I am aware of the nano-assemblers concept, just thought I would give a little more "present" example.
What you write here probably could be connected to my first comment on the 7th page.
I am fairly sure that nano-assemblers already exists (to much tinfoil? ). Though they are not being made public due to the immense loss for all the different big corporations. But how much better would our world be with them? ALLOT...

I am absolutely sure about that nano-assembling is the way to go in the future.
People would probably get credits each month, and then be able to produce just about anything they need/want, food, clothes, bikes, "cars", drinking water, space-crafts, audio-devices, holographic movies, computers, glasses, ice-cream, and postage stamps. And when a new release gets available, just recycle the old one and get the update for free.
Build the "things" in carbon nano tubes and it will work and stay good for hundreds of years, and also be easy to recycle.

But this will probably not happen in our lifetime, if the people in charge of big corporations have their saying.

The future have to go towards open tech and sharing. Things change and people whom make money on the old ways will fight in the end against new changes, if those changes keeps them from getting more money.

Just think about when the digital camera came out.
All those people working with developing camera film, whom had extremely expensive equipment and labs for doing this. They lost their daily income. That business is totally gone now.
But I did not hear them trying to sue all people buying digital cameras. Of course it is not an parallel to file-sharing, but a statement made to say that they did not have the power to do it. If they had the same power as the entertainment industry have, they would have vetoed against the release of the digital camera.
Their greed would control everything. Imagine life now without digital cameras...
Now imagine how much cool tech we could/would have if greed did not stand in the way..........


Edit:
When I think about it, perhaps it is a parallel to file-sharing as well.

Old-school cameras = Vinyl records. People have a job and income.
Digital cameras = downloaded music. People will have to find new solutions.

The camera film developing businesses had to find new ways of making money, some did not, and they lost everything they had. Did anyone care about them?
And today everyone´s being told to cry blood for the artists whom does not make more money on the millions they already have, and this due to downloading, why, because those big corporations whom makes even more then the artists controls the ways of making most people care/think.
The music/movie artists will have to find new ways of making money (for some even millions in income is not enough), such as making more concerts and live performances.
And the big corporations running everything will have to deal with the "loss" of money.
Yes it is most likely harder for smaller artists/bands to make big money today, since sales of expensive CDs and such has gone down, they need to be popular/fairly big, to get live gigs, they will need to travel and put in long hours doing live performances, but times change and digital is the new way.

The old way was to get insanely large amount of money for sitting in a studio drunk and/or high on heroin/coc aine (not everyone I need to point out), playing an instrument and selling albums. And this of course needs to be rewarded to the maximum.
The average person whom goes to a hard labor work for 10 hours a day (perhaps more), destroys his body from the physical stress and mind from psychic stress, gets a minimum wage, and at the same time he is making the world go around for the big kahunas out there. Would not that person deserve allot more money?

The way for the entertainment industry now is live performances/cinema. Likely in our new age the artists will not make as much money as they could have done before, but thats life.

Though I am rather confused in my thinking. Since I think that people should be able to keep what they work for or get payed in general for hard work. And I also think that all the things which makes people happy should be free for them to enjoy.

reply to post by Vitchilo


I can agree to those who download for free end up paying more/buying more when it comes to the cinema/online MP3 downloads.

For the simple fact that, people who download for free, know what they're listening to, and may want to buy the full album from the chosen artist, or see the movie in full on DVD/box office because they know what they like and don't like.

reply to post by Vitchilo

Switzerland is a very progressive and free country. They Swiss do as much as they can to preserve their neutrality.

Originally posted by Jepic
And this perpetual state of piracy we are currently in won't last for long. Sooner or later it's gonna get banned.

You are extremely naive.

What makes you think they can get rid of piracy? It has been going on since, at least, the late 70's. My friend's mother used to record her albums on recordable 8-tracks for us. Then with the advent of recordable cassettes in the 80's we started tape trading by snail mail.

The harder they push the faster darknets will spring up. Also, there have been many discussions about starting "tape trading" circles, but using HDs. It isn't going to stop... ever.

Even with all the BS lawsuits private tracker memberships keep going up and up and up (at least in the dozen or so I am a member of.) They managed to take down Oink, but the same day another tracker to their place and is now bigger than Oink ever dreamed to be.

I have a huge collection of BOUGHT DVD's, but ONLY after downloading an early release version to evaluate them in the first place.

I also strongly feel that if I take the family to the movies and spend over $60 I'm more than justified in downloading a copy for personal use.

You know, the industry might solve a lot of their supposed 'theft' if they offered movie goers a simple DVD copy of the movie they just paid to watch, say when they spend $50 or more on tickets? Could be a $10 upsell or redeemable voucher that can be exchanged when movies are released at a later date.

BTW, just had a good laugh! The anti-piracy message that places on all copies of our DVD's and during the prelude to the movies, has just been found to have INFRINGED the copyright the original musicians copyright!

Dutch copyright group BREIN has been accused of infringing music by not gaining permission to use a track for their anti-piracy campaign. Melchoir Rietveldt was commissioned to compose the track for a one-off screening in 2006, but the song has since been recycled for tens of millions of DVDs, without Rietveldt receiving any compensation for it. According to Rietveldt’s financial advisor, the total sum in missed revenue amounts to at least a million euros.

I know this is going to be unpopular for many, but the truth always is...

Downloading intellectual property for free, when it was intended for sale, is theft.

Employ a little empathy and imagine you have spent time, money, and energy
producing a music album, or software, or a novel, that you have intended to offer for
sale to produce revenue for your family. You sell a thousand copies and learn that
many times that number have been taken from you...if you still don't think that's
theft, come mow my grass and clean my garage, we'll discuss how much I'll pay you
after you are done expending your time, energy, and talent.

Sorry kids, theft is theft...

So if its not okay for us to do it
What makes it okay for the government, banks and global corporations to do it then?

The amount of money we are talking about here is tiny in comparison to what is being stolen from under our noses on a daily basis. Maybe we're being led by example.

And if they didnt steal from us every day. Our money would be worth more, and we would be able to buy more of the things that are pirated.

Your justifying theft from an individual by pointing to government and corporations and saying
they do it also, so why not me?

a perfect analogy...My city council overtaxes me so I am justified in stealing my neighbors lawnmower.

I am a musician, not a very pretty one. I'm old, but I can still produce sounds that others
find worthy of spending money on. Playing live is not an option. If you download my album
for free, you are stealing FROM ME. I would LOVE to philosophically declare that musical
talent is a gift to be shared with all, but the fact is, I have invested thousands in equipment,
that could have been spent on family, or I could have worked less, and spent more time with
family, instead of pursuing a talent. The goal of which is to hopefully reimburse my family
and myself for the time and energy I have spent.

If it turns out that I am talentless and have a worthless product so be it. But if my product has merit
and is saleable, if you download it for free you are stealing from me and my family.

There is no equivocation...