Piracy staying legal in Switzerland - "Pirates still contribute"

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
In my opinion, piracy is completely harmless overall, so fighting it is pointless.

Methods to fight piracy (whether DRM or laws) on the other hand are very damaging, usually either because they cost lots of money and accomplish nothing (DRM) or because they remove the rights of the innocent consumers who actually pay (laws... and DRM too actually).

So yeah, Switzerland is making the best decision possible in my opinion. The choice is clear.
 

karloss01

New member
Jul 5, 2009
991
0
0
I think it?s the right decision. everything that companies do seem to hurt real consumers more then the pirates themselves, after most pirated downloads always seem to have the DRM and security protocols removed. Why bother waste money on what is pretty much a lost cause, as long as there are people who can put this security in place there will people who can rip it down just as easy.

Anyone remember back when EA announced Spore would have DRM, it was pirated about 5 million times in the first week according to pirate bay (I think).

And when Treyarch stated that Black Ops was unhackable? Done in a week before it was actually released.

I don?t know anyone who hasn?t pirated something from a website (mostly music) and few are going to stop anytime soon.

If I had a company that developed something that could be pirated, I?d invest money into development to make the product feel like it?s worth the amount I charge for it. That would hopefully lessen the potential losses from people who may pirate it.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Heaven said:
Push the issue with the military? Against Switzerland? You cannot possibly be serious.

1. Switzerland quickly proceeds to freeze all US assets in its banks, shattering the American economy.

2. The entire international community unites against the US, destroying the last hundred years of economic and military power the country has developed.

3. A male population entirely trained with the use of assault rifles obliterates anything less than a full strength ground invasion, so you've killed off hundreds of thousands of American soldiers.

4. If that were to even happen, because any government stupid enough to launch that attack would face a military insurrection and a coup.

The military is a very limited tool, that is only useful to prevent active threats to a country's security. I'm not sure if you're trolling here, but you need to realize that A) America is not the overlord of the world, and B) NOBODY is the boss of Switzerland. Ever.
That's comedy gold.

Understand something, economics are meaningless to war, always have been, and always will be. Indeed obtaining money for a nation in trouble or that owes a lot of debt is one of the classic reasons for a war, after all if you kill the people that you owe money to, or take direct control of their assets, it solves a lot of problems.

I mean, I understand why liberals and the peace at any price movement have convinced themselves of this, but it's not true, and never has been.

Given the reasons for it, there would hardly be any kind of unification behind Switzerland if such a thing did happen, once the lines were drawn you'd probably find a lot of people wanting a piece out of making an example out of them, in hopes that it trickles down to nations like China and other countries that actually represent a threat.

Also do not confuse a real war with the crap you see in Iraq or Afghanistan, that's a police action run by morons. The entire principle of the US military is based on technology and to eradicate entire nations and cultures without even giving them a chance to fight back. We went in there with assault rifles for moral reasons (despite what anyone wants to think) and pretty much fought contrary to the entire development of our technology and engagement doctrine. The US military is designed to simply inflict devestation and use troops for little more than clean up, Even without WMD we have bombs and missles that can wipe out entire towns and cities more or less instantly. We just choose not to use them (despite all peacetime hype) because of collateral damage, which is one of the reasons so few people take the US seriously even if they understand the power we represent. Basically you can seriously hamstring the US by QQing where you can't defeat it militarily.

If the US comes for you, and REALLY means it, unless you happen to be China your pretty much doomed. Even if the entire world came at the US, it wouldn't work. We have something like a 20% chance of being able to simultaneously defeat/kill everyone else on the planet and remain something resembling the nation we are now after the enviromental fallout. The odds of the rest of the world are 0%, the US has the firepower to destroy the world 10x over without batting an eye.

A "war" between the US and Switzerland would probably amount to the US actually putting it's foot down for once and saying "we've decided you will do this, no diplomacy, do it or we'll make you regret it" followed by Switzerland laughing it off because the US usually backs down. This would be followed by guided missles simultaneously blowing through swiss air defenses like they aren't there and taking out every swiss leader not currently hiding in a bunker, and a few large bombs reducing a major city or three to rubble... after which the interim goverment would concede to whatever we demanded. There would of course be a lot of QQing both in the US and from the international community, but oddly a lot of those doing the QQing would also be overjoyed at the example we made and covertly start pointing thumbs at it when it comes to questions of IP rights.

See, right now it's hip to treat the US like it's not the dominant world power, or is in trouble for any reason other than we have allowed it to be for moral reasons. Barring a world unity, we will probably eventually be replaced due to our own choices, or someone else developing something we can't stop that is a game changer, but that's not today, and probably not tomorrow, or even next year... and right now is when we're being dealt with. Never, ever forget that most of what happens occurs because of what the US chooses to do, not due to us being forced to or having limited options. We choose not to invade and level countries, even against our own interests, not because we can't, or anyone could stop us, or because the world would "unify against us" (which is a big joke, some countries might, but a lot wouldn't care what we were doing but jump on our coattails for their own interests and because they would want to back the likely winner for their own benefit...)

Of course the funniest thing is that I was speaking in generalities which should have been obvious. But really, the swiss are a country whose survival strategy has been to declare neutrality to limit how badly they get steamrolled, and it's hilarious for people to act like they are a military power that would have everyone running to their aid. Honestly given how many people they have pissed off with their banking practices and how a lot of the politics have played out I think there are plenty of nations who would be cheering to see them decimated for any reason. Global "dirty finance" (the Swiss specialty) has been moving increasingly to places like The Caiman islands due to the Swiss pissing people off and already having guns put to their head to force reforms that made them far less attractive
to their clientele of choice. Heck, due to their handling of finances for terrorists and such under the pretensions of neutrality people have argued (beyond the context of this arguement) that they could be considered complicit in a lot of the worst crimes of the last few centuries through knowingly enabling these groups.

Don't worry however, I don't think the US will go in and slap the Swiss around over this policy. We generally don't do things like that despite the rumors. Besides it would never come to an actual war of the level I mention if we decided to. We'd probably just have to make a few subtle displays that we were actually serious for once and willing to go to
that point and the Swiss would back down despite what a lot of people might want to think.
Of course we won't for moral reasons, not because we can't. In general the big left wing arguement prevails that by doing that kind of thing we'd actually become the empire everyone treats us as. While I personally don't care if we are or not, the nation is polarized on issues like that.
 

Jfswift

Hmm.. what's this button do?
Nov 2, 2009
2,396
0
41
Hmm, I just buy music because the pirated copies typically have inferior sound quality (same goes for movies). Games I just buy on steam when they go on sale.
 

hooksashands

New member
Apr 11, 2010
550
0
0
In other words, a pirated copy isn't a lost sale if the pirate never considered buying it in the first place. Some game vendors would have you believe otherwise. And you know what the greatest irony of all is? They're the ones who have spent $94 million--money they received from PAYING customers--to help lobby and pass nightmare bills like PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) which tear apart basic freedoms, the right to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use being chief among them. And people just fucking swallow it. Because PIRACY is bad for everyone!

If it comes down to game companies losing money from sales they never would have gotten anyway and having the internet get face-raped by litigation lawyers, I think I know which side I'll be on when the "War on Piracy" goes full swing.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
kman123 said:
"since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."

Umm.......that's a pretty flawed statement.

I mean come on, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping them from merely stealing music, films, games and not paying. Piracy is weird.
You're right that there's nothing stopping them, but that doesn't mean that they won't pay when they can.

There are plenty of times at college where people will be giving away free stuff with the completely optional option to pay for it, and most people will toss in money, not because they are coerced or threatened into it, but because they're decent human beings.

Many (I dare not say most) pirates are in a similar boat. They're not doing it because they're bad people, but because they can't afford it (or the price is far too ridiculous.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
And People say I'm The Lunatic.

Anyway, the biggest issue with what a lot of companies is not realizing that people aren't using the money they've "Saved" from not buying you're shitty yearly re-release of a certain game, to build some giant treasure vault under their bed.

Chances are, they're spending that money on important stuff, like, food, and bills, and when there's more spending money, chances are they'll spend that money instead on video games and music and whatever.

There's a small portion of those who pirate, who pirate excessively. Most of these people probably don't have the money for your £55 Yearly spewing of a series, does that mean they shouldn't have the game? Well, probably. but, if they can't buy it anyway, what are you losing?

Well, you're losing all that money you blew on copy protection that got cracked in 10 minutes.
 

Rutnier Nodarse

New member
Feb 12, 2011
48
0
0
DRes82 said:
Levethian said:
...Not only will downloading for personal use stay completely legal, but the copyright holders won?t suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."

...It's tantamount to free advertising; the building of a fan-base who will spend cash on the medium when they can.
Neither one of those statements make any sense at all. If someone can get something for free with absolutely no consequences, what the hell would be the incentive to go spend money on that same something?
BEcause I don't think there's any working ways to pirate console games. So... they're screwing PC gamers and supporting console players.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
karloss01 said:
I think it?s the right decision. everything that companies do seem to hurt real consumers more then the pirates themselves, after most pirated downloads always seem to have the DRM and security protocols removed. Why bother waste money on what is pretty much a lost cause, as long as there are people who can put this security in place there will people who can rip it down just as easy.

Anyone remember back when EA announced Spore would have DRM, it was pirated about 5 million times in the first week according to pirate bay (I think).

And when Treyarch stated that Black Ops was unhackable? Done in a week before it was actually released.

I don?t know anyone who hasn?t pirated something from a website (mostly music) and few are going to stop anytime soon.

If I had a company that developed something that could be pirated, I?d invest money into development to make the product feel like it?s worth the amount I charge for it. That would hopefully lessen the potential losses from people who may pirate it.
Regarding Spore, I know people that pirated the game SOLELY because of its Suckurom, I mean Securom, DRM bullshit. They had no qualms about giving Will Wright and his developers money, but didn't want EA to see a dime for what they put into the game. It's wrong (and insane) to tell someone that you can only install a game 3 times, and is only going to cause more piracy, not less.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
The Lunatic said:
And People say I'm The Lunatic.

Anyway, the biggest issue with what a lot of companies is not realizing that people aren't using the money they've "Saved" from not buying you're shitty yearly re-release of a certain game, to build some giant treasure vault under their bed.

Chances are, they're spending that money on important stuff, like, food, and bills, and when there's more spending money, chances are they'll spend that money instead on video games and music and whatever.

There's a small portion of those who pirate, who pirate excessively. Most of these people probably don't have the money for your £55 Yearly spewing of a series, does that mean they shouldn't have the game? Well, probably. but, if they can't buy it anyway, what are you losing?

Well, you're losing all that money you blew on copy protection that got cracked in 10 minutes.
You. I like you. You understand things like this. I think everyone should read this response.
 

w00tage

New member
Feb 8, 2010
556
0
0
DRes82 said:
Levethian said:
...Not only will downloading for personal use stay completely legal, but the copyright holders won?t suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."

...It's tantamount to free advertising; the building of a fan-base who will spend cash on the medium when they can.
Neither one of those statements make any sense at all. If someone can get something for free with absolutely no consequences, what the hell would be the incentive to go spend money on that same something?
The problem I see here is that everyone is forgetting that there are two sides to caveat emptor. One side is the buyer's responsibility to make sure what they purchase is the right product, and this protects the seller from ignorant / bad faith buyers, of which we have no shortage.

The other side is the buyer's RIGHT TO INSPECT that product to the fullest extent necessary for them to determine that it's the right product. This protects the buyer from being ripped off by people who will lie to get money, of which we also have no shortage.

Of those two rights, which one is being more enforced by law? Look at the sales models of all of the companies joining the antipiracy crusade, and tell me where the buyer is able to inspect that product before paying for it. And, how often has the buyer been ripped off because they haven't been able to exercise their rights, because the company is insisting they buy the product based on packaging / advertising, AND enforcing that with contracts such as EULAs?

This is the real reason for piracy imho. We don't have the right laws in place to both to protect sellers so that EULAs and other purchase contracts are unnecessary, and provide sufficient rights of inspection to make piracy unnecessary. And of the two, sellers have legal resources to force their rights, while buyers don't.

So buyers turn to illegal methods of inspecting the product because they have no legal way of doing so before the purchase point. No mystery there, no mass evil corrupting society as we know it - just a straightforward search for the rights needed to fulfill the buyer's part of the caveat emptor arrangement.
 
Apr 24, 2008
3,912
0
0
I can completely believe these findings.

The people I know who pirate are the people who also have ass-loads of legit media littering their homes too. The people who become indignant about piracy at the drop of a hat, are the same people who buy 3 games a year, no films and very little music.
 

ALPHATT

New member
Aug 15, 2009
62
0
0
It comes down to quality, a downloaded film, sounds and looks like crap, downloaded msuic is frustrating to find and often crappy in quality, downloaded video game have online and stats related limitations up the ass. Buying legally is more convinient. Pirating is esentially legal where I live (as in it's illegal but there are no resources to prevent it from happening), and I still don't pirate, at all, because it's uncomfotable and I get an inferior product.
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
MelasZepheos said:
The problem is that the figures just don't match up with this interpretation. Most people who pirate will not go on to buy the game legitmately, otherwise that figure the Witcher 2 released last week of 1 in 5 copies being pirated would have ended 'but then we sold another 4 million anyway.' Did it? No, because most people who had pirated the game then didn't go on to buy it.
But the inverse is also true.
If you completely remove the possibility to pirate something, a pirate who would otherwise get the game through piracy would still not buy it. In fact, you'd probably sell fewer copies due to decreased interest.

Advertisement is a powerful force. Why do people pay tens of thousands of dollars to advertise their product or service next to highways? Do all people who see the ad purchase the product or service? Do most people? In fact, only a small fraction of people who see it go on to pay for it. It is still worth it for the one who invested in the ad, since that small fraction still makes up a lot of people. A pirated game works in a similar way. It's free self-perpetuating advertisement. Again, only a small number of people will actually buy it, but some will, and that's a increase in sales for no investment. Couple that with word of mouth, and there's a significant amount of extra sales.

Again, word of mouth and advertisement is an incredibly powerful commercial force.
Piracy is both of those, for all its ills.
 

Duol

New member
Aug 18, 2008
84
0
0
Therumancer said:
Snip for Sanity
As a Swiss person, both of you are hilarious. Why?

1. Switzerland is not some military power house.
2. I'm sure Germany and the rest of Europe would be real happy about the US dropping a bunch of shit smack bang in the middle of Europe. 'We don't care what anyone thinks' You will when they wont buy your stuff or sell you tech.

This is about economics, not some stupid attempt to predict what war between Switzerland and the US would look like. Not just because it wont happen, but largely because not you, or me, is in any position to make such assessments.

The US and other big economies can pressure Switzerland through economics. Switzerland relies heavily on the export of goods and services, cutting off a market like the US, Germany, Italy or the UK would be a massive blow. This is exactly what was being thrown around (in diluted forms of course) to get some compromise on the banking secrecy laws.

All of this of course is being done while still recognizing that Switzerland produces goods and services of importance to the world economy, including the US. That's why it was a compromise decision. It allowed both parties to go back to their electorates saying that a great victory had been won. Exactly the same thing could one day happen with regard to IP, not just CH, but also the rest of Europe, and of course China. The US is a big player, but bombing economies and enslaving them is not the best way to do business.
 

Hyper-space

New member
Nov 25, 2008
1,361
0
0
kman123 said:
"since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."

Umm.......that's a pretty flawed statement.

I mean come on, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping them from merely stealing music, films, games and not paying. Piracy is weird.
I think they may be referring to the studies that have been made which show that people who pirate the most also spend the most on entertainment products and are more likely to buy the stuff eventually. Dunno.