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.
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.
After they make P2P illegal they then tax one of its possible end-products? Isn't this like simultaneously outlawing heroin and taxing syringes?
"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.
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Wow, this is Socialism? If I were a Spaniard who'd voted in the current regime, I'd be feeling pretty betrayed right now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
I've already moderated here, but as I feel this really deserves a reply, sayonara mod points.
/. 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.
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
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"
... 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...
But flash drives are rewritable! Surely a tax on "blank" ones can be circumvented by filling them with pointless free content before sale?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great idea! Linux distributors should register as copyright holders so they can get their cut of the media taxes!
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
(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.