Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
from the funny-how-that-works dept
Last December, we wrote about a report put out by the Swiss executive branch noting that, based on their research, it appeared that unauthorized file sharing was not a big deal, showing that consumers were still spending just as much on entertainment, and that much of it was going directly to artists, rather than to middlemen. In other words, it was a market shift, not a big law enforcement problem. At the time, we wondered if Switzerland had just bought itself a place on the USTR's "Special 301 list" that the administration uses each year to shame countries that Hollywood doesn't like.That list doesn't come out for a bit, but there's another, similar list, put out by the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus (yeah) that has added Switzerland to its "bad countries" list along with China, Russia and Ukraine. Italy also joined Switzerland as a "first-timer" on the list -- despite rulings that required ISPs to block access to various file sharing sites. The issue in Italy? I'd guess that a story we had earlier this year has something to do with it. After some political fighting, the government there basically decided to just stop regulating copyright issues online. There's also an upcoming fight about new copyright proposals coming in Italy, and this seems like a preemptive strike for some of Hollywood's favorite Congressional Reps and Senators to pressure Italy into approving bad laws that Hollywood likes.
Meanwhile, both Spain and Canada -- who passed legislation very much at the behest of American interests -- were removed from the evil part of the list and switched to "in transition." The message is not particularly subtle: do not, at any cost, question Hollywood's planned copyright laws, or the US government will shame you as a haven for pirates, no matter how bogus that claim really is. Hopefully governments in Switzerland and Italy resist such obvious lobbying on behalf of special interests and pay attention to reality in those markets.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, congressional anti-piracy caucus, copyright, italy, switzerland, watchlist
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If so, you are either rich, incredibly dim, or in the “denial” stage of grieving over the total loss of US voter control of the US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Our Government is Totally Corrupt and full of greasy palm A-Holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wholehearted disagree. I think the people who voted for the politicians should have to wear the collars and get the shocks whenever their chosen representative lie or do something dishonest.
These people aren't electing themselves into office, and if people are too lazy to turn off American Idol and Jersey Shore and simply vote for someone simply because they claim to follow one of the two major philosophies people tend to lean towards without verifying their actual actions, then you get the mess we have in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are two ways of administering a jolt based on dishonesty. The first is automatic administering when the collar detects that the politician things they are dishonest about something. The second is that there is a 3rd party controlling when the collar delivers a jolt.
The problem with the first scenario is that the politicians may not always think what they're doing is dishonest. They may truly believe something dishonest is the right course of action.
The problem with the second scenario is that it's ripe for abuse. I mean a nice quiet job for the MPAA would certainly persuade someone's viewpoint on the honesty of a particular action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America's Opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America's Opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America's Opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America's Opinion
> having the most powerful military in the
> history of mankind combined with the willingness
> to use it to get our way?
Oh, please. We're not going to start carpet bombing Italy or invading Switzerland because they won't change their law on file-sharing and everyone in the world knows it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: America's Opinion
From historical patterns it seems far more likely the US will attack the UK rather than Italy or Switzerland.
Israel might also need to watch it's back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: America's Opinion
> the UK rather than Italy or Switzerland.
So we're about to invade England now, are we?
You didn't happen to take a whole bunch of drugs before you posted, did you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America's Opinion
One hundred years ago, wars were fought with guns and bullets, bombs and house raids. Today wars are fought on the internet, with words (as it should be) we the Anonymous collective decree we shall give 0 fucks as to what laws breach our territories. The internet is ours, they can't have it, we are already, at war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America's Opinion
"We do not forgit we do not forgive
expect us"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I think of Switzerland, the word that immediately pops into my mind is copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SO if thehy decide not to have copyright then it can't be infringed.
You need to get some respect for other nations independence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The below paper examines several such studies and the analytical methods employed:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132153
Its conclusion seems to cut across the grain of "benign-ity".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nuff said.
In other words, you can't refute any of it on the merits. Convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is blatantly biased in its approach to the literature.
Studies that suggest piracy does not impact sales are subjected to the severe critique (and it is possible to knock holes in any paper if you try hard enough.)
Those that don't are reviewed quite gently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Despite the CMU paper's bluster about methodology and its highlighting of certain critiques, its own conclusions seem to be based on a biased sample, selected through undisclosed means (aside from a preference for academic papers based on empiricism).
The authors also acknowledged the outset that every paper they looked at is hard to compare because they all have such different focuses, data sets and methods. They further acknowledged that it's really difficult for any study of piracy's effect on sales to be methodologically sound, as there are so many unknown and uncontrollable variables. This is basically announcing that the whole exercise is unscientific, and you shouldn't draw conclusions from it. But then (no big surprise given their "generous" MPAA funding), they proceed under the assumption that the critiques and harm-concluding studies they chose to look at are unassailable, and that it's perfectly fine to make inferences based on a simple tally of harm-concluding and no-harm-concluding studies.
Shall we tally studies that conclude that God does or does not exist, and decide this issue once and for all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me do a referee's report on that paper (something I do professionally).
The paper reviews a sample of the literature on the subject. It notes that the majority of studies arrive at a conclusion that piracy does impact sales. However none of the papers in that majority has its methodology examined and critiqued. In contrast the group of dissenting papers is subjected to a severe questioning in an obvious attempt to discredit their conclusions.
Had the majority papers been subjected to a similar treatment it is certain that their methodologies could also have been demolished.
If I were refereeing the paper for SSRN I would have rejected it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If it had any less substance, it would be ethereal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
pay from the MPAA? thought so..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2. Using "major" papers exclusively as being from a large publisher is rather rich.
3. I do not know why, but piracy having a negative effect on sales is not really a surprise. It is a surprise that there are no distinctions between the levels of piracy-effects in the document.
4. The article almost exclusively goes in detail with the one result that could be an outlier. Again, that is a sign of preconception colouring the science.
5. The structure of the article is very much based around having a preconception and judging based on it. A more methodic and non-specific review would iron out a lot of the problems but would probably obscure the result as to be less clear.
In general I have no reason to doubt that most papers find a negative effect of filesharing. The argumentation and structuring is however a large detraction on the value of the rest of the findings. I would never use a problematic source like this in an article. It does, however seem like something MPAA, IFPI, RIAA and several other biased parties would use...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. Where TD and I tend to cross swords, so to speak, is that such papers tend not to receive much, if any, attention here...and that is the rub. I believe most people are capable of entertaining both pro and con thoughts from which they can make their own informed decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another specification is a comment to "2. Using "major" papers exclusively as being from a large publisher is rather rich." My point is that the exclusion criteria in itself bears a huge bias. If I wrote a paper on the effect of copyright I would have a bias in where I would publish. If my result was negative for copyright I would likely try and get it out through other means to avoid putting the reviewer and the paper in an awkward position. If I had a result that supported copyright I would be less concerned about that fallacy. That is an enormous problem with this article!
I agree that techdirt is mostly focused on the anti-copyright sentiments. On the other hand: Kicking down arguments for a stronger copyright is a lot harder to do in a diverse fascion since the arguments against something mostly comes in repeating some problems that have already been mentioned to infinity. It is a lot easier to give arguments supporting the skeptics of copyright a fresh spin. Techdirt is mostly taking specific cases and giving it a spin and that is definately a way to keep the news inspiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have been reading this site for many years and have yet to see a well-reasoned, cited, and evidenced response. If the paper is sound, the minds will be opened.
The problem has been that the papers that have been pointed to (if any) are those that are a) industry funded, b) based on a methodology that presupposes the answer (assumes copyright is good), or c) is a logic-based paper with no empirical or directly observed evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't believe me, I may be forced to conduct a second study to prove that self-funded studies are GOOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny how that works.
Or are you ready to admit any funding(google or otherwise) isn't relevant to the validity of points raised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Try reading it before dismissing it simply because of the funding source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The below paper examines several such studies and the analytical methods employed:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132153
Its conclusion seems to cut across the grain of "benign-ity".
Who let you in here? Did you not get your Kool-Aid at the door? You're not supposed to question the man behind the curtain. Just agree with everything he says and there won't be any trouble. Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Amusingly enough, someone has already pointed out that the one study that shoots down other studies, by sheer mindblowing non-coincidence, is one that happens to be funded by the MPAA. Because we know how accurate their "studies" are. Which are the reasons other studies are conducted, basically to shoot down theirs. Now we have one of theirs "shooting down" the research conducted by other studies. Even more amusing is that they have the gall to examine the "analytical methods employed" by other studies, when it's been shown repeatedly that they refuse to even allow others access to how they "compute" their findings much less what formulas they use to determine how bad piracy is and all that jazz.
Yes Joe, we get it. You hate Mike, you dislike Techdirt and it's readers in general and so on and so forth. So now that you've patted your fellow troll on the back, can you add anything substantial to the discussion? Or can I just go ahead and hit the report button on your off topic and (thinly veiled) ad-hom laden post? [shrugs, hits "report" because he doesn't care what response Joe has, as it's irrelevant to the comment he's reporting]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I didn't say this is a shill paper or was written by MPAA proxies. Don't put words in my mouth. I just merely said it's amusing given that they're looking at faults in the studies of others, when others have pointed out the faults of MPAA studies over the same thing (and at least the studies of those others have the decorum of being polite and reasonable enough to make public EVERYTHING in their studies, from formulas used to well... everything).
Also, making what appear to be legitimate observations means nothing. I can make legitimate observations about the state of copyright and patents. But were I to do so, and as has happened and proof can be readily presented, I'll be called a pirate and labeled a thief and whatnot by people like Average_Joe. For making legitimate observations.
So no, legitimate observations, while great aren't something you can just say, "Aha! Take that other studies!" too.
But as I said, should these researchers be given access to and publish something on the MPAA funded and banded about "studies" then I will give them slightly more credence. Until then, I'll be sure to continue rolling my eyes. I don't believe everything I read. I prefer to read multiple things and then decide for myself based on all available evidence and facts what I think about a given matter. Which is the reasonable thing to do, wouldn't you concur?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should hear the things I'm called for merely making legitimate observations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm, just about every comment you make is laced with insults and baseless accusations, yet you think it is your legitimate observations that get a rude response?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh boy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is forthcoming, and has stated many, many times where he stands, and what he stands for, on these issues.
Just because you dont like what he stands for does NOT allow you misrepresent that and wave your hand at everything he says and dismissively say "if only you would tell us what you REALLY think" when he has done that more times than is necessary.
Oh and a gratuitous ad hom for you (since you like using them so much yourself): hey, Average Jerkbag, stop being a whiny asshole. When EVERYONE tells you you are wrong, then
YOU
ARE
WRONG.
It's not the world that needs to change to your viewpoint, its you who needs to recognize your faults and errors. Don't whine like a little baby when the world doesn't capitulate to your tantrums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're insulting because that's just the kind of person you are. I have trouble imagining you're any more popular in the real world than you are here.
"What's he hiding? (Rhetorical question. It's obvious.)"
It may be ego-crushing to you, but maybe he has better things to do? You've proven countless times that you're just not worth investing much time in.
"If Mike were forthcoming and engaging on the issues, I wouldn't feel the need to constantly remind people that he's not."
The thing is, most of us are able to get a very clear picture about Mike's personal opinions, because we read the posts on his opinion blog. Your repeated demands for Mike to explain himself to you (beyond demonstrating an extraordinary sense of entitlement to someone else's time) just make it look like you're not smart enough to figure it out for yourself, despite it staring you in the face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Coming in to every article and insulting Mike is not making a legitimate observation. Going into the Funniest/Most Insightful Comments of the Week EVERY WEEK and then launching 200+ comments along the lines of "why won't you debate me" and "but but but morals" and "yeah Mike runs away again" is NOT legitimate observations or even reasonable debate.
It's you being a troll and a particularly annoying one at that.
You get called things. Boohoo. Should we start going through every article and then citing YOUR comments insulting Mike, Leigh, myself and others?
I bet we'll find for every one insulting you at least five made by you insulting others. In fact, I guarantee at least five.
So get off your f*cking high horse. You want respect? Earn it. But don't come in here the way you do and then act shocked when others call you out or insult you for it. You get what you dish out. If you don't like it then perhaps you should try acting like an adult for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
loaded question
tu quoque
ad hominem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This paper of course is an entirely different matter. Are the authors spot-ot? I do not know, because like I said I am not one well-versed in economic theory. Nevertheless, I do believe that their paper is worthy of fair consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you read Mike's "Sky is Rising"? That was paid for by groups (aka, Google and friends) who would love to see copyright disappear.
So Mike pulled together some numbers, ignored a whole bunch of reality, and generated the results they desired.
Studies can say anything the writer wants, provided they are willing to be selective in their fact selection.
The real skill is in going through a number of these sorts of things, and going back to the source material to see what is really there. When you do that, you can see the Sky isn't Rising, but rather that someone is digging a really deep hole so it looks further to the top :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you haven't read it and you can't address its substance. Got it. You assume that since some other study was questionable, then this one must be too. That's called working backwards. Did you learn that from Mike? He's the guru of that discipline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
Reporting your comments becuase you are a jackass so they are hidden (but can EASILY BE SHOWN with a SINGLE mouse click) is not censorship. You have proven over and over that its not only justified, but necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
You really are a child, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
You really are a child, aren't you?"
Right, dont address the issue or point, just hurl insults in a vain attempt to look "superior."
Ever answer the copyright question on your icon? No? Evading the real issues in favor of ad hom personal attacks instead? What a shock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
We tried... it just keeps back to stink the place up... and it won't shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
The government is wiping comments off this board?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The below paper examines several such studies and the analytical methods employed:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132153
Its conclusion seems to cut across the grain of 'benign-ity'."
No, it doesn't. This site points out that the research papers find that damage is minimal. Your paper linked above concludes that damages exists. Both sides agree ... and so do I. Somewhere in the world there is at least one person who has torrented a movie she could have Redboxed instead because, and only because, "I want to save $1.25." Harm exists and it's benign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The list that should not have been..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, some parts of the US, as well as Australia, were first colonized by a bunch of ex-criminals (mostly people who couldn't pay their debts in Britain) as a way of getting rid of criminals, and they turned out great. So they ought to embrace such a 'pirate haven'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
corporatism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: corporatism
Would it kill you to check even wikipedia
"Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, reactionism and syndicalism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem...
The Swiss have the best representation in the world. The US government doesn't even know the meaning of the word 'democracy'. True democracy will only exist where career politicians don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem...
We've still got too much backroom-dealings going on (especially when it comes to things like "Intellectual Property" or "Law enforcement"), where EU regulations are taken over without anyone talking about.
To be fair, it's the duty of the citizens (and representatives) to get informed about these things, and to demand a vote on them, but still, these international treaties get signed quite clandestinely, without much discussion or press reporting.
And the political party the most concerned about "foreign influence" which claims to be anti-EU, is of course the one immediately signing (or even driving the adoption of) any kind of international "Intellectual Property" or "Law Enforcement" treaties.
Well, anyway, the Swiss political system sure got its shortcomings, that's why I'm in the Swiss Pirate Party.
But our democracy sure is a hell lot better than the "winner-takes-all", "two-party", "elect-and-have-no-say-anymore"-system of the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ahem...
I lived in Zurich for a year and have to say when I left every other country I've visited since (including my own) has felt like a 2nd/3rd world crisis zone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torn from the pages of today's news:
In the US government, this (like just about everything else) means war. I'd tell them to change the record, but I'd probably be violating copyright on the halting of self-immolation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Torn from the pages of today's news:
From: Your Overlords
RE:"self-immolation" copyright violation
this is too close to "burn baby burn" extreme enforcement authorized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is that the US industries behind these lists are overstating the harm done to the market by Switzerland and Italy's failure to crack down on piracy. They're doing fine, and they would do fine in Switzerland and Italy even if those countries do nothing more than they're doing today. They're just trying to get more because they can...and because they really, really do not like the precedent set by governments who don't roll right over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.schweizermedien.ch/fileadmin/schweizermedien/brancheninfos/medienbudget/2011_Medienbu dget.pdf
(You can replace the 2011 with 2005 to 2010 to get older reports; in german).
That's 3150 SFR (about 3350 USD) per household a year, half of which is spent on content. Not counting companies.
Italy is a different case, since they've got no money ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think it's hilarious that the entertainment industry has to plead poverty whenever they talk about piracy, but then they have to wave their money around when it's time to show the investors how healthy the companies actually are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Furthermore this weekend we had elections and in a little town a mayor from the "pirate party" has be elected!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]