A new report by the Swiss government argues that unauthorized file sharing is not a significant problem, and that existing Swiss law—which allows for downloading copyrighted content for personal use—is sufficient to protect copyright holders. It considers and rejects three proposed changes: a French-style "three strikes" law, Internet filtering, and a mandatory collective licensing regime that would impose a fee on all Internet users that allowed unlimited file-sharing.

The report was written at the request of the Swiss legislature, which had expressed concerned that rampant copyright infringement endangered Swiss culture. In a 13-page document, Switzerland's Federal Council—the nation's seven-member executive branch—downplayed those concerns.

Drawing on statistics from the Netherlands, which is similar to Switzerland in terms of demographics, Internet infrastructure, and copyright law, the report estimates that a third of those over the age of 15 in Switzerland share copyrighted works without permission. That may be because, despite the best efforts of copyright holders and government officials, the majority of Swiss Internet users can't distinguish between legitimate and illegal sources for copyrighted material.

Yet the report argues that the spread of file-sharing is no great cause for concern. It argues that consumers spend a roughly constant share of their disposable income on entertainment expenses. Money saved on buying CDs and DVDs are instead spent on "concerts, movies, and merchandising."

The report argues that piracy is only a significant concern for "large foreign production companies," and that these large companies need to adapt to new consumer behavior rather than seeking further legislative changes. And, the report says, "fears that these changes have a negative impact on the Swiss cultural creativity are unfounded."

The report considers and rejects three approaches to file sharing that have been pursued in other countries.

First, it considers the "three strikes" approach of France's HADOPI. The council argued that HADOPI is incompatible with a right to free speech and expressed concern that such a regime gives too much power to private copyright holders.

Second, the council rejects calls for Internet filtering, arguing that such laws would threaten privacy and could degrade Internet performance.

Finally, the council considers a compulsory licensing regime, in which every Swiss Internet user would be charged a flat fee for the right to unlimited file sharing. This proposal is rejected for two reasons. First, the existing tax on blank media is unpopular with voters, who suspect that most of the money is not making it to artists. And second, the government expresses concerns that laws allowing unlimited sharing would interfere with international treaty obligations.