Slashdot Mirror
Downloading Copyrighted Material Legal In Spain
Sqwuzzy notes a judge's ruling in Spain that makes that country one of the most lenient in the world as respects sharing copyrighted material over P2P networks. "The entertainment industries in Spain must be progressively tearing their hair out in recent months as they experience setback after setback. ... After Spain virtually ruled out imposing a '3-strikes' regime for illicit file-sharers, the entertainment industries said they would target 200 BitTorrent sites instead. Now a judge has decided that sharing between users for no profit via P2P doesn't breach copyright laws and sites should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise." This ruling occurred in a pre-trial hearing; the case will still go to trial.
I heard the same thing about Sweden... then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.
I'm pretty sure if I go to microsoft.com or any other website the content over there is copyrighted, but yet it's legal for me to download it. I can even download software they provide free of charge, and they are copyrighted, but it's still 100% legal.
Just why would anyone think downloading something that has a copyright on it would be illegal?
I want you to say:
Lack of gain
in Spain
Drives RIAA mainly
INSANE!!
fifty times. You'll get much further with the Lord if you learn not to offend His ears. ;)
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
Given that the ruling seems to violate several international agreements on copyright, I wonder how long it will last.
I also don't get the common sense aspect of it. If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business? Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying. DRM plus a million. Because they would have to.
If you justify copyright infringment based on "information wants to be free", then expect people to try their damnedest to change what their information wants to be.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Depends on the jurisdiction. Also, the copyright on some material has expired.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
There is a thing called fair use. In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy. In return it is legal to download music and movies for personal uses. I can imagine Spain also has this ruling.
At least that's what is said at least in Catalonia. In Spain, Justice is not reliable at all. It is collapsed and it's not independent from political forces. Therefore, the term "Spanish Justice" is an oxymoron, a contradictio in termini.
Wow, never thought I'd see common sense creep into any courtroom when it came to copyright. Doubt it will last.
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
Big Content has always had to deal with the cost-of-doing-business, just like every other industry. Sharing a video tape, a book, a CD or whatever else it has to produce, does take away from their business (though there is discussion that sharing leads to future purchases in the same way giving out free food at the grocery is an advertising expense).
From a business perspective, I am absolutely certain it has become cheaper to produce their content to CD over Tape (or DVD over VHS), and even more cheaply as a digital download. Content, just like insurance/financial services, is one that should could thrive if it embraced the newer, cheaper methods of production/sales/distribution than trying to do things the old way.
I'm glad that the court is identifying that internet-based sharing is no different in essense, than sneakernet sharing which is always something the companies have had to deal with and has always been a cost-of-doing-business. The fact that it is "online" is ultimately irrelevant, and even if greater sharing drives down sales (which is debatable), online/digital distribution should also lower costs which if done properly, should allow them to remain profitable. Business is about adaption. No business has a fundamental right to exist. Suing your customers and taking rights they either explicitly had, or felt they had is no way to keep those customers, in which sharing and distribution become irrelevant.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Downloading material is not copyright infringement. Distributing copyrighted material (uploading) is. No one should be punished for downloading unless it can be proven that it was their intent to distribute the material to others. Unfortunately, the P2P protocols are built around the premise that everything you download is automatically shared with other people. Plus, the RIAA goes to great lengths to attempt to confuse people about the difference between downloading and uploading.
Let's put it this way -- if receiving on unauthorized copy of copyrighted material was actionable, then I could just copyright something, arrange to have someone else email it to everyone in the world, then start suing everybody who didn't delete the email!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
no profit
copyright laws were created so that some other guy with a printing press or vinyl press wouldn't make and sell copies of a book or recording all on his own without regard to the creator
it never was intended, and never had anything to do with, the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREE
simply because such a person would be insane: all that expense for nothing. to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world, which was the whole point in copyright: keep the profit with the creators
but the issue of effortless file sharing is a fundamental change in how media works, and has more to do with traditional publishers coming to grips with a new reality. IANAL, but i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copies, that those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose. which is a fundamentally true argument: the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before, so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in play
such an approach would draw a nice line between the old media world and the new media world as defined by the new economic laws the internet forces onto the world, welcome or not
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's only 3 countries that haven't signed on to the Berne Convention (Iran, Myanmar, and another one I can't remember), and Spain isn't one of them.
Now, you are correct about the expiry of some copyrights, but let's be honest, the overwhelming percentage of works being shared by P2P and torrent sites are still under copyright.
Now I can have legally approved sex with a 13 year old AND listen to my downloaded Counting Crows album at the same time... *take a holiday in spain, leave my wings behind me*
I am sure you are joking but just an fyi - if you happen to be coming from the US - going to another country with the intent of doing something that would be considered illegal in the US (e.g. sex w/13 y/o) you would be convicted of doing that crime upon your arrival (assuming they 1) knew of your intent and 2) prove that you did it).
/. so step 1 is out of the way :)
Well you made a post on
BTW there was, about 6 months ago, a trial where a guy sent e-mails to his friend talking about going to south america to get underage prostitutes. He did this. When he came back the cops arrested him. Not sure how they knew he actually did the deed (I don't remember) but they used his e-mails to show his intent. He is in jail.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Well... the original intent of copyright was as applied to "commercial copying"... his reading of the law is 100% valid.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy
And this makes sense? I buy all my music and use CD/DVD for data copying. So I'd have to subsidize someone who doesn't feel he has to buy music/movies? What a joke.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
There's only 3 countries that haven't signed on to the Berne Convention (Iran, Myanmar, and another one I can't remember)
The one you can't remember is Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kiribati, Kuwait, Laos, The Maldives, Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, The Seychelles, Sierra Leone, The Solomon Islands, Somalia, Taiwan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda and Vanautu.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
That's not "fair use," if you have to pay a tax to do it. Fair use is by definition non-infringing use of copyrighted material. As such, copyright holders should receive no compensation for it.
We have a similar tax on blank media here in Canada, and people use a similar line of media industry propaganda to justify it, but the notion is just plain wrong. Fair use is non-infringing activity, and citizens should fight to ensure the concept is not eroded by groups who would like to see it done away with.
I don't care why you're posting AC
I agree, it doesn't makes sense at all. This is what good lobbying can do for an industrie. Most of the dvd's and cd's I buy I happen to fill with the music I make with my band... Even weirder it gets when you take into account that I am effectivily paying myself that way but despite numerous letters I still have to recieve my part of the fair-use money.
Yes, we do. We also pay to SGAE (the spanish RIAA) when you buy a DVD recorder mp3 player, a mobile phone or a hard disk. 6 months ago I bought a 500 GB hard disk, and 13.92 of it went to SGAE.
Obviously, after paying that I demand the right to pirate all what I want.
No recoup of expenses, either. This is a money driven world, not some socialist utopia where your needs are taken care of.
Sure it did. It grants control over redistribution to the creator. It paid no mind as to whether it was going to be charged for or not, or who distributed it.
No. No, no, no. The -purpose- was to give people who created works an incentive to release them by allowing them a means of turning their work into collateral. Instead of having to sit idle until someone came along and paid them, they could take the initiative and produce works of their own accord, and (if they didn't suck) not starve in the process. They could do like any other tradesman and focus entirely on their chosen field and leverage it to live.
Unless you'd like to think that you could spend a day doing manual labor and still have the energy to write software, make music, or create films. Sure you could, but it probably wouldn't be as good or in anywhere near the quantity.
Except it's not limited like that at all. If it were, it'd be pointless, which it definitely is not.
No it's not. It's simply a super efficient distribution channel. The physical channels would be just as efficient if copyright weren't in effect at all. What people -should- do is leverage that efficient distribution and communication to create new works and license them under terms they agree with, instead of jacking the works of others.
I'd buy into the argument that the internet and P2P were truly revolutionary if -new- works and more fairly licensed works were giving the RIAA and MPAA a run for their money. But they aren't. All they're doing is giving the MPAA and RIAA a run for their money by trading works owned by the RIAA and MPAA. Thus they prove the RIAA and MPAA's point.
So I was off by a few :)
(it's worth noting that more than a few of those are either failed states, dysfunctional states, or in weird political situations (taiwan))
The list of signatories is extensive, however.
since you said Intellectual Property, what about stretching your claim to patents: if person X patents an item, and person Y makes the item for free and gives it away, is he in violation of the patent even though he isn't selling it? what if Y does it to flood the market and put person X out of business, because his other product lines can support the cost? I thought that IP law protects X in that regard. Perhaps the same or something similar could be said for copyright.
As far as I know, downloading always was legal.
What was illegal, was uploading, when you did not have a license to do so.
The reason downloading is not illegal, is the same reason it is not illegal to buy stuff from somebody, when later, you read in the paper that the guy you bought it from had obtained it illegally. (Note that I'm avoiding the word "stolen" here, because stealing implies that the original owner does not have it anymore.)
The person that in these cases gets prosecuted, is the seller. You just show the cops your contract, with the address of the seller on it, and you're good. Of course you have to give the object back to the person it got stolen for. But you can sue the seller for the money.
At least in Germany.
I know this, because it happened to a friend of mine.
Of course, because the **AA do not care about any authors or rights, and their objective is not to protect anyone, but to make money trough mafia-like tactics, they do not care, and spread FUD all over the media, about downloading being illegal etc. Which the media picks up happily, bundling it into a nice sensationalist news.
So what changed exactly? Did the **AA equivalent of Spain run out of money? Because that would finally be nice news. :)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
It doesn't make sense, but it was the media companies who pushed for the levies in the first place.
Once they realized that everyone said "ok, screw you, I'm downloading since I've already paid you" they wanted to have their cake and eat it too -- they want the levy and for downloading to be illegal.
I'm betting that a couple of courts have sided with only dinging people once (and supported the notion of fair use) and said if there's a levy, the download is legit.
Since I know I pay the levy here in Canada, I wouldn't feel so bad about copying music if I was so inclined.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The law in Spain is that any non-profit copying of material is OK. All the judge has done is make it clear to the RIAA that P2P involves no exchange of money so therefore it's legal under Spanish law.
(IANAL but I live in Spain...)
No sig today...
How will other countries "follow suit"?
No new laws have been created, all the judge did was spell out Spanish law to the RIAA, ie. that non-profit copying isn't illegal here and never has been.
No sig today...
Perhaps he didn't know that the Canadian provinces are in a separate country?
I am sure you are joking but just an fyi - if you happen to be coming from the US - going to another country with the intent of doing something that would be considered illegal in the US (e.g. sex w/13 y/o) you would be convicted of doing that crime upon your arrival (assuming they 1) knew of your intent and 2) prove that you did it).
That does not appear to be correct. The anti sex tourism law is 18 USC 2423. It prohibits going to foreign countries for illicit sex. It defines illicit sex as that which would violate 18 USC 2241 if it had occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the US, or any commercial sex act with anyone under 18.
So, going to Spain to use a young prostitute is right out. But if you are going to Spain in the hopes of non-commercial sex with a 13 year old, then 18 USC 2241 is what you need to watch out for.
18 USC 2241 gives us these rules. Under 12 is right out. 12 through 15 is out if the person is more than 4 years younger than you and you used force or threat, they were unconscious, or you got them drugged or drunk either by force or threat, or without their knowledge.
As far as I can see from these statutes, it would NOT violate US law to have a consensual, non-paid, sexual relationship with a 13 year old Spanish person.
That's trumped by the "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" rule.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That is limited to music and films, under the right of private copy, in the same sense that you can share your CDs with your friends -as far as you don't make profit from it-.
You cannot download privative software legally from P2P or whatever (note that you cannot share that software with your friends either).
Not a layer, but a Spanish guy as well.
The law in Spain is that any non-profit copying of material is OK. All the judge has done is make it clear to the RIAA that P2P involves no exchange of money so therefore it's legal under Spanish law.
The same is true for the Netherlands, although Brein pretends it's otherwise. So here you can download copyrighted content for private use. Another thing that's legal is to make a copy of a cd or dvd for a friend or relative. As long as you don't ask money for it, and don't do this in batches (like 30 cds for the complete classroom) you won't have any problems.
I looked up the text of that law and I'll take a stab at parsing it (however, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.)
(omitting the punishments and also omitting the bulk of sections (a) and (b) since those apply to individuals of any age and I'm mostly focusing on their role in the proper interpretation of (c), i.e. "the circumstances described")
US CODE: Title 18,2241
A couple of things I'm noticing, if I'm reading it correctly.
– "Knowingly"... if you're unaware that you're doing it, it appears that you can't be charged.
– however, if you knew you did it, it's criminal whether or not you were aware the other person was under 12 years old
– 12-15 is illegal if you are more than 4 years older AND you used force, threat, rendered them unconscious, or administered by force, threat, or deception an intoxicating substance which impaired their ability to make the decision of giving consent
So, it appears that if someone between the ages of 12 and 15 were still conscious, engaging in a sexual act with them would be legal as long as you didn't force, threaten, or deceive them into their intoxicated state. Assuming they willingly intoxicated themselves, (c) would not apply to you as long as they weren't unconscious at the time.
Also, I'm not sure what's meant by the clause about maritime and territorial jurisdiction and whether or not it is supposed to apply to the part in (c) about persons between the ages of 12 and 15...
As I said before, IANAL. If anyone finds an error in my interpretation of this feel free to correct me.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I am totally fed up with the terms commonly used in media, here in Spain, where they usually intentionally mix "Internet downloads" with piracy, when they want to refer to P2P networks, that are the real ones that are supposedly causing troubles to Entertainment Industry. Most Internet users do not distinguish between a website or FTP download from a download from a P2P network, but judges and lawyers do.
When you upload a file to an FTP server you are violating copyright laws, since you are using the right to distribute copyrighted content. When you share the same file on a P2P network, from the legal point of view, you are using your right to private copy of copyrighted content. Here in Spain we do still have the right to private copy, so when I buy a CD I can copy it for personal use. I have the right to lend my original copy of the CD to a friend, but private copy rights allows me to lend not the original but also the copied CD to a friend. And what can be shocking is that private copy law in Spain does not restrict users to a fixed number of copies for personal use. So, from the juridical point of view, sharing your CD songs on Bittorrent network is no different from lending your CD copies to friends.
Having reached this poing technology has evolved much more than laws. So copyrighted content sharing is no longer related to lend some CDs to some friends or relatives, but to the whole world. Spanish RIAA (SGAE) is struggling to press politicians so they "adapt" the private copy law or even make it disappear. I think they are taking the steps, though the things go slower that in other near countries. They have not managed to limit private copy law but they have succedeed in broadening the range of the "Canon compensatorio", that could be translated as compensatory fee. This is a tax that has been around since tape times, and used to add a percentage to the price of blank tapes or photocopiers among others (books, as copyrighted content, were also protected by this law). Nowodays SGAE has managed to extent this compensatory fee to not only blank media supports (DVDs, CDs, etc.) but also flash cards, mobile phones, hard disks, computers, mp3/4 players, etc. They even managed to ask for a fee on the Internet connection, though I think they have succedeed in it yet. It has been reported that the average Spanish family pays now over 300 euros a year with the current compensatory fee, that is entirley redistributed between Entertainment companies and artists (though the say they share it between artists) by SGAE itself, which is an obscure and privately led organization. 300 euros a year pro family is much more than what an averege Spanish family spent on copyrighted content a few 10 years ago (when copying means where not so effective).
Having said all this I would thank that at least I no longer have to put up with the ads at movie theaters or on TV calling me a thief for legally sharingmy copyrighted content, when I am just using a right, for which I have literally paid a significant amount of money. And not only that, but also taking into account that this money goes to an obscure and mafioso association (not even a company, that must keep its balance clearer), whose role in society is quite a bit less than beneficial.
To be clear, the SGAE is not "The Spanish RIAA." The RIAA is a trade group representing record labels. The SGAE represents music composers, lyricists, and publishers. They are the Spanish equivalent of ASCAP and BMI.
In the eyes of many Slashdotters, this is a meaningless difference -- both groups are interested in protecting the rights of the folks behind the stuff that we feel should be freely (as in beer AND freedom) available and thus are the "bad guys." But if you're of the "artists good, record labels bad" mindset, then organizations like SGAE, ASCAP and BMI should wear white hats.
Why? Because membership in these organizations allows artists to make money completely independently of the record labels. The revenue streams that these groups protect just might be key to ditching the concept of record labels altogether, a notion which I believe most Slashdotters support.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
and then sell those drives all over the world.
. . . which would immediately break the not-for-profit stipulation . . .
Armed forces are treated under a different set of rules in many circumstances, as you should know. For example you can drink, on a military base, at the age of 18...step off the military base and if you are drinking (and under age 21) you are breaking the law.
For the other folks who asked about "well what is considered under age, since each state is different". Honestly I don't know what the federal rules are...maybe it goes by the state in which you reside, maybe it goes by some federal limit - I don't ahve the answer - just relating an article.
For those worried about the proprieter of said services (be it drugs, prostitutes, etc) - don't worry the US can't and won't prosecute them. They are selling a product in their country and have to deal with their country laws. Only US citizens/companies have to worry about the US laws.
For those that mentioned college kids going to canada - yes they can be prosecuted for it, but prosecution has to prove there was intent to do so. Considering the offense is DUI (for those under 21 in the US, DUI is automatically given even if you are nowhere near a car) the prosection does not need to prove intent - they just say "we caught these kids in the US with alcohol in their blood." At that point nobody cares if they got their alcohol in canada (they would care if it is in the US since it's illegal to sell alcohol to minors in the US.
BTW the 21 Age limit is set by the state but every single state in the US has that 21 limit because the federal gov't gives bonus money to states which keep the age at 21 and older. So a state that keeps the age at 21 y/o+ gets federal money and makes organizations like MADD, DADD, and SADD happy. They piss off those under 21, but for the most part people under 21 don't vote, so it's a win-win for politicians.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity