There's some interesting subsidiary questions, of course. Like 'what do you spend the money on instead'? At _this_ specific point the Swiss argument is on somewhat shaky ground; I'm not sure they sufficiently proved that the money would be spent on other entertainment products
But that "specific point" is the exact thing artor3 is talking about. The phrase he is questioning is, "...the copyright holders won't suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."