I read that the Swiss government has declared "downloading for personal use" legal. See for example
http://www.webpronews.com/swiss-gove...-legal-2011-12

Is this a hoax? How could it be true? At best, the government could issue a statement to the effect that no-one will be prosecuted in Switzerland for the crime of illegally downloading copyrighted material for personal use.

downloading is legal, uploading is illegal, although they aren't allowed to give your details to anyone so makes it kinda a moot point.

Is that what your mate told you?

read it somewhere

Or was it a bloke down the pub?

Probably on the internet, so it must be true.

It's nothing new, search the forum and you'll find it mentioned many times already.

Yes and no, read the following: http://www.copyright.ch/?sub_id=72&leng=1

Discussed HERE I believe.

Pirate downloads

Yes, it is legal, as it is in the Netherlands and other countries.

Also, what they recently did was affirm that it was legal, and they saw no reason to change the law.

Tom

Also, the issue of morality is at stake here.

Copyright is inferred at the point of creation of the work. It does not have to be registered.

Copying without permission is wrong.

So is crossing the road on a red man.

Let your conscience guide you. Is there a victim to your action ?

OK so based on the fact that I have relatively few morals and it is legal to stream video here in CH.

Does anyone have any suggestions for good quality movie streaming?

i believe the original purpose of copyright is gone. I don't have an issue with people getting material form authors as long as they themselves are not doing it for commercial purposes.


Copyright is not really inferred, copyright It's permitted by laws. (at least the US constitution, which is so far my only case study, I admit).

I read too much Richard Stallman , I guess..

Rapper Soulja Boy treats himself to a $55m private jet

The poor fella can barely afford his tax bill...

That article is interested the practical implementations of copyright, and not the right to hold a copyright. For most music and software , i.e. recently created , copyright is granted at the time of creation.

Works from 2002 to date.
Any original works of authorship from 2002 to the present are automatically copyright protected from the moment of their creation. You may still register a copyright in order to establish the date of copyright protection and provide better protection against copyright infringement, but it's not necessary to register a copyright in order for a work to be protected.

Works between 1989 and 2002.
Works created after 1977 are automatically copyright protected as of 1989. Works created before 1978 but published during this era are copyrighted at the date of publication.

Works from 1978 to 1989.
Works created during this period are copyright protected as of the date of publication with notice. If works were published without notice during this period, they weren't copyright protected, although the 1989 change in copyright laws altered that and makes these works automatically protected. Works created before 1978 but published during this period with notice are copyright protected from the date of publication.

Works between 1964 and 1977.
Works published between 1964 and 1977 with notice are copyright protected. Works published during this era without copyright protection notice are not copyrighted.

Works between 1923 and 1964.
Works published during this period are protected only with notice and with a renewal of copyright protection. If works published during this period didn't have their copyright protection renewed, they are no longer protected by copyright.

Works published between 1923 and 1964 without notice.
Works published between 1923 and 1964 without notice are not copyright protected, and never were. These works are considered a part of the public domain.

Works published before 1923.
Works published before 1923 are not copyright protected. Any copyright eligibility is expired on these works, and they are considered a part of the public domain.

SOURCE

Streaming is not copyright infringement. Unless you record it on your PVR etc. Ask yourself, where is the evidence that you infringed copyright ?

About "Is there a victim to your action?"

Yes the supplier who makes about 10 times more than the artist

So to avert from the artist being ripped off by his publishing company, we should not buy records from the company...right ? Works for me

the artists would bite your hand off for only 10 times more! I read an interview with adam ant recently, he got 1% of the cost of the album, from that he had to pay all the bands costs inc making the video and marketing, so basically he got bugger all. I would imagine the merry go round of manufactured pop gets even less then that. S club 7 for instance where paid a salary, 30k each per year iirc, even though they where bringing in millions in records and tv series.

So, about 10x what they deserved then eh?

They were too poor and ashamed to even post a "Can I afford..." thread on EF.

Search. You won't find one.