Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal

page: 8
72
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Sorry but you are wrong. The law says they are two different things. Theft involves the removal of something while copyright infringment involves violating the exclusive right of a copyright holder to reproduce and distribute.

In most places copyright infringment isn't even a crime (part of the criminal or penal code) but part of mercantile law so the only involment that government has is to provide a venue for one party to sue the other.

edit on 17-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
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.


Are you under the umbrella of a major label, or is your material on an independent label?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
As i have stated before. I dont even download really that much, and when i do, its usually something i had bought and paid for before. But most downloaded music is music from major record labels. Because most people are tuned with the 'mainstream' and don't think of many independent labels.

Its not illegal to download music, its certainly illegal to upload it though. Unless that law has been changed recently or something. Or i just don't care. Either way. I use youtube for my music mostly. Is that stealing too?

I also don't need to worry about it. The laws about it are different here in canada where its fine to download, but uploading (sharing) is not.

And apparently, if you own an ipod or some other mp3 device to hold music, a portion of that device is added to a 'pool of money' to go to the RIAA for musicians. (they mean to give to the riaa for whatever)
edit on 17/12/11 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/12/11 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
And apparently, if you own an ipod or some other mp3 device to hold music, a portion of that device is added to a 'pool of money' to go to the RIAA for musicians.


HAHA that is where they said the proceeds from their bogus lawsuits were to go (to the musicians). Then they came out and said all proceeds would be used to fund more BS lawsuits.

In Kanadia there used to also be a "tax" on all recordable media (cds, dvds) that was to go to the artists.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSol

Originally posted by AzureSky
And apparently, if you own an ipod or some other mp3 device to hold music, a portion of that device is added to a 'pool of money' to go to the RIAA for musicians.


HAHA that is where they said the proceeds from their bogus lawsuits were to go (to the musicians). Then they came out and said all proceeds would be used to fund more BS lawsuits.

In Kanadia there used to also be a "tax" on all recordable media (cds, dvds) that was to go to the artists.


'They' say they do a lot of things
and really dont.

I read a news story about the RIAA sueing a woman for some ridiculous amount of money for the songs on her ipod. Think it was in the states. Single mom trying to feed 4 children and now has to be over a million dollars to the riaa.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 



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.

economic theory states that the value something has is based on how much demand there is versus how much exists to sell. the supply of digital media is theoretically limitless, so the demand drops to near zero.

if someone downloads a movie or game that they never would have paid for, then they aren't depriving anyone of anything.

it's seems illogical, but game companies, film producers, and the music industry don't lose money from piracy.

piracy and plagiarism are completely different. technically if you sell something you download without paying the copyright holder a negotiated amount, then that is plagiarism. it's the same as claiming ownership to something you didn't write. however, if you don't make profit, or a gain of some kind, then it isn't plagiarism.

you can argue all you want, but the evidence is clear: digital media producers don't lose money from piracy. there is an incentive to buy things you enjoy, because if you support the developers, they'll be able to produce more games.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSol

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.


All a country needs to do is make every webpage go through a governent filter and have a software pick out all download and distribution servers and providers. SOLUTION DONE.

It's so easy, it shouldn't even be funny to you guys.


And that will happen. And I shall sue the lord himseIf if I ever find out somebody ilegally got my music without paying my band or label. Praise the lord.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



So are you arguing there should be no right to protect a persons intellectual property on the internet? Granted in a few decades all who have created this or that will be dead. But under the rule of law, it is the right of the creator of an idea, and one that makes money, to pass that gift, or money after their death to who they chose. It is the continuity of process that links us with our past, and to make it mean anything with our future. If the works of anyone as posted on the net has any value, it must be protected against unlawful acquisition of intellectual property. Or we all go to hell.

Don't believe me? The Chinese are robbing the West blind using rather elegant versions of hacking methods. If we start by defending commerce we defend both individual, corporate, and National security.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



So are you arguing there should be no right to protect a persons intellectual property on the internet? Granted in a few decades all who have created this or that will be dead. But under the rule of law, it is the right of the creator of an idea, and one that makes money, to pass that gift, or money after their death to who they chose. It is the continuity of process that links us with our past, and to make it mean anything with our future. If the works of anyone as posted on the net has any value, it must be protected against unlawful acquisition of intellectual property. Or we all go to hell.

Don't believe me? The Chinese are robbing the West blind using rather elegant versions of hacking methods. If we start by defending commerce we defend both individual, corporate, and National security.

Spot on. That's why we should also reference our sources.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


I guess I should have added "deluded" after the naive.

You should do some research on darknets, and are governments going to start checking all mail to stop mail trading?

If your "solution" is so simple why has nobody implemented it yet? Government filters don't work. Just ask the Chinese that routinely get past the Great Firewall of China.

I am eagerly awaiting the name of your band so I can watch for a release. It WILL get pirated even if it is crap. That is a guarantee. Someone, somewhere will download it.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

But under the rule of law, it is the right of the creator of an idea, and one that makes money, to pass that gift, or money after their death to who they chose. It is the continuity of process that links us with our past, and to make it mean anything with our future. If the works of anyone as posted on the net has any value, it must be protected against unlawful acquisition of intellectual property. Or we all go to hell.


Another bit of misinformation. Intellectual property rights have time limits. After a certain amount of time they fall under public domain. It doesn't make them less valuable. It may even be within the creators lifetime.



edit on 17-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by eNumbra
 

it's seems illogical, but game companies, film producers, and the music industry don't lose money from piracy.


Some piracy maybe.
There are the pirates that wouldn't pay a dime for anything.
There are pirates that download just to try and then pay later or discard if they don't like.

The idea that there are 0 pirates who could easily buy and would but don't because they can get it for free is ridiculous.

Piracy isn't the biggest thing hurting the bottom line of artists or even the corporations but it doesn't do "no harm". Its easy but a little naive to dismiss pirates as being non-customers to begin with.


Originally posted by daskakik
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.


A beautiful little loophole to protect your conscience
edit on 12/17/2011 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Piracy is theft, because it increases the supply of a product, and, according to economics, the more supply increases the more the product is devalued.

For example, a Ferrari car costs 100,000 dollars. Suppose everyone got one magically. What do you think the price of the Ferrari car would be in that case? no more than a dollar, because everyone will have one.

Same goes with piracy: the more illegal copies in circulation, the smaller the digital's product value becomes.

That's some serious deprivation of profit, right there.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


Then maybe you could explain this:


U.S. computer and video game software sales grew six percent in 2007 to $9.5 billion � more than tripling industry software sales since 1996.


Three times the money than before pirating became a "problem".

ETA: And that loophole isn't for my conscience. I would have no problem downloading even if it wasn't the law.
edit on 17-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Growing market.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


Of course but were is the damage and losses that you claim?

Growing market so more sales which should bring the prices down but since they have copyright they set the price and you pay or download. Then they get laws passed so that you're only option is to pay.

Now I know you can do without and that is true but I am pointing out the monopolistic aspects of copyright and how it negatively affects customers.


edit on 17-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Entertainers make more in one year than most will make in there entire lifetime, I do not think they are being deprived at all. They pick up so many other perks, concerts, endorsing something and getting paid. Free stuff because they are being watched. The Swiss model is awesome, it gives freedom and stays out of other countries business, America could learn something from the Swiss.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by eNumbra
 


Of course but were is the huge amount of damage and losses that you claim?


Where have I claimed "huge amount of damage and losses" ?

The only time the discussion even approached that from me was where someone began attacking artists for wanting compensation for their art. You can check it yourself... I'll wait.



Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by eNumbra
 

Growing market so more sales which should bring the prices down but since they have copyright they set the price and you pay or download. Then they get laws passed so that you're only option is to pay.

Now I know you can do without and that is true but I am pointing out the monopolistic aspects of copyright and how it negatively affects customers.


You don't like the fact that they pass laws to prevent people from getting for free what they would otherwise have to pay for?

Capitalism sucks don't it.
edit on 12/17/2011 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


Actually edited to take out the exaggerated "huge amounts".

Was refering to this:

Piracy isn't the biggest thing hurting the bottom line of artists or even the corporations but it doesn't do "no harm". Its easy but a little naive to dismiss pirates as being non-customers to begin with.


Nothing is hurting their bottom line. They are making more money than ever.


You don't like the fact that they pass laws to prevent people from getting for free what they would otherwise have to pay for?

Capitalism sucks don't it.


Monopolies are not capitalism and yes they do suck.
edit on 17-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

But under the rule of law, it is the right of the creator of an idea, and one that makes money, to pass that gift, or money after their death to who they chose. It is the continuity of process that links us with our past, and to make it mean anything with our future. If the works of anyone as posted on the net has any value, it must be protected against unlawful acquisition of intellectual property. Or we all go to hell.


Another bit of misinformation. Intellectual property rights have time limits. After a certain amount of time they fall under public domain. It doesn't make them less valuable. It may even be within the creators lifetime.



edit on 17-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


In part, you are right but only to a point. In the intelligence community the vast (but not all) of the most sensitive and "priceless" information has a built in "time decay". After that it is if not worthless, it's not actionable. It becomes gossip at the kind of parties I take efforts not to attend. There are two major points when it comes to what is usually, and broadly termed "intellectual property" There is first, what could be be called genuine creative or artistic works. The second and much more important to me at least is what could be called unique scientific discovery.

The later to me may be more important while the former may be more precious. Given enough time, certain scientific principles reveal themselves to the open minded. Had Newton, or Galilee, or Einstein not lived would someone had come along and made the same contribution? Perhaps. If not by now we would all be living in a greater darkness. Anyway...

The greater prize is intellectual property that has a short shelf life. New songs, movies, let along types of music. But why not give those who create genuine new art have some limited time where their work is protected and enforced by international copyright? If not for so many people, whats the point?

But I have to admit I like the idea of an expiration date, if for no other reason it keeps those who need to be on their toes, and the rest of us frisky...





top topics
 
72
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join