Slashdot Mirror


Spain Outlaws P2P File-Sharing

Section_Ei8ht writes "Spanish Congress has made it a civil offense to download anything via p2p networks, and a criminal offense for ISP's to allow users to file-share, even if the use is fair. There is also to be a tax on all forms of blank media, including flash memory drives. I guess the move towards distributing films legally via BitTorrent is a no go in Spain." Here is our coverage of the tax portion of this law.

432 comments

  1. WoW by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't WoW patching done via P2P?

    Also if you want to really push the boat out they've now made it illegal to play online games, since they work in a way you could argue is P2P in some cases.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:WoW by kcbanner · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes it is, but its usually much faster to download the patch from a http or ftp mirror. In the last patch they also added a "Background Downloader" which downloads parts of the next patch when those parts are ready (enabled by default). Most users dont even know about this; I can see either alot of arrests/exemptions?

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    2. Re:WoW by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, yes they are. It's a simple case of selective enforcement. Spainards will have to download their WoW patches via P2P safe in the knowledge that Blizzard will not sue them.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:WoW by MoonFog · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be fair, the article starts with; A Spanish intellectual property law has finally banned unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing in Spain, making it a civil offense even to download content for personal use.

      I assume the patches would fall under "authorized peer-to-peer file-sharing".

    4. Re:WoW by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article also mentions forcing ISPs to block P2P traffic. Routers have no way of knowing if it's authorised or not. Sounds to me like an enourmous amount of perfectly legal filesharing will be shutdown here. Then on top of that, there's the media tax. "The money collected will be paid back to the owner of the copyright" my ass. If I burn a CD of my own copyrighted works, will I get the tax refunded? If you burn a GNU/Linux cd, do you think the copyright holders are going to get paid by the Spanish government? I really don't think so.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    5. Re:WoW by MoonFog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wouldn't be the first time an article has interpreted something wrong. Blocking P2P traffic is virtually impossible, we all know that. I'm not saying it's not a stupid law, it is, but to me, this article doesn't really clarify just what has been banned and what will be legal. As we've established, companies like Blizzard are using P2P to get their patches distributed (that Penny Arcade cartoon on the issue is hilarious). Perhaps if someone could post the actual text or a translation of it so we don't have to interpret an article that tries to interpret a law which again comes off in a mind-blowing Slashdot header.

    6. Re:WoW by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For that matter, what is a "peer" exactly? I'm not an expert on TCP/IP I suppose, but isn't every computer with an IP address a peer to another? Weather it's my grandmothers old mac or big iron web server, we're all peers, aren't we?

      On the flip side, if I rent a server at a hosting company for $50 a month.. or for that matter, a virtual host for $15 a month, is it no longer "peer-to-peer" since I'm just a server?

      If I set no outgoing connections on bit-torrent, then aren't I just downloading like any other?

    7. Re:WoW by JoeKilner · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll put this here at the top so people can read it as they obviously (and I'm looking at you here mr article poster) can't read the actual article.

      Spain has outlawed the downloading of copyrighted files over P2P (previously it had been judged that downloading copyrighted material for personal use was allowable).

      Wow! Shock horror!

      Oh, that makes them the same as every other country then.

      Nothing to see here, please move along.

    8. Re:WoW by Khyber · · Score: 1

      To be absolutely honest - and I'm sure many have stated this (I did RTFA, not TFComments,) but the pure nature of the internet is peer to peer. You ask for a file, I send it to you. whether it is a text document that completes my website or an advertisement baner - it's stil peer-to-peer. What Spain is doing is stupid, and everyone in that country needs to stand up for themselves and this "free" network that they endanger by passing laws against it's very nature.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:WoW by LocoMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was thinking the same thing. I'm trying to find the actual text of the law on the spaniars news outlets but no luck so far. There are lots of talk about the blank media tax (but IIRC they were already talking about it when I went there on vacations about 2 years ago) but nothing on P2P. It also strikes me odd that the government would require ISPs to block all P2P traffic considering that the RTVE (the national radio/TV, kinda like the BBC but from Spain) is actually using P2P to transfer some of its content online (source: http://www.aristasweb.net/noticias.php?idn=4024&cl ase=100 , but it's in spanish).

    10. Re:WoW by epiphani · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Blocking P2P traffic is virtually impossible, we all know that.

      I would beg to differ - Rogers in canada has been doing quite a good job of blocking all bittorrent traffic, encrypted and nonencrypted. They just recently put into play heuristic pattern matching to catch the encrypted traffic.

      Not saying it doesnt suck. People are talking about a class-action suit against rogers.

      --
      .
    11. Re:WoW by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1
      "What is a peer, exactly?"

      Techinically, you're right, of course.

      But politically, p2p means citize^K^K^K^K^K^K consumers-to-consumer, rather than the government-approved (and taxable, and lobbied for, and campaging donation funded) business-to-consumer.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    12. Re:WoW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm spanish and it's exactly as you said. Since two years ago (media tax came earlier) all CDs and DVDs are more expensive. It doesn't matter what you burn in them: linux distros, own stuff, or even nothing at all. You buy it, you pay copyright taxes.

      This is stupid workaround about piracy, spanish government assume CDs and DVDs are mostly used illegally so it repais copyright holders with that tax but if we pay taxes for piracy, it's legal to copy copyrighted stuff?. Also it's a wrong state of law because taxes go to an authors organization called SGAE and it doesn't distribute dose benefits as it should.

      Of course spainyards are moving against this kind of laws and, as far as they earn money from it, against the SGAE who is suing any movement of these as soon as they can. There is a lawsuit against the media tax going on, you can check it out at http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/378 (in spanish).

  2. How stupid. by IANAAC · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Not much else to say.

    How can a country be so progressive (at least on paper) on some things, and so idiotic on this?

    1. Re:How stupid. by b4stard · · Score: 1

      Just a matter of listening to big business. If a government do, bad shit falls upon their people.

    2. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're considering giving human rights to apes, so there's no telling what other stupid shit the Spanish government is going to try to do.

    3. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Progressive? Spain is one of the most underdeveloped country in Europe. They got a bump when they joined the EU, but still there is a lot of issues to be sorted out. If you haven't been there, go and see for yourself.

    4. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      just goes to show that governments should not be given power over the internet, can you imagine if they got control of the root servers too? that would be ridiculious, besides isn't sending an email a form of file sharing?

      as i said it before, there is a growing need for networks such as anonet to free people from persecution in repressed countries, i'll just add spain to the list, i might not have anything to hide but then again if i want to share a file i created with a friend i will, if you build it i will find a way to get around it.

      should we blame the governments or their advisors, or should we blame the people that build these type of things to restrict us?

      if you are one of the following, please erase your mind: drone, sheeple, religious or government robot. if you are not one of them, please stand up and say somthing.

    5. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking? The Spanish economy is around the 10th most important in the world. Spain is obviously behind countries like UK, France, and Germany, but to say it is undevelop...

    6. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >10th most important in the world

      Give me a reference or shut up.

    7. Re:How stupid. by moranar · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    8. Re:How stupid. by kiwi.es · · Score: 0

      True, there is some great stuff coming out of their audio and signal processing universities of late. But a country that still considers feminine hygiene products as luxury goods (and therefore is subject to a premium tax) is a little less then progressive IMHO.

      --
      http://blog.julianonsoftware.com
    9. Re:How stupid. by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 4, Informative
      Give me a reference or shut up.

      Here you go. While an actual figure like "10th in the World" is hard to compute accurately, the figures given in the link should show that Spain is not exactly a struggling country.
      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    10. Re:How stupid. by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's simple: every form of government authority implies that the whole population is pursuing the same goal, which is determined by whatever law-making process there is.

      So if a lobby manages to get the Law to state that P2P is going against that common universal goal, tough luck. There's no place for any "minority" (or non-lobby) opinion in a system driven by votes: winner takes all.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    11. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, the bump started in the 70's when Franco finally kicked the bucket. And "underdeveloped" isn't the opposite of "progressive"; it is the opposite of "developed". the opposite of "progressive" is "conservative", i.e. "not developing, stagnating, looking backward". However though it came from behind, in the thirty years or so since Franco Spain has so far:

      (a) de-regulated markets

      (b) implemented a federal system in all but name despite the objections of the arch-conservatives;

      (c) changed from an electoral system based on the family where women had no vote to true, universal adult suffrage;

      (d) gone from an ultra-religious, reactionary social system to a forward-looking, liberal one accepting of gays (at least legally; by using the word "marriage" in their gay-partnership law the Spanish have come even farther than the British, who allow only "civil partnerships")

    12. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 'most underdeveloped' ? How exactly are you measuring development?
      Maybe you are the one who should go there and visit all european countries before making that statement.

      Perhaps you could explain to me how such an 'underdeveloped' country rocks the living shit out of USA when it comes to quality of life.

    13. Re:How stupid. by c0n0 · · Score: 1

      I believe that question applies to all countries, since most are very progressive on some aspects and fully retarded on others. :-(

    14. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What are you smoking? The Spanish economy is around the 10th most important in the world. Spain is obviously behind countries like UK, France, and Germany, but to say it is undevelop...
      Don't worry about it, it's just that a few Americans have a distorted perspective of economic power of countries, probably because they never look at the actual data but rather derive their view from Fox News.
      The economic ranking they have in their heads is roughly this one:

      1. USA
      2. USA
      3. USA
      4. USA
      5. USA
      6. China
      7. China
      8. China
      9. Japan
      10. Japan
      11. Canada
      12. UK
      13. France
      14. India
      15. Germany
      16. "Third World"

      Give or take a rank.
    15. Re:How stupid. by Twixter · · Score: 1
      They can be underdeveloped. Just don't outlaw the nude beaches too!

      -Todd

      --

      -Todd

      Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.

    16. Re:How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My guess is he was thinking of Spain prior to its inclusion into the EU.

      Their economy was like half of what it is now.

  3. So let me get this straight by Spikeles · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You won't be able to download updates for World Of Warcraft, you wont be able to send anyone else a video you made yourself, or even a word document to your friends, or even share your music if you are an independant music maker giving your music away?

    This seems really dumb.

    Also how can they possibly enforce it? Block at the ISP level? Using what? ports? They can change. Checking individual packets for p2p signatures? Might be possible if you want your bandwidth to be non-existant.

    I really hope the rest of world does not follow this example, it's like saying roads should be banned because criminals use them.

    What is this world coming to? Because i'm not sure if i wish to live in it.

    --
    I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
    1. Re:So let me get this straight by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I think Spain is going to gradually ban the entire Internet.

    2. Re:So let me get this straight by rand_chars · · Score: 1
      Also how can they possibly enforce it? Block at the ISP level? Using what? ports? They can change. Checking individual packets for p2p signatures? Might be possible if you want your bandwidth to be non-existant.
      The same way they do traffic shaping. It's fast enough to allow ISPs to inspect packets and throttle Bittorrent (like my ISP does, sadly -- google "Rogers traffic shaping"), so I don't see any reason why it wouldn't it be fast enough to block p2p off entirely?
    3. Re:So let me get this straight by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For some reason I think you'll have no trouble downloading WoW patches via P2P. It's amazing how many people are willing to jump to stupid conclusions without even reading the legislation.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:So let me get this straight by Spikeles · · Score: 1

      True, but how can you be sure you are throttling a p2p port? What if a game uses that port, you are sure gonna get alot of pissed of users complaining of low pings.

      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
    5. Re:So let me get this straight by Spikeles · · Score: 1

      That's what /. is for isn't it? Discussion and learning! Also could you provide a link to the legislation please ( if you have one? )

      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
    6. Re:So let me get this straight by silvioh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modded Insightful? Why?

      The linked article says "unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing". So you will be able to download your prescious WoW-Patches, you will be able to send your own videos to your friends... because its not "unauthorized". Where's the problem?

      In other words: the summary was BS and you did not get it straight...

    7. Re:So let me get this straight by Spikeles · · Score: 1
      Modded Insightful? Why?
      *shrug* Don't ask me.. i didn't do it!
      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
    8. Re:So let me get this straight by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Funny

      What's the point, it'll be in spanish.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:So let me get this straight by Arker · · Score: 1

      The technology he's talking about is much more sophisticated than that. It doesn't care about the port. It looks on into the packet.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    10. Re:So let me get this straight by Spikeles · · Score: 1

      Yeah i know, packet sniffing, i thought that the computers were not yet powerful enough to handle that amount of data without the loss of some type of bandwith?

      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
    11. Re:So let me get this straight by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      >>Yeah i know, packet sniffing, i thought that the computers were not yet powerful enough to handle that amount of data without the loss of some type of
      >>bandwith?

      Then it will drop the packets rather than letting them through.

      Has the added bonus of squelching the burst too.

    12. Re:So let me get this straight by Alphager · · Score: 1

      You know, in the world outside, there are people (gasp!) who even speak more than one language (doublegasp!) and can translate that thing.

    13. Re:So let me get this straight by phulshof · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you missed the part where ISP's are obligated to block P2P traffic. Since an ISP cannot differentiate between authorized and unauthorized P2P traffic, they have no choice but to block the entire technology (or make a best case effort at least).

    14. Re:So let me get this straight by TCM · · Score: 1

      The newest Bittorrent clients can encrypt their traffic to make it look random. Together with a random port there should be no way to detect and thus affect the traffic.

      Azureus can do it since 2.4.0.0 I think and uTorrent since 1.5.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    15. Re:So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also amazing how many people are willing to implement stupid legislation without even jumping to conclusions.

    16. Re:So let me get this straight by Don+Negro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Together with a random port there should be no way to detect and thus affect the traffic.

      The traffic analysis necessary to detect BitTorrent traffic is trivial; nothing else opens a large number of connections and starts sending data the way that BitTorrent does. Encryption has worked with some ISPs because they've only made a half-hearted effort to traffic-shape. As it currently stands, many users have a choice of broadband providers and will switch if their carrier is too aggressive, and in most cases it's easier to simply cap all of an heavy user's bandwidth than to waste the cycles trying to find the BT traffic in particular.

      But rest assured, the traffic analysis is child's play. If ISPs want to stop BT traffic, encryption won't present any impediments.

      --

      Don Negro
      Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall

    17. Re:So let me get this straight by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Wait, an ISP can't differentiate? I'll bet $$$ they have packet-sniffing software that allows them to reconstruct what you're downloading. I am one ass-end low-level network admin, but even I monitor all network traffic that comes in/goes out on my dad's DSL line. I have not one problem knowing what's being sent. If I can do it, why can't a supposedly higher-knowledge ISP staff not do the same? Not trying to troll, but if a relative n00b that is a self-proclaimed expert (By far I'm better than Geek Squad could be since they went corporate-nationwide,) do the same thing and figure out normal traffic by ports? That's how I figure out what my dad's downloading/uploading.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:So let me get this straight by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1
      But rest assured, the traffic analysis is child's play. If ISPs want to stop BT traffic, encryption won't present any impediments.
      Yeah. Fortunately there are better p2p networks... Yes, we're discussing how to avoid being caught while doing something illegal, instead of discussing about if it should be illegal.

      On the claims that this gives us nothing new but the ISP part, RTFA again:

      The legislation, approved by Congress on Thursday, toughens previous provisions. An early May circular from Spain's fiscal general del estado, or chief prosecutor, allowed downloads for purely personal use.
      And, although the article doesn't enlighten us well about the issue, and so it is quite difficult to understand what they mean with "authorization" (legal authorization? network authorization? explicit authorization?), there's any part of the article that says that this only covers copyrighted material. Check:
      Now Spaniards caught grabbing content from, say, eMule, will have to reimburse rights holders for losses --- although such losses will be difficult for authorities to track.
    19. Re:So let me get this straight by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      You're thinking in the wrong scale there. For instance, if you see that someone's downloading an mp3 from a p2p network... is the mp3 copyrighted? And even if it is, is the guy downloading it "unauthorized" to do so? You have no way to check on that.

    20. Re:So let me get this straight by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      i'm sure you know what your dad is doing, but what if you had 17,142,198 dads? That's how many internet users there were in Spain the last time Nielsen counted them.

      (P.S. i've heard of having two mommies, but 17 million dads is excessive.)

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    21. Re:So let me get this straight by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      1) ISPs will be asked to do all the work for the law makers in enforcing this rule.
      2) They will traffic shape, and thus block all p2p traffic.
      3) authorized p2p sharing is "accidentally" disallowed as well.

      Why can't people see this?

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    22. Re:So let me get this straight by epiphani · · Score: 1

      But rest assured, the traffic analysis is child's play. If ISPs want to stop BT traffic, encryption won't present any impediments.

      Ding ding ding. Rogers just started blocking encrypted traffic about a month ago. I'm waiting for the class-action suit.

      --
      .
    23. Re:So let me get this straight by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      Switch to UDP. Then it looks like NTP.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    24. Re:So let me get this straight by Kelson · · Score: 1
      You know, in the world outside, there are people (gasp!) who even speak more than one language (doublegasp!) and can translate that thing.

      Really? No lo creo!

      (P.S. Note to Slashdot. That inverted exclamation mark you're stripping from the previous paragraph is a valid character, even in ISO-8859-1.)

    25. Re:So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Rogers just started blocking encrypted traffic about a month ago.

      Do you have any more details? I can't imagine that they're blocking all HTTPS/SSL/VPN/SSH/etc.
    26. Re:So let me get this straight by epiphani · · Score: 1

      sorry - i ment bittorrent encrypted traffic, ie the azurus encryption.

      --
      .
    27. Re:So let me get this straight by beetlefeet · · Score: 1

      By port is no use, I can be downloaing something legitimate on a port usually used by P2P and vice versa.

      And if you see user 55462 downloading IconStudio224.zip and then H2O_Matrix.avi how do you know if they're allowed to download those files or not?

  4. Draconian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    FTA:
    the new intellectual property law is a definite step forward, placing obligations for instance on ISPs to provide information. Hopefully, it will help us to get some injunctions
    Draconian.
    1. Re:Draconian by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Damn newbies don't understand how to do anti-piracy properly!

      If I were the Spanish king I would have mandated all ISPs shape the p2p traffic to 50 bps. Or even better, pass a net 'neutrality' law where the ISPs have to drop connections to non-whitelisted sites (microsoft, MTV, cnn, etc. so long as they pay).

      Easy to check, verify, and punish non-compliars...Mission Accoumplished!

      Instead they decided making the p2p 'illegal', which is hard to monitor, verify, and enforce.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:Draconian by martijnd · · Score: 1

      The Spanish Inquisition teaming up with RIAA , you get the best quality repression of both the new and old world in a match made in heaven!

      Or maybe it will still end in utter embarrasment and ridicule for Spain as in a Monty Pythonesque fashion RIAA officers storm unsuspecting households shouting "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" and start probing them with stuffed cushions.

    3. Re:Draconian by larytet · · Score: 1
      limit accessible WEB sites by some white list is a good healthy approach and the only system which can be trusted.

      And the solution is not new. Try to start your own radio station or use broadcast TV signal over your own cable network. You will probably need broadcasting license from this or that ministry/gov department. the same should be done for the Internet.

      Google wants to serve public in Spain and Yahoo wants the same ? no problem. Currently Spain needs only one search engine and will let both companies to bid for the license.

      What average Joe can do is using amplifiers, focused WiFi beams and satellite Internet access. This is not going to be broadly available, but some individuals will have unlimited Internet access this way or other.

    4. Re:Draconian by larytet · · Score: 1

      btw does anybody think that the currently existing anarchy allows too much "privacy" shit and too much "anti social" noise. We (a community of civilized people) need some order here, don't we ? Some regulations are urgently required.

    5. Re:Draconian by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      Oh, can you please just shutdown the internet? We don't need another mind-controlling media device, we already have television.

    6. Re:Draconian by larytet · · Score: 1

      internet is just another channel of targeted ads. can be useful if under tight control

  5. why the tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After they make P2P illegal they then tax one of its possible end-products? Isn't this like simultaneously outlawing heroin and taxing syringes?

    1. Re:why the tax? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Didn't the tax law legalize private, non-commercial copying (i.e. making a copy for your buddy)? Still sucks either way.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    2. Re:why the tax? by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Illegalized P2P won't stop piracy by FTP or e.g simple "friend-to-friend" physical sharing, so they of course have to stop other "loopholes" by taxing?

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:why the tax? by acidrain · · Score: 2

      People exchange CDs without using the internet. First they go outside... Anyway, in Canada we have a piracy tax on CDs. And we have laws against taxing illegal behaviour. Isn't that one obvious? So the tax buys us a certain guarantee of freedom. We actually have the *right* to copy and *download* music. (But not to upload/broadcast to the public.) Just recently I was posting saying the tax was a good thing for Spain. Trying to explain that they were headed towards our situation. With this P2P madness, I have to admit I was totally wrong. As for criticising the P2P restrictions. It's so obviously wrong, that the only thing I can think of is going trolling...

      --
      -- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
    4. Re:why the tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syringes aren't the only way to take gear. You can pour a small amount onto a square of aluminium foil, heat it from below with a Zippo, and inhale the vapours through a tube {this is known as "tooting" in the trade; definitely not to be confused with SW17, where they do inject}. If you make the tube from aluminium foil, then you can carefully unroll it and toot the stuff which condensed on the inside. It's good to do the remains of last night's tube the following morning.

    5. Re:why the tax? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      In France this paradox was the basis for a ruling in favor of a filesharer. Don't complain too loud, it could be the loophole which saves filesharers

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    6. Re:why the tax? by krunk4ever · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's more like outlawing voip and then taxing cell phones.

    7. Re:why the tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Power and revenue are the two primary objectives of any government. Rationale: No government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power and revenue through the democratic process. There is a reason for this, and it's not because "the people" want perpetually expanding government. The historical trend, by a landslide, is for government to expand its power and revenue throughout its lifetime. Even under democratic rule, for every Ron Paul working to limit or reduce the power of government, there are 500 hawks working to expand government.

      With that in mind, why not impose criminalization of peaceful, voluntary activities and tax those same activities at the same time? If you can have your cake and eat it too -- which obviously government can -- then why the hell not?

      Wal-Mart wouldn't pass up a chance to expand their market share. Neither would government.

    8. Re:why the tax? by rawtatoor · · Score: 1

      May be obvious to a lot of people but it's not only so in Canada. Why do you think you buy "music" cd's or "data" ones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax

  6. Lets see them try... by yamamushi · · Score: 1

    Let's see them try to enforce this, I mean look how well the RIAA is doing here and all the file sharing they've managed to stop... oh wait.

    --
    - Aetheral Research -
    1. Re:Lets see them try... by NexFlamma · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It's going to be like trying to hold back the ocean with a broom.

      Unless you take away the country's internet backbone, people will find ways around it.

      When porn torrents are outlawed, only outlaws will have porn torrents.

  7. This just in by MrSquirrel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This just in -- Spain is being a tool.
    This seems like not only a bypassable law (encrypted ssh tunnels, etc...), an uninforceable law (what're they gonna do? punish the MILLIONS of people who fileshare?), but also a VERY STUPID LAW (legal file sharing is now a "no no"? why the FUCK was that even proposed, let alone passed!). For shame, Spain, for shame.

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    1. Re:This just in by MrSquirrel · · Score: 1

      *should be SSL tunnels, not SSH

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    2. Re:This just in by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bypassable by you and me.

      Not bypassable by Joe Average or as it is in Spain that should actually be Pedro Promedio.

      Anyway, the only winners out of all these will be CacheLogic and Ellacoya which can do the enforcement and guess who has been the longest running trialist of their kit.

      Guessing once, twice, thrice...

      Yep, right guess. Telefonica.

      This looks like the local equivalent of Baby Bell has bought itself a law that coincides with the way they see the network. By the way, compared to them even Ma Bell was a pinko commy hippy progressive.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:This just in by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry to inform you, but you are wrong MrSquirrel.
      It should actually be SLY tunnels.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    4. Re:This just in by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe in this case the technical term is a CYA tunnel.

      Legal terminology, eh?

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    5. Re:This just in by lurker412 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would be truly surprised if Telefonica were to actually block P2P traffic. According to the article, P2P accounts for over 60 percent of their traffic. While I'm sure that they would just love to recoup that bandwidth, I think they are more interested in keeping their customer revenue stream flowing. Seems to me that this legislation will simply provide a legal basis for them to turn customer data over to the local equivalent of the RIAA and MPAA so that they may pursue token enforcement action against individuals. If push came to shove, though, Telefonica would eat the entertainment industry alive and call it a tapa.

    6. Re:This just in by arivanov · · Score: 1

      If it contains 60% of their traffic, they can deliver the same service to twice the number of customers and they can maintain 2 times higher contention ratios before the customers scream. Even if the contention ratio is specified in a regulator approved package they can still decrease their backbone utilisation as well.

      They will still charge the end-luser same amount of money and this will result in a very nice and tidy profit. I am not in the mood to do bistromatics on the cost per port on a DSL concentrator, cost of CPE, line, backbone, etc but the profit definitely will be there.

      And it is not their fault as far as public relations are concerned. It is "the local equivalent of RIAA" fault.

      Overall, they will end up being the only ones who will really benefit from this financially if this is enforced so I will be extremely surprised if they did not support this legislation (possibly not officially to avoid bad PR).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. Re:This just in by lurker412 · · Score: 1

      Your calculations are fine as far as they go but they leave out a critical factor. The popularity of broadband in Spain is due, in large part, to eMule and other P2P sites. Block them, and a huge part of the market will just move to pirated DVDs and video games sold on the street. Not that these guys are doing badly already. I agree that they will support the legislation. They will also make sure that enforcement has no teeth.

    8. Re:This just in by DrXym · · Score: 1
      I think it would be very difficult to enforce a ban on P2P for a number of reasons. First, most P2P networks run off any port. If certain ports (e.g. the BT ones) are monitored, you can bet your boots that the clients will soon use random ones. Secondly, it would be straightforward enough to add a bit of crypto to the mix, i.e. prevent packet sniffers seeing *what* two hosts are passing between them. Thirdly, if necessary P2P software could even mask out IP addresses known to reside inside Spain from other Spanish up/downloaders. So all the ISP would know is that you're moving a lot of encrypted traffic in and out of Spain from another country but it would be exceedinly difficult to prevent it, unless by misfortune you were talking to some kind of honeypot set up by the RIAA or whoever.

      That in my view is the biggest problem with P2P - honeypots. It would be trivial to monitor IP addresses who request a certain file off your machine. Once they've downloaded a few chunks, you start gathering stats. When the person in question tops your list, perhaps on multiple requests you email your counterparts in those countries for prosecution. Therefore it seems to me that the future of P2P relies on a Freenet-lite kind of model, being able to cache encrypted chunks of popular data, random data exchange between nodes, introducing a couple of hops for requests and so on. Not something so anal about anonymity that it runs like a sloth, but something that makes the burden of proof far, far harder for people who are monitoring these networks.

    9. Re:This just in by arivanov · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken with regard to broadband economics in the EU.

      The base package will still sell with all P2P 100% prohibited on it as it is the cheapest way to access web, email and have general connectivity nowdays.

      It is no longer the enthusiast teenager ground and it is becoming a must-to-have utility in the house. Mums doing shopping, grannies sending mails to other grannies and screaming at the city council and the like.

      There may be a junior running eDonkey from his own room, but it is not him who is footing the bill and his parents will not give a flying f*** about his eDonkey getting turned off. In fact his dad may end up being happier about this as his porn download speeds improve.

      It is the add-ons and the high bandwidth packages that are bought by people who are into file sharing, not the base. DSL2, 8meg packages where applicable, etc.

      So once again, if all P2P is turned off Telefonica's profit margin will improve and it will not lose a single customer in the process as long as all ISPs are forced to enforce it to the same extent.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    10. Re:This just in by Threni · · Score: 1

      > The base package will still sell with all P2P 100% prohibited on it as it is the cheapest way to
      > access web, email and have general connectivity nowdays.
      > It is no longer the enthusiast teenager ground and it is becoming a must-to-have utility in the
      > house. Mums doing shopping, grannies sending mails to other grannies and screaming at the city
      > council and the like.

      Yes, but if the deal is anything like the same in Spain as it is in the UK there'll be a bunch of packages available, from 512mbps with a 5GB cap per month for a low cost, up to 8mpbs with no (or perhaps a 30GB) cap for more money. Where's the motivation to get anything other than the basic package if you can't P2P? You need bugger all bandwidth for the above - possibly even dial-up.

    11. Re:This just in by Cephei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not bypassable by Joe Average or as it is in Spain that should actually be Pedro Promedio

      I've found that the average Joe has no trouble using OpenVPN. All you do is double click on a configuration file and the entire network connection is setup, DNS and all. VPN Networks like anoNet (http://anonet.org/) provide unlimited access to the data (porn) and services (P2P) that users want. The user never has to worry about the heavy hand of The Man, as all links are encrypted with rotating keys.

    12. Re:This just in by punkr0x · · Score: 1
      This is possibly one of the worst article summaries I have ever seen. They did NOT make P2P networks illegal!!!!!! They made unauthorized P2P sharing illegal! Okay? That means it's illegal for people to share files that they have no right to be sharing (copyrighted works that they don't own the copyright for!).

      And ISPs are not being required to block P2P networks, they are only being asked not to "facilitate" illegal file sharing (by providing information on who an IP address belongs to when requested).


      Spain should be careful that they do not let the record companies dictate their legislation going forward, as the RIAA is doing in the US. But please, please, please RTFA before declaring a country "a tool" and their laws "very stupid" in all caps!

    13. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not blame the entire country of Spain for the actions a few lawmakers. Here in the US, my home country, there is regularly some bone-headed senator or congressman on Hollywood's payroll who introduces a bill like this and has no idea what its implications may be.

      This is certainly a dangerous precedent. If other governments see that this is "working", they may adopt something similar. So instead of complaining about Spaniards (you should be complaining about Siempre Ganamos Algunos Euros, Spain's MPAA/RIAA equivalent), keep up on legislation in your home country, and write your lawmakers and tell them you don't want to see anything like this happen.

    14. Re:This just in by muyuubyou · · Score: 1

      That race for the bottom would be a problem if there was REAL competition, but there really is not.

      Trust me, I'm from Spain. Thankfully I'm not living there at the moment, but still it's very sad to see the kind of crap being passed as law in my country.

  8. R.I.P. ISP in Spain? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.

    "unauthorized downloading" is possible via HTTP, so they ISPs might as well stop completely. I wonder how long this new law will hold up, I wonder if it's even allowed according to EU guidelines.
    1. Re:R.I.P. ISP in Spain? by houghi · · Score: 1
      "unauthorized downloading" is possible via HTTP, so they ISPs might as well stop completely.


      Imagine that the ISPs stop, then people will start using dialup to otheres (BBS). If that fails, people will use the many bars and restaurans not only to swap conversation, but DVDs as well.

      Buy re-writables, so you don't pay taxes each and every time.

      Remember that politicians are the ones that are resposible for the economy, yet they are unable to grasp one thing. If there is demand, there will be supply.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  9. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

    - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.
    1. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, that's an interesting idea, guess I'll have to read that book.

    2. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by shani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.

      This is a pretty fucking stupid thing to say. But then again, it is an Ayn Rand quote.

      A government has whatever power it is given, by whatever agreement or coercion it used to get it.

      In the US, for instance, the government has the power to print money, to sign treaties with other countries, to go to war, set standards for trade (like standard measures for weight and volume, labelling laws), and so on.

      Where does the Apollo program fit into this "criminal" idea? What about the interstate highway system? The post office? Research grants for improving crop yield? The DARPA work that created the Internet?

      I guess you could twist each of them into the "criminal" idea, but I really think you'd be kidding yourself.

    3. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Jesrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A government has whatever power it is given, by whatever agreement or coercion it used to get it.

      Precisely. A government has the rights that its citizens give it, and nothing more. Do you have the legal or moral right to forcefully take your fellow citizen's money ? No, and neither shall any Government you delegate your rights to. Do you have the legal or moral right to decide what's right and wrong for your fellow, equal-in-rights citizen to do ? No, so neither shall your Government.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    4. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a reason why no government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power through the democratic process, and it's not because "the people" want perpetually expanding government. And it's certainly not because "the people" don't have a natural (god-given if you prefer) human right to individual freedom which preceded government and overrides anything organized coercion (government) could possibly do, both morally and practically.

    5. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a pretty fucking stupid thing to say.

      If by "pretty fucking stupid" you mean "right on the money", I agree.


      A government has whatever power it is given, by whatever agreement or coercion it used to get it

      No. A government has whatever power it can get away with up until its citizens revolt. Consider, as a trivial example, the NSA spying program. Blatantly illegal, yet since we haven't revolted, not only don't we see thousands of executive branch employees (as well as complicit corporate partners) going to the federal pen - We see a push to legalize such activity in one of the most blatant guttings of the 4th amendment in US history.

      Furthermore, you have a missing modifier on "given" - Who has given that right? We all speed (and many would go even faster than they do if not for the legal risk), yet the government seems to believe it has the right to limit how fast we can drive. Over half the US considers current drug laws far too draconian, yet we still have an inmate population made up primarily of nonviolent drug offenders. We all recognize that our election system has more flaws than any so-called "democratic" system can bear, yet rather than fix it, we just switch to less auditable polling mechanisms.

      Spit out the Kool-Ade and open your eyes.


      Where does the Apollo program fit into this "criminal" idea?

      The "circuses" part of "bread and circuses". Keep the plebes entertained, and they'll bear far more before rising up.


      Research grants for improving crop yield?

      The "bread" part of "bread and circuses". A starving population recognizes that it has little to lose by risking death a few weeks sooner than would happen otherwise.


      What about the interstate highway system?

      You do know why Hitler commissioned the Autobahn, right? And why Eisenhower copied it? However convenient the rest of us might find it in times of peace, it exists for the purpose of facilitating military deployments - Between existing military bases, to points of foreign attack, and, if necessary, to the location of any potential insurrection.


      The post office? [...] The DARPA work that created the Internet?

      If you don't see the need for a tyrranical regime to have efficient lines of communication, I don't have the words to explain it to you.


      I guess you could twist each of them into the "criminal" idea, but I really think you'd be kidding yourself.

      Well, at least one of us would kid themselves, but consider the cost of error... Incorrectly distrusting the government has basically no cost. Incorrectly trusting them - Well, Arbeit Macht Frei, right?



      Now, before you dismiss me as a complete loony - I don't think the US has gone too far quite yet. The current Megalomaniac-in-chief has certainly pushed us closer to the edge than anyone since Lincoln (including Nixon - You'll notice that when he got caught with his hand in the cookie-jar, he had the decency to step down. Even Reagan at least still had the humility to lie about his actions). But we can still turn things around if we can wake up enough of the zombies. Sadly, I consider that unlikely, but at least still possible.

    6. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by internic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The GP took issue with the statement by Rand that,"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them." He then listed many powers of government that do not fit that mold, and hence called the statement stupid. You did absolutely nothing to refute his point.

      You seemed to be arguing that all the functions of government are designed to give power over the people. Whether true or false, this is something the GP didn't dispute.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    7. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by punkr0x · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that making it illegal to download mp3s is an unobservable law? I mean I like music, but I get by just fine without downloading it....

    8. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      > Where does the Apollo program fit into this "criminal" idea? What about the interstate highway system?

      It doesn't -- it's unrelated to the original poster's point.

      The Apollo program was not an attempt to exert power over people.

      The interstate highway system was not an attempt to exert power over people.

      Rand's quote is fairly accurate. In that context, her use of the word "power" means the "power to directly control people". And it is true that the only time the government exerts direct power over people is in the arena of criminal law.

      Rand's quote is also appropriate to describe the Spain matter. Spain turned to criminal law in an attempt to control people's behavior. Sometimes this is appropriate (such as trying to get people to stop killing each other), and sometimes this is not appropriate (such as trying to get people to stop trading computer files).

      Rand's observation is simply a special case of the old saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.". Governments have only criminal law to directly control people. Thus, criminal law is the government's "hammer".

    9. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP missed the point; indeed, purposly avoided it. The "power" to (eg) print money is no "power" at all; it is something that is useful to the populace, NOT to the powers that be.

      The point is that powerful people want more power. It is debatable that power corrupts, but it isn't debatable that power attracts the power hungry.

      When everything is illegal, everyonw is a criminal and anyone can go to jail for anything, any time. THAT was the point that your friend so astutely avoided. I'm thinking he's likely an alderman of some small town, or a police chief, hungering for more power himself.

    10. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by $1uck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not sure I buy Rand's quote 100% but its easy to refute some of those points. Government can't declare war with out soldiers, it is a crime not to sign up for selective services. Government can't build roads, fund space programs etc with out forcibly taking taxes, its a crime (you can go to jail) for not paying taxes. The Government is the only "creditor" that can forcibly take your belongings, and your freedom. Is that right or wrong? I'm not saying, but yes government's ability to operate rests largely on its ability to incarcerate people.

    11. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a pretty fucking stupid thing to say. But then again, it is an Ayn Rand quote.

      First of all, asserting your point aggressively doesn't make it more valid. Second, the quote does raise an interesting point, although Rand generalizes too much. Perhaps the point would be more accurate if expressed like, "A government has more power over criminals than the innocent. When the government needs power over a group of people, it turns them into criminals."

      Surely you can agree that when the government contrives another way to fine you or put you in jail, it has gained more power over you. Then there is the danger that might arise if the government selectively enforced some laws that were purposefully vague and often broken. Get enough of these laws, and you have a nation of people who could be punished for things they do everyday. No need to say someone is being punished for speaking their mind when there are other more convenient crimes to charge them with.

      Yes, this is a paranoid point of view, but a reason to pay attention when new laws are being considered or passed.

    12. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are brain-fuck retarded.

    13. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by spune · · Score: 1

      "Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."

      - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourse upon the First Ten Books of Livy, 1517.

    14. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GP took issue with the statement by Rand that,"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them." He then listed many powers of government that do not fit that mold, and hence called the statement stupid. You did absolutely nothing to refute his point.

      It's worth noting that Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical treatise wrapped in a rather awkwardly executed work of fiction. The Ayn Rand "quote" is the words of a character. Unlike PhDs writing academic papers, who must carefully frame their claims and exhaustively make caveats for all assertions, writers of fiction have the luxury of creating characters that are permitted to speak in hyperbole, and make utterly reprehensible statements. Judging the words of an arrogant bastard character as if they were part of a peer reviewed paper is the real stupidity here. Rand was making an expansive, dramatic point, based on a kernal of reality. Pedantically pointing out that there are some things the government does without "creating more criminals" is an utter (and probably willful) failure to recognize the difference between writing fiction and writing a research paper.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    15. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, but you are a loon. Go put on your tin foil hat and watch your pirated copy of Conspiracy Theory in your mom's basement.

    16. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by internic · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to debate what other points could have been made. The point that was made was that the government has many other powers besides prosecuting criminals. Rand's statement is clearly erroneous. I certainly agree that passing laws that are only selectively enforced gives the government power, and, more importantly, the fact that it is selective gives the government arbitrary power. Rand started with a good point, but then she took it off the deep end.

      I might point out that printing money, appropriation of government funds, etc. are very real powers that can be used to control the populus and/or do good for society. This is why so many corruption scandals arrise from the latter, since this power can be used to make money. I would think people who are against overarching government would be most acutely aware of this. And, if you simply define "power" to consist only of criminal punishment, you have not only chosen new meaning for the word distinct from that of English, but you have also simply begged the question.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    17. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by internic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This argument essentially the same as saying that you have no ability other than eating. If you don't eat, you cease to live, and therefore you can not do anything else. Of course, no one would accept this argument; it is false. If Rand had said that the ability to punish criminals is central to, or the foundation of, all government powers, that might be reasonable, but saying that the government has no other power is simply incorrect. For someone like Rand this is just the MO, take a reasonable and true statement and stretch it until you've got something completely unreasonable.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    18. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by $1uck · · Score: 1

      I would say that your ability to do anything besides eating largely rests on your ability to eat. I think that is a simple and true statement. If you don't eat food you will die. I didn't say I agreed with Rand, but I said the ability of the government to do anything relies on its ability to incarcerate and yeah the quote stretches this idea.

    19. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by geekyMD · · Score: 1
      A-
      Do you have the legal or moral right to forcefully take your fellow citizen's money? No.
      B-
      Do you have the legal or moral right to decide what's right and wrong for your fellow, equal-in-rights citizen to do? No.

      But doesn't A imply B? Doesn't A NEED B in order to be true?
      Logically:
      We (the majority) have decided that stealing should be illegal (B), so (A).

      If you want laws, you have to enforce some sort of morality, because that is only what laws are: enforced morality, with explicitly stated pushishments for non-compliance. What exactly are you getting at with your post?

    20. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by internic · · Score: 1

      I'll definitely agree that, "that Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical treatise wrapped in a rather awkwardly executed work of fiction". I don't know why you'd let someone get away with bad philosophy (political theory, whatever you want to call it) just because they'd like to pretend it's a narrative. This is, of course, very common in philosophy, with much of ancient philosophy imparted in the form of fictional dialogs.

      In any case. Someone said the statement in Atlas Shrugged was dumb. It seems you concede that's correct (though you feel it may be excusible for some reason). Someone else replied to the original post, saying that the parent was incorrect and presented a fallacious argument. My purpose was little more than to point out that the counterargument was fallacious. I think the statment from Atlas Shrugged is incorrect, but I also don't think it's that important.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    21. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as an aside, the NSA wiretapping case is probably not unconsitutional, (because according to the supreme court, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in phone records). But it was probably illegal for the phone companies to hand over the documents under privacy laws.

    22. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Spit out the Kool-Ade and open your eyes."

      I'd much rather swallow it and keep my eyes closed actually.

    23. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      You can enforce different moral rules within different populations, that's in fact what different nations already do.

      If A is moral (=illegal, ideally) for you, but moral (=legal, same) for me, what grounds do you have for stopping me from doing A, except if you have more to gain from stopping me from doing A than I have to gain from doing it ?

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    24. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. Almost all of the government's manpower and budget is expended on the things you dismiss as "bread and circuses," sidelines to distract the masses.

      I suggest a mild dose of Occam's Razor might be in order here.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    25. Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? by pla · · Score: 1

      Almost all of the government's manpower and budget is expended on the things you dismiss as "bread and circuses"

      No, the majority of the government's manpower and budget goes to imperialistic conquest, which currently means pissing around in a desert 7000 miles away. Now, while I could see that as part of "circuses", I'd have to say it costs far too much (purely in terms of money, since our leaders have never given two squirts of a rat's ass over body counts, beyond their poor PR value) for the return in entertainment value to write off as a mere distraction to the public.


      I suggest a mild dose of Occam's Razor might be in order here.

      I agree. In this case, however, "a group of well-educated alpha-primates acting in their own self-interest" strikes me as the far more plausible option over "300 million well-informed Modern Enlightened Humans all acted together to select the thousand or so best fellow Modern Enlightened Humans to efficiently run the country with wisdom and compassion and not a hint of self-interest."

      Of course, I consider one other alternative even more likely...

      "We", by which I mean a population of ignorant fools more interested in what NBC has on Thursday nights than in our foreign policy, chose completely incompetant members of our de facto aristocracy based entirely on looks and soundbites, and those "leaders" then treat the task like a union job - Do as little as possible to keep it, and take a nice fat kickback whenever possible.

      And that sentence pretty much sums up my actual world-view. Why do we have a space program? Because grown up little boys like rockets. Why do we have agricultural research? Because if everyone starves to death, our leaders lose their jobs. Why do we have highways? Because it takes 45 minutes to drive from Portland Jetport to Walker's Point, and over half and hour from MacGregor Executive to Crawford.

  10. And if you do use P2P.... by rramdin · · Score: 5, Funny
    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

    I wonder what the cost will be to set up the infrastructure required to enforce and prosecute these laws.

    1. Re:And if you do use P2P.... by linvir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Relax, I'm sure the brave Spanish telcoes will be happy to do their part for liberty and justice, bearing the brunt of the lucrative government contracts to implement some kind of enforcement system. You'd be surprised just how willing a telco can be to take one for the team like that, if you just look at it on their terms for a moment.

    2. Re:And if you do use P2P.... by maidden · · Score: 1

      Actually, nobody expects the Spanish legislative system!

    3. Re:And if you do use P2P.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, they can just copy the filtering software and settings from China. Just change terms 'democracy' to 'warez', and 'tiananmen' to 'mp3' in ACLs and off you go.

    4. Re:And if you do use P2P.... by autophile · · Score: 1
      Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

      I wonder what the cost will be to set up the infrastructure required to enforce and prosecute these laws.

      One (1) Comfy Chair.

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
  11. The problem is by esschul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's really naive of the spanish government, and all other, to believe they can banish everyday people's freedom to share data over the internet. No matter the means. They're really not acting in the best interest of the public.

    1. Re:The problem is by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do they resolve this against individuals that have a right to distribute their own material?
      I would certainly recognize this kind of rule as a violation of my own copyright, by abridging my
      right to disseminate my creative works.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:The problem is by umghhh · · Score: 1

      whether inconsitencies and illogicallities in the law exist I do not know but I trust gov officials to be stupid - they have always been, they are and they will always be as stupid and dumb as they can get, unless, that is, they are malicious - then it is another story. we can thus safely assume that they are clueless and the law is crap. This in itself is not so bad. bad is when we have a law that is impossible to obey. That is however good thing for authorities - they can then pick any individual they dislike in safe conviction that the person they are contrating upon is a criminal - after all anything is illegal then? //

    3. Re:The problem is by Stone+Pony · · Score: 1
      Well, the first sentence of TFA begins: "A Spanish intellectual property law has finally banned unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing in Spain", so I imagine that they're going to resolve it by those individuals not taking themselves to court for violating their own copyrights.

      Still, the time you saved by not reading that was rewarded by your "insightful" mods from a couple of slashbots, so that's a result, eh?

    4. Re:The problem is by Inda · · Score: 1

      Here's where you've slipped up: Joe Public does not make their own content. Only the Music And Film Association Industry make content. An easy mistake to make. You are forgiven.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    5. Re:The problem is by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, but by diminishing the availability of distribution media, governments can abridge the rights of independent producers, when they become too aggressive and when they promote the idea that all free music sharing is wrong.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  12. Spain /=/ France. by Jrabbit05 · · Score: 1

    Rember France's backing of P2P? Now Spain has gone and banned the entire thing wich is just backward if you want to fix the problem fine but you can't just stab the hydra....

    1. Re:Spain /=/ France. by Neko-kun · · Score: 1

      uhm....

      about that...

  13. Equally intelligent by gnarlin · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have an equally intelligent proposal for spain. Ban http and ftp!
    It is a well known goodfact that copyrighted material which is not transfered via p2p is mostly transfered via http and/or ftp, so why not just ban those protocols and be done with it! After all, seperating babies and their bathwaters respectively is just to ardious a task for the simple minds of government officials.

    --
    A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
    1. Re:Equally intelligent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of a joke about Galicia, the Spanish region just north of Portugal. The joke is the "gallego virus", written with 100% Galician technology. It operates based on the honor system. When you get it, you must delete all the files on your computer, and pass the message on to your friends. The virus ends with the line, "Gracias. -Manolo".

      Google has found: El Virus Gallego

  14. Internet - Peer to Peer Network by darkstar949 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So pretty much they just went and outlawed the internet, because, depending upon how you define it, the internet is nothing more than one large peer to peer network.

    So who wants to make bets on how long it will take for this law to get repelled?

    1. Re:Internet - Peer to Peer Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you think that it's repellent already (although no-one seems to be RTFAing and finding out that it's only P2Ping which breaches copyright is illegal).

      Perhaps you mean "repealed"?

  15. Score by headkase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Score one for maintaining the status quo.

    I wish p2p would include some sort of payment system. If I could fire up Gnutella or Azureus and have a big debit button where I could pay with a click standardized as a common framework for anyone to plug into their app then the issue would mostly resolve itself. Basically a Gnu_iTunes. P2P isn't bad, missing payment systems is.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Score by Alsee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A button in P2P to be able to pay wouldn't help. The brain damaged RIAA&friends refuse to accept payment for MP3s.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Score by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 1

      I don't like the idea of having to give away a file that I just paid to download myself. Shouldn't I take some of the profit since I pay for the hosting of the file?

  16. Spain is so backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Remember, this is from a country where torturing an animal to death in a public place is considered a good pass time and even an art form.

    1. Re:Spain is so backwards by ihavenospine · · Score: 3, Informative

      well, bullfighting is common in france too

    2. Re:Spain is so backwards by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

      I never knew that flogging dead horses was up there with bullfighting.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    3. Re:Spain is so backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullfighting and P2P are so related!!

    4. Re:Spain is so backwards by tempfile · · Score: 1

      The bull usually isn't injured in French bullfights. Then again, I consider mass animal farming a bigger crime. At least fighting bulls see the sunlight during their lives.

    5. Re:Spain is so backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same goes for the USA and rodeos. Why do you think rodeo horses and bulls jump like they do? They tie the poor animals balls together crushing the balls, thus making the animal violent. I say that should be banned to.

    6. Re:Spain is so backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems better than killing retarded people legally and having hundreds of people waiting in the death row.

    7. Re:Spain is so backwards by Draco_es · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and gay marriage is legal, and there's no death penalty, and... it's so unrelated.

    8. Re:Spain is so backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the vast majority of those people are murderers and would likely kill you if they could.

    9. Re:Spain is so backwards by SoKrA-BTS · · Score: 1

      It's considered a `good' pastime now. Some time ago (during the dictatorship IIRC), children and priests weren't allowed to see it. That said, there are many people who consider bullfighting a brutal, especially due to what they do to make the bull half-crippled. This is illegal, but there are many who do it.

      You shouldn't judge the complete population of a country by some stupid tradition they happen to have. Not everyone follows traditions, especially of certain kinds.

      --
      Carlos Martín
    10. Re:Spain is so backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww those POOR retarded killers killing your friends or family being put on death row by Backward States of America. To me any human / animal that kills people unprovoked should be subject to the same. It's backward to want to keep killers around unless you can afford it and want a pet or something. That includes killer 4 year olds and killer little old ladies and killer bunnies. Insufficient mental facilities is NOT an excuse unless it can be cured with current technology and wasn't your fault to begin with.

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. I call Dupe and FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only is this a dupe it's pure FUD.

    From TFA "banned unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing in Spain" authorised sharing is still allowed.

    These new laws are really no more restrictive than those from other countries.

    1. Re:I call Dupe and FUD by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > Not only is this a dupe it's pure FUD.
      >
      > From TFA "banned unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing in Spain" authorised sharing is still allowed.

      Also TFA states that the punishment is only "reimburse rights holders for losses", the value of which may be stretched, but it is clearly not *punitive*.

    2. Re:I call Dupe and FUD by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

      Good.

      For a moment I thought, Franco was in charge again, and the whole internet (P2P!) was illegal.

    3. Re:I call Dupe and FUD by master_p · · Score: 1

      And who defines what is authorized/unauthorized? today it may be the music files, tomorrow it may be political ideas.

    4. Re:I call Dupe and FUD by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      For a moment I thought, Franco was in charge again, and the whole internet (P2P!) was illegal.

      I'm not sure why this legislation is specifically targetted at P2P... what's more, isn't unauthorised distribution by any means already illegal? Seems the only thing this law does is makes it illegal for the ISP to carry "unauthorised" traffic for P2P protocols (what constitutes a "peer" is an open question). This just means that people will end up encrypting their traffic, which is a Bad Thing for those of us who want ISPs to do traffic fingerprinting for queuing prioritisation.

    5. Re:I call Dupe and FUD by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

      Good point. I suppose they got lazy and angry, that it takes some work to prosecute file-sharers (but hey, most file-sharers probably live in EU and USA where that's not hard at all, IMHO), so they thought: let's just force the ISPs to help.

      Of course it's hard for the ISP to see what's illegal and what isn't, so all P2P is illegal now (maybe, if the ISP doesn't want to be hold accountable).

      You're also right that encryption will continue to subvert many control measures by Big Brother anyway. Though encrypted P2P like Freenet is said to be very slow.

  19. They got it all! by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These guys got it all! Now they just need to ban internet and computers, even if your use of it is fair, this way there will be no more piracy.

    In other news, arresting 100 persons is still a good thing provided that one of them is guilty.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  20. say what? by svunt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, this is Socialism? If I were a Spaniard who'd voted in the current regime, I'd be feeling pretty betrayed right now.

    1. Re:say what? by AlphaFreak · · Score: 1

      The law passed in the Congress with the votes of:

      - PSOE (Socialist, ruling party).
      - PP (Conservative, main opposition party).
      - CiU (Conservative catalan nationalist).
      - Other minor parties

      The groups that voted NO were:

      - IU (Communist-green).
      - PNV (Conservative basque nationalist).

      So there is nothing to argue about "socialism". Their conservative colleagues are as much keen to bow to the SGAE and media companies.

    2. Re:say what? by svunt · · Score: 1
      So there is nothing to argue about "socialism". Their conservative colleagues are as much keen to bow to the SGAE and media companies.
      Those who voted for conservative parties would surely expect them to enact laws like this. The point is that Socialist parties shouldn't be siding with the right wing on issues like this. I've never heard of a Socialist doctrine that protects corporate interests from people, that's not really their bag, baby.
    3. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a spaniard who voted for the actual goverment, yep, I feel betrayed, although I and many others knew before the voting that, despite the Spanish Workers Socialist Party name, they are not really in the left since mid-80s. There are alternatives more in the far-left, like Left United, but the fear to a repressive conservative goverment by the popular party other 4 years was too large ;(

    4. Re:say what? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Of course this is socialism. In fact you could get the same results with any other form of government autority.

      All you have to do is convince the law-makers and/or the voting public that piracy destroys value overall, and thus that blocking all piracy will increase the total wealth of the country.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    5. Re:say what? by svunt · · Score: 1
      Of course this is socialism. In fact you could get the same results with any other form of government autority. All you have to do is convince the law-makers and/or the voting public that piracy destroys value overall, and thus that blocking all piracy will increase the total wealth of the country.
      That's a very good point. Sometimes I need reminding why anarchism appeals so much =D
    6. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IU voted yes, PNV voted blank, ERC voted blank. All the rest voted yes.

    7. Re:say what? by AlphaFreak · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, sir :)

      BTW, ERC is a left-wing catalan nationalist (pro-independence) party.

      Another thing to take into account is that most of the "progresist" (pseudo)artists who are part of SGAE are pro-PSOE. So the two factions of the anti-P2P/pro-copyright mob are pro-PSOE (SGAE) or pro-PP (industry associations).

  21. Re:What about Windows Update by silvioh · · Score: 1

    If you read TFA, then you will surely notice the little word "unauthorized".
    So anti-virus update, patch-update systems, WoW-Updates and stuff like that is definitely NOT the matter.

    So, what was the problem?

  22. Not a dupe. by IANAAC · · Score: 1
    Taxation and banning are not the same thing.

    Second, what constitutes "unauthorized"?

    1. Re:Not a dupe. by linvir · · Score: 1, Funny
      what constitutes "unauthorized"?
      More FUD. Unauthorized means breaches the copyright of the big media. You know it and I know it. Are you really suggesting that an overbroad law can be abused? Please! People who work in democratic governments are morally infallible, by mere definition! I, for one, welcome my new democratically elected overlords! May they never send me to jail!
    2. Re:Not a dupe. by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      how will the ISP know if a particular p2p connection is authorised or not... for all they know, I could be downloading a torrent of Extremadura Linux, and the ISP will have to do some pretty clever traffic analysis to determine whether any particular packet is or isn't authorised...

      News next in,

      expect only "authorised" p2p clients to be legal... and then only "authorised" trackers and torrent hosts...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  23. Nobody expects the spanish...! by jigjigga · · Score: 0

    Time to move to... oh wait. what is the world coming to? Revolution anybody?

  24. Great Technical Background by DimGeo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    .. these people have, see can I.

    So, basically, this outlaws just about any network connection, almost all kinds of LAN, any kind of radio transmission, and phone calls. Way to go, Spain! Back to the stone age!

    1. Re:Great Technical Background by Petersson · · Score: 1
      So, basically, this outlaws just about any network connection, almost all kinds of LAN, any kind of radio transmission, and phone calls. Way to go, Spain! Back to the stone age!

      Hasta la vista, internet!

      --
      I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
  25. Excellent news for the Pirates party by gummyb34r · · Score: 1

    As the proprietary media content holders are entering the legal p2p
    scene now the spanish government strikes back. Is it too hot in Europe
    now?

  26. byebye spanish ISP's.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Spain has made it a....criminal offense for ISP's to allow users to file-share

    Considering the fact that every app using every protocol on every port can be used for unauthorized p2p sharing, these ISP's are now in a lose lose situation. They either stop their lines up completely or go to jail.

    I would close my doors and move my company out of the country if I were a spanish ISP. Too bad nobody else will want to buy up the infrastructure..

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  27. it's not FUD.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They have done something far worse than simply ban unauthorized p2p sharing.. they have made it a criminal offense for ISP's to merely allow it.

    since every protocol on the internet can be used for unauthorized p2p sharing ISP owners must now either cease all service or go to prison.

    This is a subtle but radical difference from what other nations have done, and it spells doom for all spanish ISP's

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:it's not FUD.. by csrster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's possibly a good thing. Pissing off a few file-sharers won't make any difference, but if they piss off the big ISP's then they may have a fight on their hands.

  28. Re:What about Windows Update by pxuongl · · Score: 0

    AV updates and the like are copyrighted. you've just been given a license to use it when you download. read the EULA on those things.

  29. This isn't true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as 5 minutes of google and a peek at the text of the reform go, this isn't true at all. If anything, the law reassures the right for making copies of copyrighted material for personal use and without monetary profitting, putting a tax on media to compensate the copyright holders. There are also a few DMCA-like provisions which is pretty bad in itself.
    Many organizations in Spain are up in arms against the law, the main argument being "why should I pay that tax on media I use for my own backups/files/work?".

    Given the uproar about that in many sites and the prevalence of P2P downloading everywhere in Spain, I'm sure I would have heard about this if it were true at all.
    The article is an exageration.

  30. SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by Espressoman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Slashdot just took a severe dive with this lie. The headline is a lie. The brief is a lie. Read the article and discover the truth for yourself. If this site continues to head down this complely disreputable path, I'll go somewhere else. It's not like there aren't good and honest alternatives out there.

    For crying out loud editors, put aside your greed (for that's the most likely motivation for this) and get some integrity.

    The owners of this site might do well to consider just firing the editorial staff for FUD-mongering in the worst form.

    And before you mod this out of existence, consider that I've probably been a Slashdot member for a hell of a lot longer than you, and I may just know what I'm talking about when I express my disgust at this slide into mediocrity and irrelavance.

    1. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by YomikoReadman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've already moderated here, but as I feel this really deserves a reply, sayonara mod points.

      While I can certainly understand where you come from in saying that slashdot editing has gotten worse, I don't feel that this story is necesarrily one of those. It's a bit overstated, yes, but I don't think that detracts from the fact that the article simply states 'unauthorized downloading, even for personal use'. To me, that implies heavily that the article states a bit more clearly that the ban on p2p transfers reaches much further than a simple ban on transfers that infringe on copyright, and reaches into the domain of banning any and all.

      Ultimately, I think that without being able to read the text of the law, noone can really say based simply on the article. All you can really do is take it at face value, which to many is in agreement with the /. article text. Personally, I wouldn't put it past the MPAA or the RIAA to do whatever they can to ban p2p transfers across the board, simply for the fact that a portion of it is used for infringment.

      Finally, on a more offtopic note, get off your horse man. Having a 4 digit UID doesn't mean shit; I'm sure there's plenty of people with 6 digit UIDs who read and enjoyed slashdot for ages before finally registering. I know for a fact that there are people who had accounts and forgot passwords to email accounts used for registration, then forgot the account info for slashdot as well. Who knows, maybe it happened in a different order? Long story short, they made another account. I'm sure there were other considerations too, I'm not going into depth.

      All in all, just my 2 cents. Cheers.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    2. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by Chmarr · · Score: 1

      Here here.

      Well, perhaps with a little moderation, but I for one am getting fairly tired of the hyped-up, FUDish titles and briefs. I would have thought Slashdot was above it... at least a LITTLE bit above it... maybe just its nose above water.

    3. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by linvir · · Score: 1, Funny

      The editors are the same totally perfect gods among men that they've always been. The problem is with the submitters. Since our wise masters have such little time to spend on such mortal concerns as 'checking the factual accuracy of submissions', some of the more malicious elements of the internet are trying to abuse their trust, and poison our minds with these lies.

      Nananananananana editors! Nanananananananana editors! Editors! Editors! Batman!

    4. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by 91degrees · · Score: 0

      The article is misleading as well. Even if they have fact checked everything, they're still summarizing a complete legal document in a couple of hundred words.

    5. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And no matter how long you've been a member, it's nice to see you offering as little information as you complain about!

      What's wrong? Where? How is it wrong and what's the correct version? Without offering such an analysis, you're just spewing hot air (hot bits?) yourself.

      Now, as to that...

      Saying that no content is downloadable is contrary to the article, which states that only the downloading of unauthorized content is banned. I agree that that is sensationalistic, factually incorrect, and should have been caught.

      On the other hand, the article does seem to indicate that ISP's may be criminally liable for the actions of their users:

      But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.

      Now, that still leaves open to interpretation what "facilitation" may be-but in this case, the summary does seem to match the article.

      Also, it is stated in the article that despite this new regulation, blank media will -also- be taxed! It seems to me this is a bit of "having it both ways" on the part of the content providers-outlawing personal copying AND getting tax revenue. Again, it seems that the summary is essentially correct on this point.

      While the summary is incorrect on one part, and it should have been caught (and should still be corrected), this is still a subject of interest to many of us who visit this site.

      However, regardless, if you're going to make assertions as strong as you just did, it's generally helpful to back them up. If you can't manage that, don't let the door hit you, there's enough of those here.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    6. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 0

      From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Criticism "Articles, titles, and summaries which appear to be designed to incite inflammatory remarks (see Flamebait)." This is a common criticism of Slashdot. If slashdot wants a better reputation, they should look at the criticism list, and work to improve the process. BLATANT CUT AND PASTE OF WIKIPEDIA ENTRY "Common complaints include: * The frequency of reposts (also known as "dupes"), where editors approve articles for the front page, often slightly reworded, that have previously appeared on the site. Since the major responsibility of editors is to sift through article submissions, reposts leave the impression of incompetence. Some readers have called for mandatory procedures to search for Slashdot dupes before an article is published[8]. * Article summaries with typos, misleading titles, or errors. * The collective bias of contributors, editors, and users (moderators and comment authors). Common biases include excessive criticism or praise of certain companies (such as Microsoft and Google, respectively), favoritism towards open source software, stereotyping (e.g. PHB), and leanings toward certain political positions (e.g. less regulation of the Internet). These biases prevent Slashdot from claiming neutrality, discourage balanced discussions, and can turn away potential readers and contributors. * The presence of articles that many consider to be thinly veiled advertisements. These articles usually receive a large number of trolling comments, including insults towards the editors, and are often referred to pejoratively as "Slashvertisements." * The posting of articles which report trivial research, long established facts, popular gossip, or blatant pseudoscience. Experts on the topic often criticize such stories with lengthy, insightful tirades. * Articles, titles, and summaries which appear to be designed to incite inflammatory remarks (see Flamebait). * A non-transparent submission process, where submissions may be posted by any editor, at any time, with any number of substantial changes to the summary text. In some cases, some submitters have claimed that their work has been published under the name of another contributor. "

    7. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by Espressoman · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I don't think I needed to say anything other than to encourage people to read the actual story and discover for themselves. Do you really think the difference between what Slashdot said and what the article actually says is really so subtle that people would benefit from my 'analysis'? I had something to say (Slashdot editors have slumped to a new low) and I said it. Like most posts on this site, mine was my own opinion. I would expect intelligent people to read the article and either agree or disagree with my criticism.

    8. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Slashdot editors haven't changed at all in the past eight years... haven't you caught on by now? There have always been dupes, inaccurate summaries, ad-whoring story links. The only thing that seems to have gone are the pump-and-dump storylines for stock manipulation. (aaah, Corel and the .) Sensationalistic... well, sure, maybe.

      BUT, the sensationalism is what makes it worthwhile to actually read comments. Browsing at 4+ might still make the actual article 20% the size of the slashdot commentary, but you just might get something interesting out of the comments.

      As for the story, while the (arguably) sensationalism component regarding completely banning P2P might be there, the real news in my book was that they actually pulled off a tax on blank media at the same time! (Sure, that info was a dupe, but it has interesting meaning when you look at it now.)

      Compare reading slashdot to reading an article on news.google: Do you ever find the actual article completely missing out on key elements that you want to understand? Do you ever find yourself clicking on multiple stories that are grouped together in order to try and find out the real story? Slashdot gives people (with time) a chance to get more information and be involved in a discussion about a topic that few other forums actually are able to rival.

      I'm all for competition, and do try and read other sites for different kinds of information, but for many of the things that interest me, slashdot can't be beat.

    9. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if this site continues to head down this complely disreputable path, I'll go somewhere else. It's not like there aren't good and honest alternatives out there.

      First of all, you obviously had too much expresso, man. Calm yourself the fuck down while you get modded the fuck down. Realize the article is about the criminal onus set on ISPs. And then realize, even if it were "sensationalist crap and lies," you aren't going to give up a 4-digit /. ID over it.

    10. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "It's not like there aren't good and honest alternatives out there."

      Please name some, I'd like to know.

      --
      urd
    11. Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES by darilon · · Score: 1

      I would say the brief, while obviously written in attention whore-ese has a valid point. From TFA:

      But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.

      This is the relevent portion of the article. It puts a rather difficult task on the plate of the ISP. Block all p2p - somehow - or go to jail. While it's a civil offense for file sharers, it becomes a criminal offense for ISP's. I don't do p2p myself, but even I consider this law to be way over the top. We already have copyright law - that is more than enough. GJ on the 4 digit e-penis waving btw. I'm sure it makes you much smarter than the rest of us and gets you plenty of women.

  31. If P2P is banned, why a Blank Media Tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the point of the proposed blank media taxes if P2P will still be illegal? Sounds like it will just be a double dipping program for the **AA rather than a real compulsory licensing program...

  32. Yuo 1337 sLasHdOt reading 5k1llz by theolein · · Score: 0, Troll

    TFA mentions right there in the first sentence, "unauthorzied" p2p has been made illegal.

    The OMGWTF dumb-as-a-brick type of sensationalism of slashdot entries, with editors that neither read the articles, nor semm to understand even the tiniest amount of their own subject matter is why I visit slashdot less and less, why Digg now has more page views, and why I only read comments at +4 up if I do bother to read the brainless crap that most of the comments are (including my own because if slashdot couldn't give a fuck about me and thinks it's ok to insult my intelligence, then I can't be bothered to act differently)

    Slashdot is becoming the geek version of trailer trash.

    1. Re:Yuo 1337 sLasHdOt reading 5k1llz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that you didn't read the rest of the article, for example:

      But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.

      In practical terms it is impossible for an ISP to determine whether the downloading is authorised or not, so their only option is to block ports used by peer-to-peer programs. Hopefully the commercial peer-to-peer systems will use different ports and so may get through, but it could certainly stop non-commercial bit-torrent, e-mule and the like. At least, until they start using SSH tunnelling.

    2. Re:Yuo 1337 sLasHdOt reading 5k1llz by phulshof · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... and the article also mentions that it will be a criminal offense for ISPs not to block P2P. Now tell me how you're going to P2P your authorized material? Sometimes I wish people would read the entire article in stead of just the first sentence...

  33. so how do they enforce that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Block all the port ?

  34. That's it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I quit. Me, my family and friends will never again dine at Taco Bell.

  35. Does this make any sense at all? by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    OK, first we learn that they have a "tax" on all blank media (even flash memory!!). And that Spain will somehow figure out who the copyright holders are and give them this "tax" money. OK, lets ignore the obvious, that much of that blank media is going to be used for system backup and perfectly legitimate and legal uses, from making live Linux CDs to making and saving home videos and all the rest. After all, it must make all the sense in the world to tax these people as long as the money goes to "copyright owners" like Disney.

    So now they are paying the copyright owners, presumably to cover all of those copies that the Spanish people make. So if the copyright holder has been compensated, why in the workd outlaw P2P? Rather than outlawing P2P becasue some uses of it may infringe on copyright, even though it has many valid good uses, why not realize that the copyright holders have been compensated anyway? Sure, I expect that some politicians lined their own pockets in order to pass these laws, but still how can the justify taxing all media, that used for copying and that used for uses that in no way infringe on copyrigh, even flash drives, and then over agressively start outlawing things that might (but certainly don't always) let users copy copyrighted materials when they have already paid the tax?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Does this make any sense at all? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
      By the way, my guess as to how Spain will figure out who the poor copyright holders are to give the tax to is that the RIAA will "help" them. And somehow no independent artists will get any of the tax money (and very few real artists either, with it instead going to the record labels).

      The alternative, of course is not much better; if the independent artists do get a share of the money every socialist system scammer in Spain will suddenly become an "artist" and start copyrighting everything they can, so the can get their share of the tax.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  36. Re:What about Windows Update by lahs0n · · Score: 1

    The hell it is.
     
    Peer-to-peer is more or less a workgroup, any old gathering of systems acting independent of one another; peers communicate directly, without intervention. My roommate and I are peer-to-peer (though hopefully this wouldn't be illegal out east.)
    Client/server is the function of a domain (intra/Internet) in that you, the client, are requesting access to someone else's server.
     
    I'm dumbfounded at the paranoia that drives people to question all too much.
    Here's a pat on the shoulder and the lukewarm promise that angry Spaniards won't raid your pad (in Spain!) for downloading your Windows updates. Then again..
     
    (but this was mainly just to tell you you're wrong)

  37. Most of the summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary is wrong. The laws only affect "unauthorized" file sharing. You can still get on Limewire or any other P2P netword and download a freely distributed music file.

  38. Downloading _Lorca_ by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Wasn't Spain literally fascist until recently? Sounds like some of the old government never retired.

    The Disappearance of Garcia Lorca was a good movie, but a terrible way to run a country.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Downloading _Lorca_ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define recently...

    2. Re:Downloading _Lorca_ by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      1978, though your question is a typical Anonymous Coward loaded cheap shot at begging the question. If you don't even know when Spain formally rejected fascism, or can't google to learn, you have nothing to add to this discussion.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Downloading _Lorca_ by sloface · · Score: 1

      Great comment! Now that you so gracefully informed me of the facts I was not able to find in my head (I've lived, studied and worked in Spain by the way) would you really define 28 years ago as being recently?

    4. Re:Downloading _Lorca_ by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      More recently than the death of explicit fascist governments elsewhere in 1945, almost twice as long ago.

      In Spain, with its 500 years of modern history, and over 2500 years of literal history, 28 years is very recent.

      Considering Spains new corporate government moves that we're now discussing, it's not even the blink of an eye.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Downloading _Lorca_ by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Moderation -1
          100% Redundant

      No one mentioned Lorca, or Spain's fascist history, before I posted. Fascist TrollMods hate poetry.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  39. Re:A blind squirrel finds an acorn, news@11 ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ayn Rand says something right for once. Given how much she'd written, it was bound to happen eventually!

    Wish I could say the same for you, Chomsky. Somehow I doubt you'd know anything about Ayn Rand if not for Wikipedia.

    But keep those typing monkeys in your brain tap, tap, tapping away... They have an infinite amount of time to try and come up with something worthwhile.

  40. How about fixing the summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just got like half a dozen comments pointing out, that the summary is just plain wrong. How about some editor just fixes the summary.

  41. But Canada has the same... by geerbox · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With quite a number of dissentors here about the validity of the article, I thought to mention that Canada has a similar levee applied to blank media, and that from what I've heard it's one of the biggest reasons as to why it's difficult to make illegal copying in Canada.

    That said, introducing a tax to cover possibly illegal acts and then making the action criminal altogether doesn't make much sense. Basically another good point to disprove the article's claims.

  42. Lex Karpela by livingdeadline · · Score: 1

    And here up north we thought Lex Karpela was the ultimate evil...

  43. Keyword is CIVIL OFFENCE!! by giorgosts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Simply means that you can use the technology for whatever use you like, but if you are caught downloading unauthorized copyrighted material, by any means (client-server or p2p) you dont go to jail, but you pay money for the damage you have done to the people authorized to sell that material. Seems fair to me..

    1. Re:Keyword is CIVIL OFFENCE!! by giorgosts · · Score: 2, Informative

      Moreover if it is only civil offence the ISPs are not oblidged to release your personal details from your IP address unless they get a court order. Thats why they make the ISPs also responsible. My guess is that the ..AA guys will spy upon the fileshareres, and the ISP will get a letter saying this guy 80.255.255.255 has been downloading and distributing so so music and films, then the ISP cutting off the Internet (temporarily or permenantly) to the guy for violating terms of service..

    2. Re:Keyword is CIVIL OFFENCE!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a bad law. By making the ISP responsible, it does mean the ISP will just cut off access at the slightest allegation of wrongdoing. And here I thought this was strictly a civil offense in which the aggrieved party would have to prove their case in a court of law. Instead they can just send a letter to the ISP alleging wrongdoing and the ISP, not wanting any further potential liability in the matter, will of course shut down the subscriber. Bad law.

      you pay money for the damage you have done

      How does copying a file from a P2P network "do damage"?

  44. LOL Spain`s gone ban p2p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well.. actually not so suppraised for that law, there were some arrests of ppl in EU, that were hosting large BitTorrent sites.. here in bulgaria we have such kind of law for very long time now, but nobody cares about it, cause the main p2p user is the goverment, not kidding, they found that the administration makes 60% of the overall internet traffic in bulgaria, talking about pirate movies and stuff.. mostly porn. So even there is a law nobody cares about it.

  45. Re:What about Windows Update by chgros · · Score: 1

    Client-Server is also Peer-to-Peer, just differently labelled.
    No, that's wrong. p2p is the opposite of client-server. If one is the server, and the other the client, then they're definitely not "peers".

  46. Double-speak by macphile84 · · Score: 0
    From TFA:

    Now Spaniards caught grabbing content ... will have to reimburse rights holders for losses --- although such losses will be difficult for authorities to track.

    The money collected will be paid back to the owner of the copyright.
    So, I'm curious as to how exactly that will "work." Do they mean the RIAS or whatever they're called will just get to keep the royalties, and toss a Peseta or two out occasionally to a random artist?
  47. Bye bye internet Spain by Eternal+Annoyance · · Score: 1
    This effectively makes it illegal to have anything to do with the internet (in its basics it's a P2P network, so it's forbidden to even be an internet provider or have a internet connection).

    Congratulations Spain, you have now effectively put your economy back in the stone age. I think you should be happy about it, since you've made media companies happy - not that they'll be selling much in a few years time, since nobody can afford it anymore. But hey, at least they can say that you did something about copyright infringement.

  48. sounds like 2002 all over again by bobby1234 · · Score: 1

    when the greeks banned video games http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/mobile/0,39020360 ,2121692,00.htm too much sun, me thinks

  49. Only in Spain... by posterlogo · · Score: 1

    ...where NO means NO.

  50. When people without a clue make a law... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Turing, send some brains from above, we need it direly!

    They outlawed "unautorized P2P". And made ISPs accountable for it. Ok. Now may I ask something?

    HOW???

    It's like making a gunsmith accountable for it when a crime is commited with a gun. Like making a bank accountable for it when the money they transfered is used in terrorism. Like making a car manufacturer accountable for it when a car they make is used as a getaway car.

    How is this supposed to work? ISPs are going to be responsible for something that's not under their control. Like in the three examples above, there will be cases when it's clear, and when they could actually enforce it. But what about the other 99%?

    There are very valid and legal reasons to use P2P. Does it mean now that ISPs are required to outlaw running servers? Because technically this is the ONLY way to enforce this. That, in turn, would also mean that services like ICQ or Skype become illegal, because they use the very same way of communicating, i.e. one end has to be the Server.

    It's a harebrained idea, and certainly not thought out completely. Well, how should they? So far, I've never seen anyone create a law concerning IT and even know what he's doing, let alone think through the whole consequences that entail it. More often than not, you get the idea that lawgivers don't have the slightest idea when it comes to IT, and still they want to govern it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:When people without a clue make a law... by Forgotten00 · · Score: 1

      Well since it is now the law, ISPs are liable for any illegal activities their clients (users; customers;) commit. So ISPs comply with the law by providing any information to the authorities when such actions, in this case P2P transactions, are detected.

      Good example would be a hacker under an ISP, the victim traces the hacker's IP back to the router of the ISP, finds the ISP's abuse email and writes an email. The ISP is liable for this hacker's actions and can be sued, therefore they alert the authorities or simply suspend/remove the hacker's service.

      Shame isn't it?

      --
      www.c3studios.ca
    2. Re:When people without a clue make a law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's like making a gunsmith accountable for it when a crime is commited with a gun.

      Yes. If the firearms was not factory-equipped with a child-proof safety mechanism for example and 4-year old little Jimmy blew his cousin's brain off while playing.

      > Like making a bank accountable for it when the money they transfered is used in terrorism.

      Many countries will try bank managers criminally if their banks do not apply the internationally mandated checks against money laundry (which supports drugs, mafia, dictators and terrorism, among many other dirty deeds). They must double-check to be sure they can avoid jail.

      I have no problems with outlawing unauthorized P2P file sharing. You certainly should not do anything without the express permission of the lawful owner, because that infringes on private property. Get your P2P authorized by the copyright owner and let's roll. Of course then you won't be able to get 100GB of MP3 for free and watch giant cock horses penetrating blonde virgins in HDTV resolution without paying a dime. Those media were not created for free, so you should pay to watch them.

    3. Re:When people without a clue make a law... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      First of all, if a child comes to harm from firearms, I wouldn't point at the gun dealer as the first culprit, I would point at the moron who gave the gun to the child without explaining the dangers. A gun is a potentially dangerous item and if you're not responsible enough to keep it out of the hands of kids then you should probably not own one.

      I was also not refering to accidents but to actual premeditated crimes. A comes to B and buys a gun, later he uses it in a hostage drama in a school. Should B be charged because he sold the gun? How was he supposed to know what A has in mind?

      Yes, banks are required to be careful when money comes from or goes to dubious places. But when A transfers money to B, neither of them having a criminal record or sitting in a "dubious" country, and still B turns out to be the front man of a terrorist, should the bank be liable for that?

      The point isn't that you have to get P2P "authorized" to enjoy it. ISPs will simply turn it off altogether. It is after all a great burden on their traffic, and now they have an excuse: They can't discriminate between "good", legal, and "bad", illegal, P2P traffic.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  51. BitTorrent no P2P by Forgotten00 · · Score: 1

    There is confused discussions going about that the BitTorrent system is different from P2P. Peer 2 Peer is a direct connection to each other, I believe only 1 on 1 wherein BitTorrent is a system where peers are connected via a tracker (somewhat of a server that organizes everything) and there can be many peers sending partial data at once. Depending on what Spain believes, this still may be a valid source for obtaining media and such.

    --
    www.c3studios.ca
    1. Re:BitTorrent no P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captcha: nonsense

      You don't seem to understand what peer-to-peer means...
      > there can be many peers sending partial data at once
      Oh, I was wrong. That looks like the EXACT definition of modern p2p transfer.

      > tracker (somewhat of a server that organizes everything)
      The tracker only manages the IPs of peers that share a certain torrent. The actual down- and upload (to whom, when, what) is organized entirely by the clients.

      Again: BT is clearly P2P, since the transfer is peer-to-peer. Even discovery doesn't need to rely on trackers any more (with DHT), especially Azureus' version allows using torrents without ever invoking other protocols to download a .torrent to begin with.

  52. Re:What about Windows Update by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I believe the law only applies to copyrighted materials that you aren't entitled to copy;

    Ummm, wasn't copyright infringment already a civil offence in Spain? So you're saying that they passed a law to make the civil offence of copyright infringment into a civil offence?

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  53. not enough?? by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

    Yes, the headline is a sham (it's unauthorized dling only), but still those record/movie industry people are really really picky:

    "Compared to some European countries, Spain has some way to go in enforcement, but the new intellectual property law is a definite step forward, placing obligations for instance on ISPs to provide information. Hopefully, it will help us to get some injunctions."

    This pretty much hands them all they need to protect their copyright and they act like they are still hurting??

    --
    Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
  54. Jon Katz by Burz · · Score: 1

    ...is that you??

  55. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm setting up systems for massive sneakernets at the university I attend. IT has never been a fan of file sharing on their network, and last year shut down a 5-user DC hub. Its just too much trouble to keep it on the network.

  56. Oh dear oh dear oh dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a boomerang effect http://tinyurl.com/h56ve

  57. So they made the internet illegal, big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet *IS* a peer-to-peer network. Most of the time you view a webpage you are downloading a file.

    And if that's determined not to be not illegal - I'm sure someone can create a web site that dynamically constructs the downloadable content rather than "sharing files" to sidestep any law like this.

    (Duh)

  58. Freedom by gareth.fletcher · · Score: 1

    When P2P is outlawed, only outlaws will have P2P. -G

  59. What's the difference between a peer and a server? by sourcery · · Score: 1
    Spanish Congress has made it a civil offense to download anything via p2p networks

    Which effectively outlaws the internet itself, since all IP protocol transations are "peer to peer."

    --
    Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?
  60. Re:What about Windows Update by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    Yes - hence his qualification of "that you're not entitled to copy". As you say, the EULA gives you that entitlement.

  61. Re:What about Windows Update by jkrise · · Score: 1

    Peer-to-peer is more or less a workgroup

    And Workgroup is a Microsoft term for describing a group of upto 10 people who can share files and printing without buying their server product. Hardly usable in legal terminology.

    peers communicate directly, without intervention.
    What intervention is required when a client talks to a server? Authentication? That can also be implemented in a so-called peer-to-peer network.

    Client/server is the function of a domain (intra/Internet) in that you, the client, are requesting access to someone else's server.

    Again... domain is a Microsoft concoction, just like workgroup, workstation etc. No relation to the structure of the internet, which is technically, and in reality, a Web. There are horizontal (peer-to-peer) as well as vertical (what you call client-server) strands in a web. Unless Spain wants to outlaw the internet, P2P cannot be outlawed.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  62. Dear Spanish Government: by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Welcome to following behind the curve of THE REST OF THE WORLD!

    I for one welcome our new Spanish UnderLords. Now make sure your kids only get blue collar work. It's a perfect system we're working on here in America under the DCMA. You should also really dumb down education while you're at it. That's a sure-fire way to stay ahead of the pack.

    Yee-Haaawww! Spanish and Cowboys to the back of the line!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Dear Spanish Government: by crhylove · · Score: 1

      By DCMA I meant the "Decidin' to Ceep 'Merica Aheyud!".

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  63. Tergiversed/wrong news by faragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live at Barcelona (Spain, Europe), and I can tell you that who wrote the article has misinterpreted the whole thing. I'll try to clarify it a bit:

    1) A "canon" will be fined over blank media (optical and flash), but hard disks and volatile RAMs are excluded.

    2) Still exist the "private copy right", when there is no meaning of making further money selling/dealing with downloaded data (in spanish "sin ánimo de lucro").

    As corollarius, can be said that the "canon" has been aproved due to the fact of admiting two points:

    a) The citizen is right to get and give (aka share) data from a P2P network, or share a phisical book or disc without having to pay to the author.

    b) The "canon" is intended to compensate in some way the point (a).

    Well, after my try of claryfing that the P2P it is *not* illegal in Spain (neither for downloading a movie nor for a disc, while not intended for making money of it), I'm against that canon, as it is indiscriminate, thus not fair.

    There are many organizations here fighting for civil rights to revert the "canon" law/instruction.

    1. Re:Tergiversed/wrong news by jopet · · Score: 1

      Do you know any links to original articles (in Spanish) or the original text of the law?

      What interests me is the exact regulation concerning P2P use by end users and that thing about the criminal offense of the ISP. "it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading." is just too dumb to be true.

  64. Ayn Rand is a flaming nutcase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    er, correction: was.

    And I've read her books. It sure beats sleeping pills! :)

    1. Re:Ayn Rand is a flaming nutcase by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      So are ^almost all geniuses.

    2. Re:Ayn Rand is a flaming nutcase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all geniuses might be nut-cases, but that does not make most nut-cases into geniuses.

      "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

    3. Re:Ayn Rand is a flaming nutcase by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      In wider perspective, nutcase or not, genius or not, in this narrow perspective, this single quote comes from a genius.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  65. Excellent for Prison Server players. by Dogun · · Score: 0

    Now they can all go to jail for downloading the game through it's normal distribution method.

  66. ISP quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This really puts the ISPs in a quandry. Facilitating illegal p2p sharing is now a criminal offence. They couuld presumably go to jail. But how are ISPs to know which p2p connections are carrying illegal content? Even the same file may be illegal in some circumstances, but fully legal and authorised in others. Their only option to avoid possible jail terms is to block p2p alltogether. But since p2p can run on any port number, and can tunnel through http, can be made to look like voice etc, their only practical option is to shut down the Spanish internet and find a different business. This has as much logic as making it illegal for a telephone company to facilitate the transmission of swear words, or for the mail service (traditional paper, envelopes and dog bites type) to facilitate delivery of fraudulent invoices. I suspect that a number of Spanish officials have acquired access to nice new numbered bank accounts recently, because I can't imagine them passing a law this stupid otherwise.

    If I ran an ISP, perhaps I might start by blocking anything that looks like p2p to/from government sites - including email, VoIP, HTTP, VPNs and send the government a letter saying that you will allow specific connections at specific times if they can provide written assurances that those connections are not going to be used to carry illegal traffic, along with details of the IP addresses and port numbers to be opened up.

  67. Inbound bandwidth proportional to outbound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANA bittorrent expert, but doesn't it scale your inbound bandwidth based on how much outbound bandwidth you offer up? Whether this can result in you ending up with no bandwidth if you don't share or if it's just heavily restricted im not sure, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be a great experience heh

    1. Re:Inbound bandwidth proportional to outbound? by /ASCII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are two types of sources in bittorrent:

      * Peers are people who are both downloading and uploading.
      * Seeders are people who have already downloaded the entire file and are uploading it out of the kindness of their hearts.

      Peers will continually kill the connections with the worst download/upload ratio, meaning you will get virtually nothing from peers if you don't upload.

      Seeders upload to anybody, though they _may_ be clever by avoiding uploading the same parts of the file more than once during a limited amount of time in order to maximize the amount of data that can be distributed between peers.

      So in other words, if trhere are a lot of seeders you will get ok download speeds without uploading.

      --
      Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
    2. Re:Inbound bandwidth proportional to outbound? by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Also seeds prefer peers who have a history of downloading faster....

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  68. They can also expand the term "ISP" by giorgosts · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Internet service provider" can also be extended to cover torrent sites and trackers because they provide an internet service. Then they can be liable for damages. Enjoy http://www.descargasweb.net/ while you still can!! Be carefull though to give a fake ID because the logs can be use against you..

  69. My Rating for TA: by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 0

    It appears that 80% of the people fell for they hypish summary and didn't bother to read the article. I rate it a 4 because 20% of the people actually read the first line of the article. LOL>

  70. Re:What about Windows Update by rekked · · Score: 1

    Unless Spain wants to outlaw the internet, P2P cannot be outlawed.

    A spanish guy here says: "Please, stop giving them ideas". The current goverment is on the SGAE's (spanish RIAA) payroll, so they will consider it at some point.

    *SIGH*

    I so wish to get find a job out of the country...

  71. Flash drives? by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But flash drives are rewritable! Surely a tax on "blank" ones can be circumvented by filling them with pointless free content before sale?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Flash drives? by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 0

      You could market them as software packages. Heck, you could even sell them preloaded with linux, which the average user would promptly erase.

  72. money terms.. by giorgosts · · Score: 2, Informative

    Right, if you are, lets say, in Spain and you download Maddonna, Sony Spain Inc. can ask you for 20 euros for the album. If you upload to 10 people you own 10X20 plus your own=220 euros, etc.

    1. Re:money terms.. by quintesse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stuff that _I_ upload? But _I_ am not doing anything, it's _them_ downloading stuff they know they shouldn't download.

      Companies would really like this because it would mean they get twice the amount in damages as they would get if you buy it in a store.

    2. Re:money terms.. by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People that _I_ shoot? But _I_ didn't do anything, it's the _bullet_ that hurts them.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    3. Re:money terms.. by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pulling the trigger is actively deciding to kill someone.

      Making copyrighted content available on P2P is simply letting people know what you have. If no one else wants anything, nothing is ever going to be downloaded. It's the other person's decision....not yours.
      The bullet doesn't make a decision...at least...not yet....so your analogy is piss poor, to say the least.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    4. Re:money terms.. by Whafro · · Score: 1

      Just because the sentence structure is similar doesn't mean it's an apt analogy. You shoot the gun-- you take an active role in this chain of events. We know that filesharers often don't realize that they're sharing their music, as popular P2P programs often say "Do you want to search for music? Yes/No?" and many people just click yes out of habit, if they even need to do anything at all.

      The analogy should perhaps be more like when someone runs a red light-- someone might hit them, but it's not the hitting person's fault. It was their fault for running the light.

    5. Re:money terms.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So then either downloaders aren't liable, or your analogy is a load of crap.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:money terms.. by cagle_.25 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Stuff that _I_ upload? But _I_ am not doing anything, it's _them_ downloading stuff they know they shouldn't download.
      People that _I_ shoot? But _I_ didn't do anything, it's the _bullet_ that hurts them.
      Pulling the trigger is actively deciding to kill someone. Making copyrighted content available on P2P is simply letting people know what you have. If no one else wants anything, nothing is ever going to be downloaded. It's the other person's decision....not yours.
      I'm happy to lose my opportunity to mod the thread for this one. You're right that the bullet analogy is somewhat unapt. You are wrong to say that
      Making copyrighted content available on P2P is simply letting people know what you have. If no one else wants anything, nothing is ever going to be downloaded. It's the other person's decision....not yours.
      Making copyrighted material available on P2P is being a willing accomplice in someone else's decision to break copyright law. You are assisting the principal in his decision to break the law.

      (In point of fact, you are republishing copyrighted material when your computer sends it over in packets, so you are *also* directly breaking the law yourself.)

      If you want an apt analogy, here goes:

      Stuff that _I_ sell? But _I'm_ not doing anything; it's _them_ bringing the contraband to the register and _my employee_ that hands it to them! It's their choice to pick the items off of the shelf!!
      ---

      BTW, amusingly, the downloaders make the reverse argument: "Stuff that _I'm_ downloading? _I'm_ not doing anything! I'm just making a copy of what's already being published on the web!"
      ---

      None of this has any bearing on the morality of copyright laws. If you think (as I do) that copyright laws in their current form are a bad thing, then petition to have them changed. But don't pretend that P2P sharing of copyrighted material is somehow "white" or "gray": legally, it's "black."

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    7. Re:money terms.. by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      That opens up a huge can of worms. What if you upload 10 MB of a 20 MB file? Is that equivelent to 10 euros, even though the data you uploaded has no purpose in and of itself. What if you upload the last byte needed for the download to be complete? Are you responsible for turning what was useless data into the full CD? What if you only download one song from an entire album? Do you pay based on the length? On the size of the file? On the quality of the music? Or will you just have to pay thousands of dollars that they'll claim are damages?

  73. Nothing has change. The article is a FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Im lawyer in Spain.

    I know the IP law. I have studied the reform of the law, and theres nothing in the law that substancially change the P2P legality.

    The head of the article is a FUD. Obviously, illegal contents like child porngrafy is not allowed, and ISP, if had notice of that illegal transit are responsible (see European Directive 200/31), but P2P filesharing of copyrighted material, for non profit, is not ilegal, as it was with previous law.

    So nothing has change, in my opinion. And nobody, with the full legal text, can say what the article sais.

    1. Re:Nothing has change. The article is a FUD by jopet · · Score: 1

      Thank your for clearing this up. Do you have any links to original articles or the text of the law online (in Spanish)?

    2. Re:Nothing has change. The article is a FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something has changed.
      The article is not right, true, but as this new law says that copies for private use should be dome from the original. And copies through p2p are done from another copy, this means the interchange of copyrighted meterial through p2p is illegal now in Spain.

  74. So What about WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOW uses a BT client for Legal Patches, so are such games ilegal in spain.
    Good move I'll just cancel my acount.
    Why dont they ban knifes, you can use knifes to kill cant you?

    Zapatero a tus zapatos.
    DAMMM

  75. Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm spanish. This is not completely true...
    Before this law, in Spain it was allowed to download even copyrighted meterial via P2P, or any other kind of interchange method.
    After this law it is mot allowed anymore. But if you use P2P to download other material, yo are completely free to use it.

  76. new law by corbosman · · Score: 1

    What worries me is the responsibility put on ISPs. This means ISPs will be forced to interpret what is legal and what is not. Since risking a criminal offense is probably not what most ISPs would want, you can bet that they will err on the side of caution. To me the part about ISPs seems to be targetting Usenet. It will definately mean the end of Usenet servers in spain. It'll probably also mean the end of all ports generally associated with P2P. Since that is a losing battle, I wouldnt be surprised if eventually it'll mean the end of most direct tcp/ip access for customers of Spain ISPs.

    About the tax on media carriers. That is common in quite a few countries. It's usually meant to compensate copyright holders for personal home copies. It is not meant to legalize giving a copy to your neighbor.

    The internet is slowly but surely turning into the wet dream of many governments. Total control and monitoring over your populace in terms of communication. With wiretapping and data retention laws already in full swing in Europe, and now the first steps to criminalize specific activities, all we need is a country turning to a 'bad' government to make full use of all these capabilities.

    Cor

  77. Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lie in spain and i've being following this thing from the begening. Until now, sharing or making copys of copyrighted material wasn't ilegal if you didn't trade them, ie, you didn't make money.

    The new law has made ilegal the public comunicacion of copyrighted material, what makes ilegal sharing it through P2P. But not P2P itself

    They also obligue the ISP's to have a log of client's comunications that makes possible to the police to know if someone has being sharing copirighted movies, music, ...

    So, i could still download anything, but legally only uncopyrighted material.

    1. Re:Not exactly by faragon · · Score: 1

      "public comunicacion of copyrighted material, what makes ilegal sharing it through P2P." P2P it is not "public communication", as it means "peer to peer", not "many to one" nor "one to many".

      You can not get brought to court without being demostrated that you make money of it. That argument is guaranted by law, called "derecho de copia privada" ("private copy right").
      Your 4th and 5th paragraphs are false.

    2. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read again all the works that there are in the internet about the new law.

      Until now, only charging money per download or selling copys, were ilegal.

      Now, with the new law, making a copyrighted content available in P2P it's ilegal, because it fits like public comunication. Also the "right to private copy" ( derecho de copia privada ) it's restricted to copys mades directly from the original. Now you can duplicate a DVD, or make a DVDRip from the original, but not download them from the internet.

      Yes, they can't kick the door of your home and seize your computer. Only the police under a court order, and after an investigation can do that. But that don't change the fact that the new law make iligal what was legal yesterday.

  78. Politics by tuxd00d · · Score: 1

    More people making laws about stuff they don't understand.

    The people should revolt against it. If they don't revolt, they will lose more and more of their God given rights.

  79. did you just... by juletre · · Score: 3, Funny

    did you just make a copyright infringement?
    When did Slashdot become a safe haven for people like you? :)

    --
    "he, who has quotes in his signature, is a douche" - unknown.
  80. Slashdot at its finest. by Ethan+Allison · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Read the fucking article before you post it, guys. You really screwed this one up.

  81. In a copyright system ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a copyright system, very little of what is created has commercial value. Maybe something I write today will be the next Winnie-the-Pooh, my employer will decide to publish it, and he will make a boatload of money; but it's not possible for that to happen for most of us 55 million Brits, or you 270 million Americans. We'll write, and we'll speak, and we'll be perfectly happy and honoured if the Spaniards decide to send copies to each other on their P2P networks. Selling copies of Winnie-the-Pooh books isn't generally how we make our money ... some of us do, but most of us are on the other side of that bargain.
    So, the Spaniards look as if they are about to cut off the Internet pipes of anyone who dares to send a '0' or a '1' through it. I didn't ask them to do that. Who did, and to what end ?

  82. False news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is plainly not true. File sharing remains completely lawful in Spain. I am Spanish and I have read the new law. I seriously doubt reporter did it.

  83. It's deeper than that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's more to it than "illegal P2P".
    Until now, Spain rules allowed "private copies" of copyrighted material, which was ambiguosly defined as "copies without money involved". Now the concept has been restricted to copies *from the original source* that are made with *direct human intervention*.

    P2Ping copyrighted material cannot then be considered legal "private copy". Duplicating for your friend a CD you bought is legal (but you pay the tax to allegedly "compensate" the "artists"). Your friend is not entitled to make more copies. Material which is not copyrighted is not under the scope of this law. "Copylefted" material I guess it falls inside this law, which would make it illegal to make bulk copies of GNU software (glups).

    1. Re:It's deeper than that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blatant lies. The law does not require the guy making the copy to have the original, just legal access to a copy of the work being copied (be it his original, someone else's or a copy obtained through legal methods).

      Now, why in the nine hells has everyone bought that BS about having to have the original?

  84. Read it!..It's a GOOD thing! by meburke · · Score: 1

    Let's get something straight: Downloading music without paying for it is stealing! (Common practice, but still stealing.) The new Spanish law requires a person to reimburse the owner for price and costs of recovery if they are caught. (If your kid steals from the grocery store, don't you make him go back and pay for the items?) The Spanish law is saying that any ISP that collaborates with the theft is committing a crime. This makes sense, right? The ISP should not be setting up a P2P server for sharing illegal content. (This may be hard to enforce, since there is so much legal content to be shared.)

    It is true that the music and movie industries are overly grasping (IMHO) and unresponsive to consumers desires, but we mustn't forget that we don't have a RIGHT to steal just because they are ignorant, unethical, and we don't like the price. If you steal and get caught, there should be consequences.

    The headline is overly sensational and inaccurate.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    1. Re:Read it!..It's a GOOD thing! by m0rtadelo · · Score: 1

      Well, when in the core of the matter I can agree with you, there is a slight difference. The tricky part is that P2P does not legally or technically mean downloading, just sharing. I agree that in practice P2P is most used to get (aka download) copyrighted material. That is because SGAE is all the day bitching about P2P.

      Should you set up a web/ftp site site and let people download your MP3, is just a matter of time that you get paid a visit form the Guardia Civil (equivalent to FBI) or the Policía Nacional (Police). Put the same content in your shared folder on eDonkey/eMule or Bittorrent network and you just get away with it. The first case means (legally) distributing/broadcasting copyrighted media without the permission of the copyright holders. The second case means (legally) sharing the private copy (MP3 is other form of private copy, isn't it) of your own collection or your friend's collection (aren't we all friends in this such a great community that is called Internet). Practically in both cases many other anonymous people get the MP3 from you, but in first case you are an outlaw. Current IP legislation was aimed towards considering P2P another kind of distribution, just that and the game is over.

      At least I think they haven't get for the time being, but time will tell. Just keep awake...

    2. Re:Read it!..It's a GOOD thing! by octopus72 · · Score: 1

      It is not stealing, but a copyright violation (which is illegal like stealing). By stealing you take something away from the owner. But with copying, the owner still doesn't loose his copy. He can only claim that he lost something imaginary like the money which he never received.

    3. Re:Read it!..It's a GOOD thing! by meburke · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no matter how slick the words, it is still depriving someone of the compensation for their work. Stealing is a general category, and the slick technical wording falls clearly under that category. I can think of a few others: Working for someone who doesn't pay you the commission due, for instance, is not the same as armed robbery. Someone not paying you for the software you wrote for him is fraud. They are all forms of stealing. True, the amount in question is trivial on an individual basis, but stealing is stealing whether you shoplift a pack of gum or rip off your stockholders for millions.

      What I like about Spain's law is that it represents reparative justice. It compensates the victim for the value of the loss. (Hard to think of the RIAA as a victim, isn't it?) Too many times in the USA, the offender gets a slap on the wrist or a "punishment", and the victim is still out of pocket for the value of the loss.

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    4. Re:Read it!..It's a GOOD thing! by meburke · · Score: 1

      I almost agree with you. If I buy a CD and loan it to a friend, that is acceptable behavior. I didn't create any illegal copies and I didn't deprive the author of any compensation because the CD was paid for. If I invite a friend over to listen to music, the same situation applies. Now if I put my music on a computer and allow my friends to listen to it, I agree that should be legal as long as they aren't making copies for their own use. I don't believe that would be a case of stealing anymore than inviting a bunch of friends over to listen. So, streaming audio should be OK as long as you don't charge for it without compensating the artist. Copying a file to your server for storage should be OK (IMO) as long as your friends can't create a copy for themselves. IMO, this constitutes "fair use".

      However, file sharing typically creates a copy of the music without compensating the artist. The creation and distribution of files containing copyrighted material without compensating the artist or authors is stealing, just as burning a CD for friend is stealing. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    5. Re:Read it!..It's a GOOD thing! by octopus72 · · Score: 1

      While I regret hard working people who don't get money they deserve, I hate greedy (software, etc.) companies which keep their income not through technical excellence but with patents, closed format lock-ins, monopolistic practices and lawsuits.

      Microsoft and SCO are clearly on the top of that list.

    6. Re:Read it!..It's a GOOD thing! by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but no matter how slick the words, it is still depriving someone of the compensation for their work. Stealing is a general category, and the slick technical wording falls clearly under that category. I can think of a few others: Working for someone who doesn't pay you the commission due, for instance, is not the same as armed robbery. Someone not paying you for the software you wrote for him is fraud. They are all forms of stealing.

      So you content that depriving someone of compensation for their work is "stealing"? Pretty iffy, but okay, I'll bite.

      How about if David builds a table with the intent to sell it, and I come along and build a better table for less money, and everyone buys mine instead? David has been deprived of compensation for his work.

      How about if David builds a table and it falls apart when he's in the process of delivering it, and I refuse to pay? Deprived of compensation.

      David builds a table, as requested, and also builds a set of chairs, which I never asked for and refuse to buy. Whoops, there's that compensation deprivation again.

      Your definition doesn't hold up. Likewise all rationalisations by people who wish they could call unauthorized copying stealing, which they (you) do because they (you) need to conjure up moral equivalency in order to advance an argument that the offenses are of equal gravity. It's simply not stealing. It may be immoral, or harmful, or illegal, but stealing is not the word. Nor is piracy "murdering" the person's income or "kidnapping" their revenues or "trespassing" on their creation or "jaywalking" all over their rights.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  85. We Spanish people are fucked... by Findeton · · Score: 0

    We spanish people are completely fucked, this is time to start the pirate party there! I mean, EVERY political party has voted yes for this law, so we really need a new party...

    Anyway, i think we can start making demonstrations. We have a good history of demonstrations: for example, now we are protesting for the high price of housing... and the propests started because ONE person started sending emails to his friends to concentrate for that. I think we can do the same for this, we have been suffering the SGAE (our particular RIAA) for too long, everyone knows they are diabolic!

  86. When did Spain become France? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 0, Troll

    First they surrender to the terrorists, now to the ??AA?

    Most definitely not mas macho...

  87. Windows File Sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well there goes Microsofts P2P Windows file sharing in the office enviroment then.
    It is P2P isnt it. eg 2 or more Peers and a user ?

  88. windows file sharing ilegal? by Jessta · · Score: 1

    ummm...so windows file and printer sharing is illegal? sucks to be any small business without a central file server. Is FTP P2P? If I put an FTP server on my PC and you put an FTP server on your PC, isn't that P2P? sucks when idiots are making laws. - Jesse McNelis

    --
    ...and that is all I have to say about that.
    http://jessta.id.au
  89. Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by Gldm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ....like say anyone who uses South Africa's sole monopoly telecom provider, Telkom.

    Why has this happened? Oh well you see Telkom likes to save bandwidth because they're cheap. So they force every international connection through a cache server. Slashdot has deemed the cache server an "abusive" IP, so it's banned from posting on the site. But you can't NOT submit from that IP, because it's forced by the only internet provider in the country. So basically 45 million people can't post thanks to lazy site administrators.

    Have I submitted this to the appropriate channels? Of course, countless times, and never recieve any reply. I've even submitted it as news. I've asked about it as an ask slashdot.(both rejected of course). Nobody seems to care.

    After all, I'm sure it's just so easy for everyone to VNC into a machine in the US like I'm doing so they can struggle with laggy shaped international connections just to submit text to a website. It's our fault for living in a third world country with a government that artificially maintains a monopoly now that it's no longer "official" since half of the government still has stock in it, right?

    Go ahead, mod me offtopic or troll or whatever. I don't give a damn. If you people bothered to read your own damn mail and fix the site I wouldn't have had to spend a year trying to find a solution only to wind up bitching about it in posts!

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    1. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nonsense. I'm from Johannesburg with an ADSL connection through DataPro and I've never been banned from posting on Slashdot and neither does the Internet landscape in this country look remotely like what you claim. Before I got ADSL I had a satellite connection from Sentech and before that it was an ISDN connection direct from Telkom. A traceroute to Slashdot shows Datapro->IS->Alternet in New York and then on to Santa Clara via savvis. No giant abusive caching server anywhere in sight.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    2. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by periol · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not that I'd know, having never been to South Africa, but if you trust the Telkom website, you're both either half right or half wrong, depending:

      TelkomInternet powered by ADSL ~ Access options

      TelkomInternet powered by ADSL provides both a shaped and unshaped service. Simply put, this means that we have built a service that will best meet your individual needs. For the general user the shaped service will fit most needs adequately.

      * Shaped ~ In layman's terms, the shaped service prioritises keystroke activities - things you do while sitting in-front of your PC. So when you're surfing your favourite site, doing your banking online or checking you e-mail, this option will work best for you.

      * For those of you that need to know more, read on. The shaped service distinguishes between the various protocols used over the Internet. The main priority is HTTP. At present, all international HTTP traffic is transparently cached for ADSL users. All international un-cached data is shaped. The following un-cached protocols are prioritised on the network: HTTP (in certain cases HTTP is not cached due to website incompatibilities), HTTPS, FTP, Mail (POP3, SMTP and IMAP), SSH and TELNET. Any protocol not mentioned above will receive a lower priority on the network. Unshaped ~ In layman's terms, whichever activity you are doing or leaving your PC to do, while not there, all available bandwidth will be used for this application or protocol.


      * Unshaped ~This service will offer you unshaped international bandwidth and a higher data transfer rate. The unshaped service will not shape the un-cached protocols. All protocols will therefore share the available bandwidth equally. Similarly, local bandwidth will remain as is with no shaping implemented. Keeping this in mind, this service is typically designed for a niche market including, for example, your typical Forex Trader, specific gaming applications, secure work from home options and VPN's. All these applications can use unfamiliar protocols, which are not necessarily bandwidth intensive but require an unshaped service to work optimally.

    3. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      He's wrong - take it from the former editor of Communications Week South Africa :) If you want to see how clueless he is in general, you can read his laughable article on FLOSS here.

      TelkomInternet powered by ADSL

      This is the key phrase. I have an ADSL connection but I don't use Telkom as an ISP - I use a Tier 2 who has an upstream Tier 1 provider with their own link to the US. The Tier 1 must buy his half circuit from Telkom but it's just bandwidth - it doesn't get IP services from them and it certainly doesn't go through Telkom's cache. In fact, there's an additional carrier with its own license that doesn't have to use Telkom at all.

      Maybe TelkomInternet's cache is banned but that's hardly Slashdot's problem and it certainly doesn't affect me. *hits Submit button*

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    4. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by Gldm · · Score: 1

      Yes, read my article that I'm sure is laughable and went completely unread in South Africa Computer Magazine. I mean obviously everyone must agree with you so this must be entirely fake in my inbox:

      I found your "Open Source Man" article very informative, especially as we in Government is struggling convincing decision makers that they need to take on their OS initiatives more carefully and especially not force them down on us but rather base it on research etc. I am looking for the original "Open Source Man" article (or articles) and will appreciate it if you can make it available to me.

      Regards

      Tjaart Richards - Systems Specialist

      Department of Developmental Local Government & Housing

      North West Provincial Government


      Of course there were also negative responses, but not a single one could be professional enough to refrain from using "M$" in their reply.

      --

      Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    5. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by Gldm · · Score: 1

      Oh? Explain this to me then!

      This IP address or network has been used to abuse the system and logins from it have been disabled. If you feel that this is unwarranted, feel free to include your IP address (198.54.202.114) in the subject of an email to banned@slashdot.org, and we will examine why there is a ban.

      198.54.202.114 resolves to rba-cache3-vif1.saix.net

      --

      Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    6. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      I'm not particularly interested in people's opinions about Open Source - they're perfectly entitled to them and of course all of our perceptions (mine included) are shaped by our own personal experience. But your piece is so riddled with factual errors that any valid criticisms you do have (and you do have quite a few) get lost in the noise. Michael needs a good kick for publishing it :)

      I will write a proper critique of it this weekend.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    7. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1
      Oh? Explain this to me then!

      Sure.

      198.54.202.114 resolves to rba-cache3-vif1.saix.net

      So let's see if that IP appears in any of the hops between my PC and Slashdot:

      ~$ traceroute slashdot.org | grep 198.54.202.114
      traceroute to slashdot.org (66.35.250.150), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
      ~$

      It doesn't. So the conclusion I must draw is that somehow I can reach (and post to) Slashdot from within South Africa without passing through Telkom's caching server (leaving aside the fairly compelling evidence to me that I'm sitting in my home office posting to Slashdot). So clearly not everyone in South Africa is subject to the ban on TelkomInternet's cache and thus your claims about the Internet landscape in this country must be false.
      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    8. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by Anoyomouse · · Score: 1

      In your one experiance you beat the experiance of someone who's been in computers for quite a bit of his life ... erm, yeah

      try doing anything from the University of Pretoria Campus, the same thing happens to them, they get forced through the same cache that Gldm is being forced through, and they have a 5MB Pipe
      Also i've seen them transparently using cache.saix.net and dsl-cache.saix.net to monitor your usage on ADSL, yes, this happens but no-one knows about it, heck the fewer people who know the more telcom can get away with it!

    9. Re:Well at least they're not banned from Slashdot by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      In your one experiance you beat the experiance of someone who's been in computers for quite a bit of his life ... erm, yeah

      Not one experience - many, many experiences covering the SA telecoms markets for a variety of publications, some of them as editor. Besides, what has experience got to do with it? This issue - that ISPs can carry IP traffic without having to do it through a Telkom server - goes back more than a decade, probably before your correspondent was even graced with pubic hair. My current connection does not go through TelkomInternet and neither did the Sentech VSAT one I had before go through TelkomInternet. Hence his complaint that 45 million people can't post to Slashdot is demonstrably false.

      try doing anything from the University of Pretoria Campus, the same thing happens to them, they get forced through the same cache that Gldm is being forced through, and they have a 5MB Pipe

      And yet I, and thousands of others like me who don't use Telkom as our ISP, are not. What does that tell you?

      Also i've seen them transparently using cache.saix.net and dsl-cache.saix.net to monitor your usage on ADSL, yes, this happens but no-one knows about it, heck the fewer people who know the more telcom can get away with it!

      It's Telkom with a 'k'. It would help your credibility (and his) if you could spell and put full stops and capital letters in more or less the right places.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  90. Downloaded linux without paying? by mrcaseyj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Great idea! Linux distributors should register as copyright holders so they can get their cut of the media taxes!

  91. Legal P2P is NOT outlawed in Spain by Yev000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    All this fuss...

    All they did was outlaw unauthorised files, as in illigal, as in not approved by the author.

    How hard is it to read the article? No, really?

  92. ooooohhhhh! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Four digit user #. You just gave me /.-wood.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  93. No original required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you read the law BEFORE you say private copying must be from "original". The word "original" is NOT in the new law. Do you understand what "acceso legal" means?.

    If a friend of you gives you a copy, you have "acceso legal" to that copy. Can you understand so simple concept?

    The word "original" is just an invention from SGAE (the Spanish RIAA). It is plain FUD.

  94. In other news.... by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Spanish programmers have announced a completely encrypted version of bit torrent based on TOR technology.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:In other news.... by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      Why re-invent what already exists?

  95. They've got LOADS of time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they've been knocked out of the world cup. Maybe this legislation is to avoid people downloading World Cup videos?

  96. traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Spain's telco giant Telefonica reports 90% of usage on its broadband lines is Internet traffic, up from 15% five years ago. Of that 90%, a massive 71% is P2P traffic."

    So the other 10% is uninternetraffic or what?

    1. Re:traffic by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      Broadband lines can be used for TV and voice communications too.

    2. Re:traffic by pasko · · Score: 1

      Either:

      1.- This is FUD or

      2.- my ISP (incumbent in Spain) is plainly breaking the law.

      The following capture is from my personal MLDonkey software at 16:29 Local Time.

      > bw_stats
      Down: 8.5 KB/s ( 0 + 8711 ) | Up: 9.5 KB/s ( 0 + 9730 ) | Shared: 7/2.16G | Uploaded: 566.6M

      Regards.

    3. Re:traffic by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      Since the law isn't effective yet, it's (3), your ISP isn't ready to acomplish yet.

  97. In Ecuador, an analogue law has existed 2 years by Rudd-O · · Score: 1
    --
    Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
  98. We do by sslayer · · Score: 1

    In fact, all people around me whith whom I've talked about current government actions feels absolutely betrayed. And this is not the worst thing they've done until now.

    They promised to lower the housing price... and guess what? It's raised nearly a 16% in the first three months of the current year.

    And remember ETA? The basque-nationalist terrorist group? They have killed more than a thousand people, nearly a hundred kidnaps, and now they were nearly finished, since police was doing a great work. Now, they (ETA) has set up a "permanent ceasefire" (which you can believe or not, they are still sending extorsion letters to companies in the Pais Vasco), and the Government is talking with them, illegaly, and right against most population opinion. They are giving ETA new strength, because they're talking with them, negotiating, and we still don't know what is going to happen with this (is Zapatero's government going to surrender to ETA?).

    Having p2p forbidden, something they won't be able to enforce, doesn't seem the worst thing which is happening now with the government.

  99. Spain outlaws telephony? by robertaas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Telephony is certainly P2P-connections and users do exchange audio files.

    And all this craze in Europe due to corruption in EU:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janelly_Fourtou

  100. Wrong Wrong Wrong by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The amount of crap that gets modded +5 insightful on /. is annoying enough in general, but when it comes to IP / P2P topics it really jumps through the roof. Here is a bit of information for those of us who have not yet been assimilated into the "information wants to be free" crowd.

    1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.

    2- The blank levy is not a compensation for massive, indiscriminate filesharing on P2P networks. Rather, it is a compensation for the (perfectly legal) private, physical copying and sharing of copyrighted works, within the circle of family and close friends, and in low numbers, which I understand is definitely allowed in Spain. France and Canada have a similar scheme.

    Basically you're allowed to make a few private copies, and in return you pay a bit more for your blank CDs. The money is they redistributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to the royalties they earn from other, more easily quantifiable sources (sales, public performances, etc.). Not perfect, but that's the best way they could find. It certainly sucks for those of us who use CD for non-musical data, but I guess we're regarded as "collateral damage".

    If I burn a CD of my own copyrighted works, will I get the tax refunded?

    It's not a refund, it's a payment based on sales. The money levied from the tax is distributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to their royalties. Note that anybody can register, including Joe Musician; in fact registering is a prerequisite to receiving any kind of royalties. So if you produce your own copyrighted works (and register to the appropriate body), AND some people buy your stuff or play it in public or use it for any other activity which involves payment of royalties, you'll definitely see some money from this tax.

    If you burn a GNU/Linux cd, do you think the copyright holders are going to get paid by the Spanish government?

    As I said, it's only for music, so basically no. However, I understand that the tax is only applicable to individuals, not corporations (a bit like VAT tax I suppose), so if $random_spanish_distro sends you a CD of their distribution, they won't have to pay the tax on the CD they burn.

    1. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      2- The blank levy is not a compensation for massive, indiscriminate filesharing on P2P networks. Rather, it is a compensation for the (perfectly legal) private, physical copying and sharing of copyrighted works, within the circle of family and close friends, and in low numbers, which I understand is definitely allowed in Spain. France and Canada have a similar scheme.

      You're wrong. In Spain, every copy destinated to private use is (was) considered a private copy. The law doesn't say anything about family, close friend or the number of copies (even now). In other words, in Spain sharing music CDs o DVD-Rip movies is(was) totally legal if you don't get money with it neither you do public diffusion (e.g.: public projections).

    2. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by eht · · Score: 1

      Proportional to their royalties?

      But if they're making lots of money, that kind of implies not as many people are copying it, at least to a certain degree.

      Say two bands have each 1,000,000 albums in circulation, band A makes a new album and only sells one copy and the other 999,999 are copied and put onto blank CDs, they would only get the royalty for the one CD, now take band B, who makes a new album and all 1,000,000 out there are originals, now they get all the royalties for each album sold and have sales 1,000,000 times greater, and they're the ones who get the money from this new tax?

      Of course we all know the record companies and RIAA equivelants are the only ones who will see any of this money.

    3. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by animaal · · Score: 1

      > But if they're making lots of money, that kind of implies not as many people are copying it, at least to a certain degree.

      You seem to be saying that for an artist, the volume of unauthorized copying is inversly propeortional to the volume of legal sales. That's plainly incorrect. ${boyband} sells heaps of CDs, and there are probably huge amounts of unauthorized copies of their CD floating around. On the other hand, the guy who sings in a bar in a small town will probably only sell a few CDs, and there will pobably only be a few unauthorized copies around.

    4. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by magullo · · Score: 1

      they won't have to pay the tax on the CD they burn

      *Everybody* has to pay the tax, period. That is why it is completely outrageous.

      Also, fair use and public domain DO NOT come with a price attached. In fact, they are the price society used to charge distributors (not creators) for doing business.

      Oh well, I guess I am old-school.

    5. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by VoxCombo · · Score: 2, Informative
      The hypothetical case you describe is never true. The number of copies, both legal and ilegal, varies proportionately with sales. This may change in the future, but so far this system works fine.

      Of course we all know the record companies and RIAA equivelants are the only ones who will see any of this money.

      In the US (Spain is probably similar...most countries have similar copyright laws since the Berne convention), the RIAA is not involved with this money. It is distributed by an independent panel which spreads the money around based on the previously noted sales figures. They use fixed percentages to determine what bodies get the money (e.g. x% to labels, y% to publishers, z% to songwriters, etc.). Interestingly, their system bypasses teh normal trickle-down system where money is paid directly to copyright holders (labels and publishers usually) and then distributed through royalties from there
    6. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by spurtle15 · · Score: 1

      In the US (Spain is probably similar...most countries have similar copyright laws since the Berne convention), the RIAA is not involved with this money. It is distributed by an independent panel which spreads the money around based on the previously noted sales figures. They use fixed percentages to determine what bodies get the money (e.g. x% to labels, y% to publishers, z% to songwriters, etc.). Interestingly, their system bypasses teh normal trickle-down system where money is paid directly to copyright holders (labels and publishers usually) and then distributed through royalties from there

      Since when has the US been charging a royalty tax on blank media?

    7. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Spain, it is in fact the local RIAA tht distributes the money. Anyway, while the number of burnt copies may in some cases increase with the number of sold copies, in some other cases it may be the othe way, so the system is less than ideal, and certainly does not work fine, for this reason and many more.

    8. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by Mo+Bedda · · Score: 1

      1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.

      Maybe. The "it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading" provides a strong incentive for ISPs to attempt to block P2P in general.

      As I said, it's only for music, so basically no.

      You said, but where do the articles say that? The tax is going on all sorts of blank media including dvd-r's and even printers. The article states the money is going to go to "copyright holders"; I don't see where it specifies that this only applies to music.

      So if you produce your own copyrighted works (and register to the appropriate body), AND some people buy your stuff or play it in public or use it for any other activity which involves payment of royalties, you'll definitely see some money from this tax.

      That is very optimistic. Who calculates sales? If I sell my CD's from the back of my car, do they count? Musicians often complain of getting shafted on royalties by their own record companies; it only gets worse when you insert a government bureaucracy and a industry trade organization.

      While I don't know if "information wants to be free", there are a couple of other truisms which are pointed to by the by the fact that "a massive 71% is P2P traffic". First, computer networks copy information. And second, the Internet was and is built on porn and copyright infringement. Personally, I think laws which make all ISPs criminals is a bad idea. Personally, I don't think personal, physical copying is a right which should not be taxed. Sharing is a different matter.

    9. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, let's go... Are you sure you must be calling people uninformed?

      1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.

      So, the law makes it illegal to do something already illegal... I can see why Congress toke the time to create it... And the GP is concerned about automatic banishment of "unautorized" P2P, how do you thing that will be enforced? Yea, right, companies will have the right to distribute stuff, people will not.

      2- The blank levy is not a compensation for massive, indiscriminate filesharing on P2P networks. Rather, it is a compensation for the (perfectly legal) private, physical copying and sharing of copyrighted works, within the circle of family and close friends, and in low numbers, which I understand is definitely allowed in Spain. France and Canada have a similar scheme.

      So it is a compensation for something legal? And because of this it is not a private tax?!

    10. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      ...Canada have a similar scheme.

      And what many of us do is wait until we are in the states and buy them there.

    11. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by VoxCombo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since the Audio Home Recording Act was passed in 1992. It doesn't affect most people though. It places a royalty on cassettes and special music CD-Rs.

      What's a music CD-R you ask? You might notice if you have a consumer music CD burner (and very few people do), the only media it will accept are specially labelled music CD-Rs. These cost more than the regular CD-Rs you use in your computer due to the royalty that is placed on them.
      They're pretty rare now, since most people use the burner in their computer, which takes regular CD-Rs. Also, it doesn't usually affect people who record their own music on CD-Rs, since professional burners (the ones you buy at a musical instrument or pro-audio store as opposed to a stereo store) do not require the special discs either

    12. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know in other countires with these kinds of laws, companies who can show legitimate business use for their blank CDs can apply to get the tax back.

    13. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by c_forq · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax#Unite d_States

      It only applies to CD's labeled as Music CD-R's and to stand-alone burners, but we have it.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    14. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by magullo · · Score: 1

      Well, Spain is always different. What happens here is that a company will pay the tax on domestic blanks no matter what, but not on ones bought abroad as long they can indeed show that they are used for anything other than music or video).

      Predictably, the last domestic manufacturer is about to go bust.

      Equally predictably, ~60% of the blanks on the market are fraudulent when it comes to having cleared the tax.

      So, yeah, everybody wins ... now wait a minute ...

    15. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by vertinox · · Score: 0

      The money is they redistributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to the royalties they earn from other, more easily quantifiable sources (sales, public performances, etc.). Not perfect, but that's the best way they could find. (emphasis mine)

      Seems like a system somewhere I've read about...

      "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."

      Now this name of this system eludes me, but I think we fought several wars over fighting letting this style of government spread... Now what could the name of that system be??

      Seriously, folks... This is nothing more than a planned economy type of deal and I doubt many independent or foreign musicians will see a drop of that money. If the labels only lower their prices and let capitalism go with the flow everything would fall into place. Piracy only exists in markets where it is more convenient and cheaper to copy.

      If it was just as cheep but more convenient to buy music instead of steal it, then people would buy music instead of having to spend tons of their time downloading crappy quality mp3s. And putting DRM on your cds just makes piracy a more logical route. Let the market sort it out the correct way.

      Not subsidize selective industry members in some type of socialist type of scheme.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    16. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Since the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

    17. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by alienw · · Score: 1

      Man, you are a dumbass. Yeah, let's see, labels in the capitalist US are just lowering prices left and right, and there is no piracy to speak of. Right? Fucktard.

    18. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good GOD.. I'm spanish and you don't know what are you talking about.

      1. What's autorized and what unautorized in the first place? There's a private organization that decides: the SGAE (Sociedad General de Autores y Editores). I suggest you read the wikipedia article about them.

      2. The blank levy existed before the private backup law and this levy exists because of the music piracy, that's how it passed. Besides, it's not a bit more, it's 40-50% more http://www.asimelec.es/htmventa/Noticias/redinoti/ noticias/2860.htm. The money goes to the SGAE and they redistribute it acording to their criteria, artists don't directly affiliated with them will receive no money, yet the SGAE will collect money for _every_ song.
      Stick the collateral damage up your ass, I'm not willing to be stolen by a bunch of thieves that support no more than 100 groups/artits and charge for all. My hard earned money is worth more than that.

      AND, this tax it's not only for CD.. it's gonna be passed for every media capable of holding a song: hard drives, usb disks, dongles.. everything. So, yes please, steal 40 euros for an HDD originally priced at 100 and charge 140!!! After all it's just collateral damage!!!

      Man.. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT'S WRONG WRONG WRONG. I can't believe you got modded insightful for that pile of trash you wrote.

      Excuse me for my harsh language, but speaking about the SGAE stirs my nerves.

              An angry spaniard.

    19. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      "2- The blank levy is not a compensation for massive, indiscriminate filesharing on P2P networks. Rather, it is a compensation for the (perfectly legal) private, physical copying and sharing of copyrighted works, within the circle of family and close friends, and in low numbers, which I understand is definitely allowed in Spain. France and Canada have a similar scheme"

      And you don't find it disturbing that the government is using its vast powers to collect money for the benefit of a for-profit private company/companies?!?

    20. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Someone should mod this up a couple notches, he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

    21. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by vertinox · · Score: 1

      No. There is still piracy because CDs and downloads are still way over priced for their convenience.

      Cds need to be $5 or less and downloads need to be $.75 or cheaper (heck they should be a nickel).

      If this is too expensive for them to make then they need to make their production and promotion costs cheaper and not take it up with the government. I don't want my taxes being spoon fed into people who I wouldn't even consider to be worth the effort even to steal their music much less buy it.

      Most of the real musicians I support through CD purchases aren't with RIAA (or whatever European equivalent) and won't be seeing this "tax" money anyways.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    22. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by bufalo_1973 · · Score: 1

      Who tells you there's a Government involved? This should be readed this way:

      The money is they redistributed by the SGAE* to registered copyright owners

      *Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (General Society of Authors and Editors) = vertical trade union

    23. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by trix7117 · · Score: 1
      The hypothetical case you describe is never true. The number of copies, both legal and ilegal, varies proportionately with sales. This may change in the future, but so far this system works fine.
      While the hypothetical case is never true, neither is the number of copies made directly porportional to sales. There are many other factors involved, not the least of which is the target audience of the music. I don't care how many albums they sell, music aimed at the 60+ crowd isn't going to be copied as much as the pop music purchased by the younger generation(s).
    24. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "But if they're making lots of money, that kind of implies not as many people are copying it, at least to a certain degree."

      Maybe in Spain, but in the USA, the P2P download statistics indicate that people are pirating music in roughly the same proportion to legitimate sales. According to BigChamgagne, eight of the top ten downloaded P2P tracks this week are also on the iTMS top 100.

      "Say two bands have each 1,000,000 albums in circulation, band A makes a new album and only sells one copy and the other 999,999 are copied and put onto blank CDs, they would only get the royalty for the one CD, now take band B, who makes a new album and all 1,000,000 out there are originals, now they get all the royalties for each album sold and have sales 1,000,000 times greater, and they're the ones who get the money from this new tax?"

      Yes -- if that highly unlikely scenario occurs. And if the sun explodes prematurely, nobody will get the tax. Coming up with highly unlikely scenarios sure is fun. At any rate, as the GP pointed out, it's not perfect, but it's the best way that people have come up with.

      "Of course we all know the record companies and RIAA equivelants are the only ones who will see any of this money."

      Really? That's too bad. That's not how the USA and Canada blank media levies work. In the US I believe 12% of the levy money goes toward record companies (this is actually written out in copyright law -- the vast majority goes to artists, composers, songwriters, session musicians and singers and the like) and in Canada it's an equally tiny amount. In both the USA and Canada the record companies are on the list to receive money; they're not the distributors. If it works differently in Spain, that's unfortunate. If such a law has to exist, I prefer the US/Canada method, in which the record companies wait their turn to get paid, and get the smallest slice of the pie.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    25. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by BobDigiDigi · · Score: 1

      Tienes razón - la SGAE son un puñao de judios peseteros de mierda.

      SGAE is a perfect example of capitalism gone wrong. A sort-of company that bullies its way to the money by connections to politicians, with publicity campaigns and with their lobbies, without actually doing anything they promise to do. Bunch of fuckin MONEY LOVING JEWS.

      Another angry Español.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    26. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by feidy · · Score: 1

      You can be an angry Spaniard (count me on that club as well) but you don't need to make racist comments about Jews. In Spanish, "jew" has been used traditionaly as a negative adjective although, in my opinion, 21st century Spanish speakers should avoid that use for obvious reasons. Translating that into English makes it awfully offensive. I was angry, now I am also ashamed by your post

    27. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by BobDigiDigi · · Score: 1

      Maybe we use the word JUDIO for a reason.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    28. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by tgv · · Score: 1

      Facha de mierda!

      And for you English speaking people out there: that roughly means "shitty fascist".

    29. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by VoxCombo · · Score: 1

      people over 60 don't buy music......for themselves anyway
      well, I suppose they might a little bit, but the amount of music they buy is so insignificant, that it just doesn't make sense to account for it. Old people are generally comfortable listening to Paul Harvey and occasionally putting their old Perry Como 33s on the hi-fi.

      Middle aged baby boomers will often purchase older catalog titles they remember from their youth. Interestingly, I remember reading a study noting that copying is actually more of a problem with catalog titles.

      You do raise an interesting theory though. There may be some obscure markets out there that do not vary proportionately, but I imagine they would be small and insigificant enough. I'd bet classical music has a very low rate of copying, but it makes up such a miniscule percentage of total music sales, that nobody cares if they are getting more than their fair share of blank media money.

    30. Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong by BobDigiDigi · · Score: 1

      Actually i'm not a fascist at all. The only culture (not race) i discriminate is the jews.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  101. Mod parent up, at least as funny by dallaylaen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The blank media tax is absurd, simple because you can't tell who gets copied how many times.

    So, if every GNU/Linux contributor claims refund... Well, at least they'll make a good DDoS!

    Imagine that, a crowd of people, all swinging copies fo their own copyrighted materials...

    --
    WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
    1. Re:Mod parent up, at least as funny by MrShaggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please excuse the following. It is before my coffee..

      We have the blank media tax here in Canada as well. And it isn't all that bad. How often do you buy stacks of CD's? SO for pennies per year, the tax goes to these people. What it means is that the RIA cant go after your ass for anything because the tax on CDS. Its not like its a dollar/per cd tax. The other way around it is to buy DATA cds, which seem to not have the tax, because its the AUDIO ones that have them. There isn't as much kuffufle as one might think over this. Whats happening now is that the CRA (equivalent to the ria) is salivating at the mouth thinking at what it might have lost out. Some Canadian artists have started a website that lets everyone know that they don't feel represented.

      The problem is that the tax doesn't seem to get distributed amongst the artists. Thats where it breaks down. Its up to the artists to sue the CRA or the government in order to insure that it gets divided up fairly. Its where corporate greed wins out over their advertisement campaign.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    2. Re:Mod parent up, at least as funny by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "he other way around it is to buy DATA cds, which seem to not have the tax, because its the AUDIO ones that have them."

      I just recently found out there WERE audio cd blanks....though, I'm still not sure what the difference is. Anyway, I've never recorded anything audio or data on anything but a data cd. Why would anyone get a special 'audio' one...the normal ones work just find, and record 1's and 0's just as well as anything.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Mod parent up, at least as funny by Johnny+O · · Score: 1

      You can buy audio CD burners to hook up to your stereo system. These ONLY accept "audio" CDs. They will not accept "data" CDs for recording.

      http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq01.html#S1-13

  102. welcome to the future by Mean+Ass+Troll · · Score: 1

    piddler countries like spain can be bought easily, and their population whipped into line. it is highly unlikely that the people will ever see freedom there. but this threatens us all. there needs to be morre strict pre-emptive legislation that makes it a CRIME to lobby government to preserve industry agianst the wishes of the people. this would stop the aa's from trying to sneak bad laws into act every day, and would eliminate the need to constantly watch them. the penalty? why stiff fines, and a tax on every such proposal, to be distributed among the CONSUMERS of copyrighted works. for those lobbyists? an extended stay in a federal Pound Me In The Ass prison.

  103. Spain is Abridging its citizens' freedom by dushkin · · Score: 1

    This is a terrible thing. It's just plain stupid, restrictive, and not an act I'd expect from an advanced European nation, along with the blank CD tax.

    No, I'm not going to start banning Spanish products, what's the point of that? Do you think they care about that kind of stuff? I wouldn't mind however organizing demonstrations (sans violence, of course) over this. Who in their right mind would even think about doing this sort of thing?!

    Spain isn't one of the places that I'd like to live in right now, no thank you.

    --
    o hai
  104. Artical itself seems to be wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I searched the Spanish press and can see no reference to this story (although there is plenty about the CD tax). Also, look here: http://www.todoscontraelcanon.es/ ... there is no mention of making P2P illegal. Also try downloading the offical government document: http://www.todoscontraelcanon.es/index.php?body=pr ess_article&id_article=14&id_rubrique=11
    and so a search for p2p... you won't find it anywhere. The document only covers the CD tax.

  105. What Lousiana is to US, Spain is to EU by Iloinen+Lohikrme · · Score: 1

    Spain part of the third world, and proud of it.

  106. Dear Dumbass, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a pretty fucking stupid thing to say.

    Yes, your immature remarks certainly were.

    Where does the Apollo program fit into this "criminal" idea? What about the interstate highway system? The post office? Research grants for improving crop yield? The DARPA work that created the Internet?

    From the massive fiscal outlays made possible only by cashing in on guilt.

    NEXT!

  107. Yes, but with exemptions by blorg · · Score: 1

    Now I am not 100% sure on this, but I think copying for personal use without a profit (e.g. you copy a friend's CD) was and still is legal in Spain. AFAIK what this law does is clarify that unauthorised copying over P2P does _not_ fall within this exemption.

  108. Let's hear it for the buggy whip sellers! by eagl · · Score: 1

    Back when the automobile was a new thing, laws were passed to protect among other entrenched industries, the makers and sellers of buggy whips. The protections became more and more hysterical as buggy whip maker after maker went out of business.

    Leap ahead 80 or so years, and now it's the internet's turn to retire the current generation of buggy whip makers. And yes we'll see the buggy whip makers and sellers of today get more and more hysterical trying to protect their old ways instead of embracing an inevitable change. The government follows the money and the old men/women who make and enforce the laws are inclined to join the ranks protecting the buggy whip industry, but in the end the buggy whip will be retired.

    Telecoms fighting VoIP and anyone agitating to suppress the open sharing/distribution of raw information are today's buggy whip industries, and this is yet more hysteria from a dying group of old men. The sooner their industry is killed off, the better.

  109. What this demonstrates by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    Is a complete lack of understanding of technology. In particular the internet and underlying technologies. The Internet is a peer to peer filesharing network. If one outlaws the sending of files from one computer on a network to another you are effectively making the internet illegal.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  110. Not About Lawsuits by dwandy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Spainards will have to download their WoW patches via P2P safe in the knowledge that Blizzard will not sue them.
    Except with ISPs on the hook, I suspect that 100% of P2P traffic will be blocked (at least 100% of identifiable P2P traffic).
    So it's not a question of whether you're afraid of getting sued by Blizzard: The patch simply won't come down the pipe.
    --
    If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    1. Re:Not About Lawsuits by Andrewkov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and in other news, Spanish hackers develope a P2P app that runs entirely over port 80.

    2. Re:Not About Lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      and in other news, Spanish hackers develope a P2P app that runs entirely over port 80.

      And in even later news, Spanish ISPs block all incoming port 80 traffic.

    3. Re:Not About Lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... more specifically, if the summary is to be believed, it would be a criminal offense for your ISP to let you download your WoW patch.

    4. Re:Not About Lawsuits by dwandy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ports are a pretty poor way to determine traffic contents. Router/traffic shapers already exist and don't care about the port numbers. About the only way I know of to get around this is encryption.
      This is great as long as both parties are using it...

      As usual, the Professional Pirates (tm) can easily overcome this obstacle.
      At most this new law will increase the cost of internet access in Spain, decrease, diminish, and increase the difficulty of the ligitimate usage of the net, and possibly result in some legal actions that ruin some kids lives and criminalise some ISPs (further increasing the cost of internet access!).
      Overall though, you're right: Except for those lives that get ruined for the profit of a mega-corp, nothing substantial will change as a result of this.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    5. Re:Not About Lawsuits by z_gringo · · Score: 1

      Civil Offense.

      Not Criminal.

      --
      -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
    6. Re:Not About Lawsuits by ditto999999999999999 · · Score: 1

      No, it would be a criminal offence for the ISP to facilitate patch downloading, and a civil offence for you to try.

      Andy

  111. Enter the Grammar Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a bit like VAT tax I suppose

    VAT Tax? Is that like PIN Number you use in the ATM Machine? Shit, I forgot my UPC Code for the RAM Memory I just ordered over the WAN Network! Anyone know if you can get an ADSL Line in the sticks yet, or do we still need to keep our 56K modems on the POTS Service?

    1. Re:Enter the Grammar Nazi by Ithika · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Watch out. Grammar nazis have been known to get the HIV Virus.

  112. law is one thing, obeying is another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great - just like with any crime, when there is a law no problem. Just like because drugs are illegal, there's no drugs. Also there's no prostitution, murders, rapes corruption or other crimes because there is laws against them.

    I guess not the last EU country that will impose this kind of a law. It'll just quicken P2P networks to shift into encryption (which in the name of sanity, would have been implemented in the first place, just pull the hunks over https, and ISP cannot filter it out without filtering also like using commercial banks. Also bittorrent would really need distributed librarian (p2p queries like in gnutella), so centralized place to list torrents would have no need)

  113. Something new to see here by dwandy · · Score: 1
    From TFA:
    But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading
    Since as a business you want to minimise risk, the easy road is to simply block all identifiable P2P traffic. There is no way for the router/traffic-shaper to know if the bits are copyright by someone who might sue, so it's easier to block as much as possible. And since (unlike the user) the ISP can face criminal charges, there's one hell of an incentive to cut off as much 'suspect' traffic as possible.
    So if I try use BT to download (cc) material from http://www.jamendo.com/en/ it would be blocked by the ISP...

    In all other countries that I'm aware of (and that by no means is a definitive list!) the service provider has some kind of "safe harbour" provision.

    --
    If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
  114. stupid laws based on ignorance by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    When I see laws like this put into place, I really wonder if the legal system in any country is capable of making educated decisions. What do they do, just spin a fucking bottle and throw darts to put these things into law? Does anyone making these laws realize the internet is more than bitorrent and the RIAA? This could, in effect, cover any kind of data transmission where two peers are involved. This is going to include messenging, irc, any kind of gaming, ftp, and what about email? That's basically a peer-to-peer data transfer. Nobody will be able to use the internet without breaking the law - except the crooks running the country.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  115. Re:What about Windows Update by Ithika · · Score: 1

    I think the parent meant that peer-to-peer is also client-server, which it is. If peerA requests something from peerB, then peerA=client, peerB=server. They can then swap roles later on, if peerB needs to request data from peerA.

  116. Compensation for copyright owners? by Nurgled · · Score: 1

    I have several copyrights! Where do I sign up?

  117. Another one bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another free distribution channel closed.

    Another facet of free speech gone in another country.

  118. That's not an accurate analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The correct form would be "People I shoot? *I* didn't do anything, *they* decided to get shot. By me. Which is silly, as it should be. I have no idea why you were modded insightful.

  119. They've banned the bulk of Spainish ISP traffic by Morgaine · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    "Spain's telco giant Telefonica reports 90% of usage on its broadband lines is Internet traffic, up from 15% five years ago. Of that 90%, a massive 71% is P2P traffic."

    So this hilarious move has made the vast bulk of Spain's Internet traffic illegal.

    If anyone ever needed proof that politicians are utter morons, this was it.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  120. Did they recreate SPANISH INQUISITION too ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    They never had a reputation of being modern, up-to-date and ahead of their time anyway.

    1. Re:Did they recreate SPANISH INQUISITION too ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Yea. And would that be so that the inqusition later turned on christians and most of their 'convictions' were for christians for crapola reasons too ?

  121. INSANE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before the us/europe do the same?? crazy/.

  122. laws and laws +enforcement by Danathar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although I expect laws to be passed to ban this or that (P2P, etc), and it's easy to buy off the politicians with $$$ for re-election or in other countries just plain bribing I don't see much enforcement (except for selective large perpetrators). Why? It costs $$$ to enforce.

    Governments pass laws all the time and then don't put for the effort to REALLY enforce them (immigration in the U.S. for example). I expect anything to do with file-sharing to be the same.

    Take the RIAA and the MPAA. How many people are downloading movies and music vs how many people they are actually prosecuting? Percentage wise of the violators we are talking VERY little. It's all about LOOKING like you are doing something, not actually enforcing or getting rid of the problem. Software piracy is the same way.

    We passed the point LONG ago in world where the government can break into your house rifle your things and find something to throw you in jail with.....copied tape? where is the master CD? Can't find it...Ooooo..that's 5 years and 20,000 dollars. That rifle in your basement, is it registered? No? Antique? Doesnt matter..off to jail you go. Speeding? What's that? It's stupid that the speed limit is 25 mph and everybody else is going 50? Tell that to the judge, I'm throwing you in jail for reckless driving.

    No government official is going to enforce a law that hurts his/her voters or campaign contributors. If many of them are at home downloading MP3's they will turn a blind eye, But you can bet if it HELPS them in any way they will enforce.

  123. FUD, FUD and more FUD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What TCMnet states is just false.

    The funny thing is it just states the same most spanish papers.

    In Spain there is a legal term called "Private copy"

    The private copy was created after law makers realize that make illegal a common act as copying a vinyl disc or tape from a friend to a tape for your listening pleasure was not possible. To compensate the industry, they created a kind of tax (called "canon for compensation of private copy") on blank media.

    The definition of "Private copy" is "a copy made from a legal copy for personal use. This copy cannot be used on public, nor get profit from it."

    Another funny thing is that the word says "legal copy". Not original. Not bought on a shop. So a private copy is a legal copy, so you can copy it as well.

    So, a download of a song, movie, etc is legal.

    In the other side, uploading is a bit more tricky... It's illegal to make a copy public to everyone. For example, having mp3 on a web site is illegal. But, for now, P2P is considered an "exchange among friends", and it's considered private copy (for now).

    TCMnet says: "Now Spaniards caught grabbing content from, say, eMule, will have to reimburse rights holders for losses --- although such losses will be difficult for authorities to track."

    Yes. It's true. We are paying the cannon since analogic tapes, and we still doing it with CD and DVD blank media. The funny thing is that we do it even if we use the media to burn a copy of Debian, a backup of the hard disk or whatever personal use. And there's no way to get the money back.

    TCMnet also write: "Spanish police closed 17 illegal Web sites in a nationwide raid April 8."
    In fact, the police acted because considered that the sites were getting profit from publicity on them. What the news doesn't say that most of the sites are running again.

    As I said FUD, FUD and more FUD.

  124. Worse in Norway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is kinda offtopic, but here in Norway it is getting worse. We already a filter/firewall that blocks underage/children pornographic sites, which is a good thing in my opinion. But the problem is that they are now proposing to extend this filter to block simple sites like for example forums discussing illegal things like for example illegal drugs, sites showing regular porno, gambling sites because gambling is now to be made completly illegal here.

    Norway is not so free afterall.. :(

  125. TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    since the link provided forces us to wait for a redirected page to load. Here is the complete text of the article:

    [June 27, 2006]

    Spain outlaws P2P filesharing

    (Daily Variety Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)
    MADRID

    A Spanish intellectual property law has finally banned unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing in Spain, making it a civil offense even to download content for personal use.

    The legislation, approved by Congress on Thursday, toughens previous provisions. An early May circular from Spain's fiscal general del estado, or chief prosecutor, allowed downloads for purely personal use.

    Now Spaniards caught grabbing content from, say, eMule, will have to reimburse rights holders for losses --- although such losses will be difficult for authorities to track.

    But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.

    The law also introduces a small tax to be levied on all blank media --- from a blank CD to mobile phones and even a memory stick. Computer hard disks and ADSL lines have been left out of the legislation despite their widespread use for illegally copying music and films. The money collected will be paid back to the owner of the copyright.

    Click here to learn more about e911 and its impact on VoIP
    Click Here to Learn How You Can Profit from IP Communications. Live, in Person at INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference & EXPO West 2006 in San Diego.
    See Live Demos of Today's Most Useful Enterprise and Service Provider IP Solutions at the World's Only IP Communications Demo Event. August 8-10 in Santa Clara.
    Get Your IMS Education from The Expert Team at INTERNET TELEPHONY Magazine and TMCnet. This Fall in San Diego at IMS Expo.

    Spain's greater antipiracy clarity received a thumbs-up from the Motion Picture Assn.

    "Compared to some European countries, Spain has some way to go in enforcement," said Duncan Hudson, the MPA's Brussels-based VP and director of operations for antipiracy, even though Spanish police closed 17 illegal Web sites in a nationwide raid April 8.

    "But the new intellectual property law is a definite step forward, placing obligations for instance on ISPs to provide information. Hopefully, it will help us to get some injunctions," he added.

    Spain's telco giant Telefonica reports 90% of usage on its broadband lines is Internet traffic, up from 15% five years ago. Of that 90%, a massive 71% is P2P traffic.

  126. Spanish Elite/Rich = White Collar Crooks by cannuck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The Spanish Elite/Rich/White Collar Crooks make their P2P laws laughable. Let me explain. I was holidaying in Spain a couple of years. I was staying in a tiny town of Torremolenos in the South of Spain. Permanent population is about 30,000 people. When I arrived at the hotel that my idiot travel agents had packaged for "me" - I found that the this hotel had 2 other hotels being built beside it - both within 20 ft. - complete with jack hammers, constant concrete trucks, bulldozers etc.

    But as I walked around this tiny town I began to notice the gigantic construction cranes. At first I noticed them because unlike Canada - the operators stay on the ground and operate the crane with a remote control (in Canada the operator sits several hundred feet above ground at the top of the crane. Yes ever now and then - the crane collpaes and kills the operator.)

    Then I started to notice the number of cranes. After a couple of days there - I roughly figured out that there were at least 300 cranes (coming from a construction family I notice things like this :) - for building 300 condo complexes. Some of these condos were/are humungus. In one case - it was three times the length of a football field and about two football fields wide by 20 stories high - big - very big! NAturally all this construction had to run into a couple of hundred billion. The amount of construction in Torremolenos had to be five to six times the amount of Big Box construction compared to Toronto.

    While I was having lunch at a neat restaurant on the ocean - with a view of both the town and the ocean (naturally owned by the mayor of the town - the only restaurant for a mile of beach). One could see a panorama of the entire town as it stretched up the moutain side - all 300 projects. I asked the waiter why 300 condos were being built in the middle of nowhere. He laughed and replied "Matress Money"! He went on to explain that with the Euro coming into force - all of the old Spanish currency (multi billions) that the rich Spanish elite had stashed away - being hid from the tax man - had to be converted to Euros. And one could not walk into a bank and deposit 2 or 3 million Spanish "dollars" - and escape being noticed. Generally a deposit of $10,000 or more in any bank in the world triggers an investigation by police.

    Solution? - use a series of hundreds of construction companies and their thousands of subcontractors and suppliers to bank the "Matress Money" - to then build condos! The waiter told me to wait for the weekend - when all the Spanish Elite come to Torremolenos and Marabella come to see how their matress money is doing. Sure enough the following weekend the came by the thousands. In one club about 30 came in a once - I would guess that the average women had about 4 or 5 thousand dollars of clothing and jewellery on. The next town over Marbella (with another 300 condos going up)- had THE bar there for the rich of the rich elite - the drinks started a 30 dollars to keep the riff -raff out.

    So much for "getting those nasty people" for using P2P - it's all smoke and mirrors to keep the masses focused on P2P - rather than on the real crooks! Good news though - recently the mayor and other puppets of the elite were charged for taking hundreds of millions in Matress Money Bribes - breaking laws. Will the Elite get charged?

    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www .euroresidentes.com/Blogs/2006/03/mayor-arrested-i n-anti-corruption-raid.html&e=14905&ei=7NajRI34Fou cigGv-N2ACw

  127. ISP Filtering - Affects VoIP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Could someone more knowledgable than I explain what ISP side P2P intereference would do to P2P based protocols like Skype?

    If Telefonica, not the most efficient or technologically progressive company in the world, were to implement a blanket throttling of P2P traffic, would that destroy my Skype connection? I ask as someone who has had to rely upon Skype telefony for a year now because Telfonica are a bunch of useless gibbons who can't get it together to arrange for my landline to be installed.

    A year.

    Seriously.

    Any insight?

  128. apllicability is more important.. by bezgin · · Score: 0

    I think that any law a state makes must be applicable. Ruling the use of P2P as a civil crime means (as long as I understood) that the law enforcers must sue every single person using P2P, without any neccessity of a complaint. Therefore it seems that the P2P usage is now in the same category as drug dealing and homicide. Well anybody with a pinch of sense can tell that this new law can't be afforded by any state: The cost of bringing any single person to the court is way too much. Probably this regulation will hang over the heads of the people and law enforcers will use at just at will. This will give the possibility to argue that the law is not apllied to everyone as equals, which is a basic virtue of any democratic country. The tax part is just a silly detail. We have the same kind of tax in Germany. As a rule of thumb, if any new law is somehow related with some taxing, even how absurd it may be, the law himself can be thrown away or denounced but the tax part will stay. :)

    --
    exit();
  129. SUMMARY IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG -- FIX IT NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    > Spanish Congress has made it a civil offense to download anything via p2p networks

    HEY! You left out the word "unauthorized" -- that omission makes your statement absolutely incorrect.

    FIX IT NOW.

    Don't leave an incorrect summary on-line for so long (over 6 hours by my calculation).

  130. I feel good by Tweekster · · Score: 1

    Someone finally has more draconian IP laws than the US.

    Sorry Spain, but maybe this will be repealed soon, and serve as an example of how insane things have gotten.

    --
    The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
  131. TFA was misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And TFB was outright wrong. They didn't outlaw P2P; samzenpus and Section_Ei8ht need to pay attention when reading (comprehension problem, guys?)

    They outlawed unauthorized downloading. From TFA (with pertenent parts highlighted for those with impaired reading comprehension) and yes, TFA was very poorly written so the submitter and editor may be excused:

    A Spanish intellectual property law has finally banned unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing in Spain, making it a civil offense even to download content for personal use.

    The legislation, approved by Congress on Thursday, toughens previous provisions. An early May circular from Spain's fiscal general del estado, or chief prosecutor, allowed ["unauthorized"] downloads for purely personal use.

    Those Linux distros, Star Wreck movies, Posamist songs, etc are still legal. eMule isn't outlawed; using it to download Metallica and MIB is.

    However, it seems all the world's mainstream media think all content comes from Hollywood, and all P2P is good for is breaking the law. Of course they would, the newspapers are owned by the same rich greaseless assfuckers who own the movie and recording studios.

    On a related note, I bought a new double CD the other day. Ten bucks, every penny which went to the band (I bought it from the bass player in a bar). Heard it first on P2P where it was placed by the band.
  132. bullfighting in France by Submarine · · Score: 1

    France outlaws all animal fighting, except in places with an uninterrupted tradition. Indeed, there are a few places in Southern France close to Spain with corridas.

  133. Well, thats it for gaming by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    Steam, Gunz, and most MMOs use p2p networks to distribute their massive updates.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  134. PWN3D by Senes · · Score: 1

    And I'd just like to say, thank you. Sorry, wasted all of my mod points on tiered internet. Can someone else five this guy?

  135. Mod Article Flaimbait by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 1

    The /. article summary is inflammitory in it's description. It could have been worded so much better instead of using sensationalist language to attract our attention; "unauthorized" P2P traffic is banned. How is this law any different from other copyright laws which go after copyright infringers? Let's take a look:

    1) it allows the government to go after ISPs for facilitating unauthorized P2P downloading by making this a criminal offence.
    2) it makes personal "unauthorized" P2P use a civil offence.
    3) the definition of "unauthorized" isn't explained in the /. sumary or the article.

    Since the devil is in the details, it would be interesting to know:
    A) *who* gets to define "unauthorized"
    B) *how* is the word "unauthorized" defined and
    C) How much of the P2P traffic in Spain is infringing on copyright as that counrty defines it (let alone "unauthorized")
    D) How will unauthorized traffic be distinguished from the "authorized" kind?

    Copyright infringenmt has been a crime for centuries. With the advent for P2P networks, mass infringement has become easy and convenient. Although I have no statistics on it myself, the article reports "Spain's telco giant Telefonica reports 90% of usage on its broadband lines is Internet traffic, up from 15% five years ago. Of that 90%, a massive 71% is P2P traffic." How much of that P2P traffic is infringing in nature? I suspect it's a lot. Something needs to be done to curb the infringing traffic (and I know this speaks nothing to the ridiculous copyright laws out there now).

    I worry this legislation will have a chilling effect on non-infringing P2P traffic and ISPs willingness to even allow it on their networks. What will spanish ISPs do about overseas P2P traffic that goes though their lines and may or may not be infringing in nature? If I was a spanish ISP owner I'd be looking at severly resticting P2P traffic of all types, if not banning it outright.

    This of course would do nothing to stop infringing P2P traffic (though it may morph into another form or disguise itself) or illegal file sharing. I just hate to see another technology suffer in copyright battles.

    --
    uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
  136. WTF cheat LEX system on SPAIN by codingh34v3n · · Score: 1

    I really want to know, how in hell and in such silly politicians minds, who get free linux distros and open source packages through P2P protocol will be a pirate ?
    using P2P is a crime?
    In that case all protocols will be only used by pirates?
    P2P is an open protocol, is it copyrighted ? i dont think..hell
    HTTP,FTP,IRC,SMTP,POP,IMAP,...outch..thats a lot of rules to be created! LOL
    Resuming..do we really can hope politicians to do a good job governing us!?
    what a joke..to say the least!
    and what a fucking country..and my country is very near! I only hope nobody else have the same stupid and without logic idea.. so we can still live our lives with a tiny freedom.
    http://www.codingheaven.net/

  137. SNL Ref by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    That's odd, according to the old SNL shows Generalisimo Francisco Franco died decades ago. I guess he is still alive and passing legislation.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  138. Reflects badly on Spanish government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just shows a the ignorance and stupidity of the legislators in Spain. I trully feel sorry for the poor fool who dreamt this nonsense up.
    Should we ban water because someone might drown a person?
    Should we ban tall buildings because someone might throw someone off?
    Should we ban cars because they might be used to hit someone?
    Should we ban knives and forks because they might be used to stab someone?
    The sheer stupidity of some people never fails to amaze (and often amuse) me. I very much doubt that this is enforceable in any meaningful way. It is certainly possible to identify probably p2p usage, since p2p does have a fairly unique traffic pattern (at least for home users), but if traffic is encrypted, I can't see how it can be proven to a court.
    For some amusement, courtesy of the stupid, search for speeches of GW Bush. I love the way Bush makes monkey faces, and misreads the meaningless phrases of doublespeak. He reminds me of something from BBC comedy from the 1970s.

  139. Fun with definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they're banning P2P file transfers... what the heck does that mean, anyway?

  140. Spain outlaws the internet... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    Spain outlaws the internet. Pictures at 10...

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  141. technically, P2P _can_ be banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It is technically feasible to block P2P apps from functioning properly at people's homes while still allowing _most_ other internet apps to continue.
    step 1. only allow tcp packets, or other state-based protocols (meaning, udp and icmp would become invalid protocols in Spain)
    step 2. require the ISP to enforce stateful tcp: keep state of SYN/FIN packets and firewall block unauthorized data packets not sent inside an initialized tcp tunnel (after SYN, before FIN between SRC:DEST addresses on port X). This is a no-brainer, 95% of routers already do this, and 100% of firewalls and NAT'ing routers already do this.
    step 3. restrict at most N simultaneous tcp tunnels per customer IP. Configure N so that it is a reasonable number of simultaneous socket_pairs for a home user. Perhaps 200 to accomodate roommates NAT'd behind a single IP.

    This will prevent _direct_ access to P2P networks without seriously dropping connections, in both directions. If the customer cannot accept new connections after 200, most peer clients would either ban them or prioritize them low. (LowID in eMule). If the customer cannot create new connections, many p2p app would cause problems. Some smart clients (eMule or Azureus) allow you to specify Max#Connections, but when it is a paltry number like 200, compounded with the problem that usually only 1% of the connected peers even transmit any data (and when they do transmit data, it's at 1KB/s), the customer will get horrible bandwidth on their P2P, so little that it makes infinitely more sense to rent a DVD than wait two months for it to download (and that's bandwidth, not just latency).

    There are, of course, ways to bypass such restrictions through tunnelling all IP traffic inside a single TCP sockpair. SOCKS5 would accomplish this - however, only outbound connections can be established. Peers will not be able to open connections with you. (If you did have a customized host that allowed such level of port forwarding, the 65535 ports will quickly run out if that socks5 host is NAT'ing 100 or more Spaniards -- and, if each Spaniard is fortunate enough to find his or her own dedicated socks5 server abroad, can we really still call them a "Spaniard"? At that point, with such resources abroad, they'd be much more of a 'global citizen' and hence any domestic law wouldn't properly constrain them). With socks5 and inability to port forward, the topology of the home-based IP will be radically different - no spaniard will be able to directly connect to a fellow spaniard unless within that 200 allocable connections.

    An alternate, but similar, solution would be to internationally segregate customer IPs from corporate IPs and prevent any more than 200 connections forming between any given customer IP and other customer IPs. The evolution into corporate apartheid over customers is saddening, but that's the strong trajectory we're on. Even my use of the word "customer" is dating this writing to post-1990. Curiously, is China all that bad, are they not just politically five to ten years ahead of where we are?

    1. Re:technically, P2P _can_ be banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      SSU. SSU introductions. Passive-active-passive peering. Double-ended passive-passive TCP sockets using a mutual introducer (so what if so few nodes can introduce; you only need one per hundred thousand or so). A distributed mixnet with partial restricted routes - a comparatively low number of peer connections to less restricted connections, to tunnel to a large number of peers using multiple hops. Hell, you get anonymity as a side dish to that. So does everyone else. Fuck it, make 'em full restricted routes. May as well add encrypted, protocol-masquerading steganographic transports to thwart application-layer traffic shaping.

      Stuff like this is already well in development. Not everything has to use a thousand inbound and outbound TCP connections like Bittorrent, there are many different approaches to this sort of thing. Not to mention there are a lot of tricks in TCP. Some threat models see the ISP as malicious. Free speech ultimately demands anonymity, and the ability to be able to punch through any effective barriers blocking the protocol that allows that.

      By the time they would successfully enforce such a thing, we would probably already have a fielded, very good way around it, and by then, it would be extraordinarily difficult - possibly computationally infeasible, given enough time and effort - to block, or perhaps even detect.

      And remember, comparatively very few peers are in Spain.

      You could just turn the upload of Spanish residential connections down to shit, like 32kbps or something, and allow only ACKs to bypass that limit. But there'd still be enough left over bandwidth from everywhere that *doesn't* legislate itself into the Internet Dark Ages to keep the stuff moving, and there are tricks on top of anything that has already been done, at that...

  142. They'll have to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll have to prise my p2p pr0n out of my cold, sticky, hairy palmed hands.

  143. How about WoW for example patches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current government in Spain is really bad, one of the worst in the EU actually. And what exactly does it mean "allow users to file-share"? I can share files sending out email sending http requests doing just about anything.

  144. the new internet by NotInTheBox · · Score: 1

    The old internet is almost dead. Because of the way the hardware is implemented control is centralized and concentrated at government agencies and big businesses. While the internet was designed to be decentralized this is not the way it was implemented in the current top-down form. The current internet is nearly dead, but that does not mater: Replacement is already on it's way.

    The Next Internet will work without centralised control. It will be dynamic and configuration will be automated. No government will be able to control it, regulate it, not even tap it. Information will travel freely.

    The future internet will be a global cloud of mesh networks. Who needs the current internet providers when we have a free mesh network of all the computers in the neighbourhood?

    The only question: Which government will make mesh networks illegal first? And could they succeed? Or will this cause a spread spectrum revolution?

    --
    What I cannot create, I do not understand
  145. spain sucks by Intangion · · Score: 1

    wow i am always complaining about how new US laws are taking us backwards in certain areas.. but apparently this isnt the only country where that is so..
    this outlaws sooo much fair use, World of Warcraft, Steam, and the CD's thing is also completely absurd..

    the perfect example is burning linux, or making copies of your own software/data, now your being penalized for these fair uses

    thank YOU spain for reminding me that there are indeed other countries that have far more retarded and uneducated laws than the united states ;)

  146. What definition of p2p can be used? by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming they don't intend to outlaw an ftp transfer from one machine to another. So what defines "p2p"? Would it be a transfer between two machines where the discovery of the source machine was achieved via any search mechanism that does not employ dns or google/yahoo/$PORTAL? Any search mechanism that uses a distributed database? A transfer from multiple source machines to (one or more) destination machines?

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  147. Not Telefónica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the Ministry of Industry and the telcos and electronics makers were against this legal change.

  148. Um, no.... by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

    Generaly, no, the nature of the internet is not P2P. The vast majority of the internet is client/server.
    Every IRC network, FTP site, Web site, Mail server, Gopher hole, YUM/YAST repository, etc is all client/server.
    Peer to Peer is based on a state of equality - peering. For the majority of protocols, you ask a main repository of the information for what you want and the repository provides it. Everything is routed through main servers which is an artifact of it's creation. As a DARPA and University construct, it was designed for redundency and to utalize the processing power of a limited number of mainframes. Even in '87, the serious programming & heavy lifting for scientific research at my school (SUNY Geneseo) was done on the mainframes. P2P is relatively new concept (even phone & finger routed through the mainframe from/to essentially dumb terminals). In fact beyond P2P file transfer, I can't think of anything that involves more than 2 terminals that doesn't rely on a central server to do the heavy lifting.

  149. Cue community WiFi networks in 3..2.. by beeblebrox · · Score: 1

    Like this one (Sorry, site is in Greek only), with thousands of nodes.

  150. Re:audio vs data CDs by gpw213 · · Score: 1
    Anyway, I've never recorded anything audio or data on anything but a data cd. Why would anyone get a special 'audio' one

    The audio blanks are needed for the stand-alone CD recorders, i.e. something you would hook into your stereo system like a cassette deck. The audio blanks have a special encoded track at the beginning, in a non-writable area, that these recorders look for. This is all part of some deal worked out years ago for the benefit of the recording industry. Even in the US, these blanks carry an extra surcharge that goes to "repay" the copyright holders. Apparently this deal was worked out before they realized the almost no one uses these devices.

    Personally, I know of only one person that actually has one of these. And I still don't understand why he bought it. It seems like you lose a lot of control using one of these, don't have much of any editting capability, and the blanks cost more. So why?

    --
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -- Winston Churchill
  151. The free and standard payment option. by twitter · · Score: 1

    I wish p2p would include some sort of payment system.

    P2P does have a built in payment option, you send money to the artist. No really, if you feel guilty about time and format shifting, just send the artist money. Write a check and put it in the mail if you can't make it to a show where you can fill the tip jar.

    Basically a Gnu_iTunes.

    The GPL'd iTunes is Amarok. It plays music. You don't need or want DRM and neither do the artists.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  152. Re:audio vs data CDs by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

    We have one of those portable recorders at work. I work in a theatre, and the sound guy uses them to record the performance, if the band wants it. Its a very straight forward thing.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  153. Principal of the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more using the internet then, eh?

  154. At the end... by JohnRichards119 · · Score: 1

    I live near Barcelona. There's a strange behaviour usually found around here. People seem to think that if you can steal something because the owner doesn't protect it, you are acting correctly. This harms IP industry a lot here. So: If, for instance, I leave home and forget to close the door, people will find normal that someone comes and takes the tv in the living room. With this kind of behaviour, let's imagine someone invents the universal key that open every single door. That would mean the caos! Solution: Make the doors illegal! (I know, I'm a genius!) The fact that nobody can enter home from now on is a collateral damage that has to be paid, but, you know, it's not easy to please everybody. That is more or less what is happening here as I see it. Who is really beneffiting this law? Let's see, the chinese mafia are the ones who sell pirated cd's on the street. Are they going to be punished by this law? Probably no. The content: They will have millions of ways of downloading the content. (ftp from other countries for example). The media: I don't imagine them going to the nearest computer shop and saying: Hey I want to buy 20000 dvd-r. They probably buy them directly from a distributor. And probably not a spanish one. In fact there's a cd-r factory around here that had to close for that exact reason. So the ones really hurting the media industry are not going to be punished. After this law, people will not be able to use eMule at home, they will have to pay more just to save the pics of their holidays on a cd-r and they will continue being able to buy the pirated movies on the street. So, following the doors example from above. People won't be able to enter home but the thieves will manage to use the window. That's were I am living. So if, for instance, Jorge W Bush is reading this and is sick of the terrorist attacks to their soldiers in Irak, consider moving your troups to Spain and make this a better country. You will be rewarded with paella and nice beaches. Ah! and people thinks twice before making a suicide attack.

  155. Man.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to like Spain.

  156. Fruitless? by hellmitre · · Score: 1

    How exactly, will they have enough jailspace for the millions of Spaniards filesharing? It'll be like the RIAA saying P2P music sharing in the States is totally eliminated. Which they did.

    --
    As I lay in bed at night, looking at the stars in the sky, I wonder where the hell my roof went.
  157. Wow... by accurrent · · Score: 1

    ...the attitude of the **AAs must be infectious.

  158. Re:A blind squirrel finds an acorn, news@11 ! by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    She promotes a way of life that no civilized society would touch with a ten foot pole.

    If she's such a genius then why wasn't she smart enough to harness people's inherent greed enough to make her dreams a reality?

    The Libertarians - you know, the guys waving their mod points in anger when I posted this - don't even come close to her as far as enshrining selfishness is concerned.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!