Swiss insist piracy doesn't hurt copyright holders

[scooter]

Mad.

"the report insists the entertainment world doesn't lose money because of piracy. While around a third of Swiss citizens over the age of 15 download pirated content, they don't spend any less money on entertainment than usual.

"The percentage of disposable income spent on consumption in this area remains constant," the report notes, though it points to changing patterns of spending: less on music, more on games, for instance"


What a rediculous statement to come out with.

Being involved in the industry, this makes my blood boil. Of course their disposable income stays the same. They just buy more games now as they get all their music and films for free

If i could download a Volvo, I would do it now and trash the thing and then i would go and download another.

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/12/05/swiss_insist_piracy_is_no_harm_to_copyright_owners/




.

 

[scooter]

"If i could download a Volvo"

oops, wrong country!



.

 

[cc976a]

Why would I not buy the music I have downloaded and liked/loved? As if I don't pay into it, my favourite bands/music would be no more.

I'm afraid, like most things in life, people won't realise until it's gone

 

[tifosi]

To play devils advocate, the music/games industry seem happy to discount the 'free advertising' that comes from people 'borrowing' their stuff to see what it's like and then purchasing the original when calculating their 'losses'.

 

[scooter]

I can't speak for the music industry but i will have a stab at the games. I think if it were not for the threat of a lifetime online ban then they would also be chipping their machines and blagging all their games as well. This is the only thing that stops them.


As for movies, I can speak. It is a huge problem and it does affect the industry big time. The Swiss are wrong, or at best they have skewed reasoning. The music and film industry are losing out as they blag the lot for free and then spend their money on games, so the games industry wins.

The only winners on the site below is the owner(s) The new generation have the mentality that because it is digital, it has infinite stock, so therefore it does not affect them and it is perfectly normal to help yourself

letmewatchthis.com



.

 

[scooter]

I just popped the above in my browser and i now see they have it forwarded to a new address.
http://www.watchfreemovies.ch/

It didn't take them long to seek sanctuary with their new best friend. The land of hidden bank accounts.

What? you did not know about this site? Come on over and fill yer boots. Never ever pay for another movie. Ever.

Come join the party. Honestly, as it is digital and the originator has lost nothing physical it's fine. You're not harming anyone.

Time to attach a stuxnet type little critter on the end of a few films and take the whole lot of the pimple squad out in one foul swoop.

.

 

[woopwoop]

People found a way to bottle water, sell it and get rich off it (at a particular price point that is more than the free stuff you can get from a tap).

So I think the issue about pirated software is all about how the product is put together and delivered and at what price point.

iTunes 99p/99c price point is pretty successful - the market has shifted.

I have trademarks and a patent and while I'd like to think that these help protect my IP, overall I think the whole system isn't doing what it was supposed to do. It was supposed to exist to give businesses an incentive to invest and come up with something that they could protect and benefit financially from in years to come (partly to recoup their R&D and other investment).

I think the system just helps really rich companies get richer and also helps lawyers along the way.

The world is a different place and while many people still benefit from these protections (and advancements are made because of it) I also think that advancements are made by people infringing copyrights and pirating software.

Let's take a situation where a 14 year old kid goes to pirate bay and downloads a copy of dreamweaver. That could be enough to light the spark that creates the next Google, and employs 100,000 people. But that kid can't afford to spend £200 on dreamweaver (or however much it is).

If there was a flat fee of £50, maybe he'd buy it to benefit from support or updates etc.

Sure there is more business behind it: sales volume, differentiated products (business/student/home), break even points and the demand at different price points - but businesses will nearly all pay the fees. So give the kid a break who copies the software, because one day he may have a business and be a paying customer.

 

[scooter]

I totally agree. There needs to be a radical rethink on how it is delivered and the price point.

One major shake up in the UK is coming early next year with the arival of netflix. The biggest streamer of movies in the USA. They have not announced a price yet but in the US, its $29.99 a month for unlimited movies.

Sky, btvison, blinkbox etc are very worried but it will be good for the market. £4.00 for a new release is waaaay over the top.

The other major problem that has been around for years and for the life of me I fail to understand why it happens is all dvd releases are released in the USA a month before the rest of the world. So you have someone who gets it on the day of release, uploads it and the rest of the world enjoys a perfect digital copy of a movie that's not even on the shelves yet. I'm involved in this bit and no-one has ever been able to give me a straight answer on this.

The other drawback which will change in the next few years is broadband speed. When most of the country has a decent speed, HD quality will be available to the masses through their tv and with it will come a lot more streaming competition and lower price.

But they really do have to take aim at the likes of letmewatchthis.com and close them.

Below is the mentality of the blag it generation. Here is a quote from a poster on theregister.co.uk

"To claim that downloading a perfect digital COPY of a DVD/BD is theft is like saying that you are stealing the Mona Lisa if you download a high-res digital photo of it."

This is what the industry is up against. They have blagged it all for so long they now think it is their right not to pay for it. As it is not physical and the source has an infinite amount as it is digital, they do not see it as theft and it does not help when the Swiss tells us it is quite acceptable.



.

 

[woopwoop]

I'm in NY and we have Netflix (and Hulu Plus). I pay less than $10/month each and they stream direct to my TV (Samsung smart TV).

Netflix gives me unlimited streamed movies/shows from their online directory, and I think I can get 1 dvd mailed at a time (then return it for another) but we never do. Hulu has a bunch of movies and shows too. Netflix @29.99 might be several dvds at the same time?

This has basically replaced the $140 we were paying a month before for cable + dvr (Sky equivalent). We miss a few shows but it is saving a lot and convenient.

Broadband speed and costs are the issue and like you said will be a bigger issue going forward when more traffic and bits start flying.

 

[namealot]

Its been said since the start of time and has been going on since then and the world devloped ok with it going on.... Cave paintings, furniture, literature, buildings all have been copied think “revival” etc more recently it was said about cassettes, pirate radio station’s, video recorders etc most of the best works of art etc were done for the love of it not the ££££ which so much now is done for … and what crap is churned out because of it… people will still make music, films, games write books etc and it might even make them better…. It’s only been a short time that these sorts of things have made mega millionaires and there time like many other is up… It’s only the lobbyist etc paid by these mega companies that whine on about it…Just another back door big corporation censorship control trip