Slashdot Mirror
P2P and P2P Links Ruled Legal In Spain
Nieriko writes After three years of arduous litigation, Jesus Guerra Calderon, owner of both a small bar and the P2P link webpage 'elrincondejesus.com' has beaten the SGAE (something like the Spanish version of the RIAA). The historic ruling states not only the legality of link webpages, but also the legality of P2P file-sharing networks. Quoting the judge: 'P2P Networks as mere data transmision networks between individual internet users, do not breach any rights protected by the Intellectual Property Law.' Downloading a file (from a P2P network) for private use is perfectly legal as long as there is no lucrative or collective use of the downloaded copy."
I think my headline is a lot better.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It would be nice if something like this happened here in America. As it stands now, it seems like Comcast is going to get to mold the internet as they see fit.
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
Spain needs to be liberated from those evil pirates. And aren't they run by a socialist (read: Communist) government, anyways?
And if Obama won't do it, then he's just a weak socalist loving communist out to destroy the American way
Je ne parle pas francais.
I was going to write a long reply but realized I won't have time before my plane leaves for Spain.. see you guys!
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I think that a system built on this principal can work in theory, but it requires individuals to be responsible for their actions and probably a rewriting of copyright law. As far as I'm concerned the major corporate media can crash and burn.
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
I hardly think digital transmission of data destroys anything.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I think in Spain they realized just how much the corporate superstructure of the media industry contributes to civilized society: Nothing.
Art and entertainment have value. Paying suits huge amounts to "monetize" art is not only inefficient from the point of view of the economy as a whole (although it is lucrative to them) but undermines the art itself. These people actually end up eliminating the incentive for artists to practice art for art's sake, and replace it with a "make art that sells" incentive. The result is that we get art that does nothing more than appeals to populism, from artists who are only concerned with that agenda.
Exploration of niche areas of morality and challenging flaws in the social order are not serving to that agenda. Thus, we won't get art in the vein of James Joyce's writing, or Mozart's composition, or Shakespeare's plays. Instead, we get the trash that is modern music and cinema.
Thank you Spain, for moving to destroy the stranglehold that corporate interests have on the artistic output of society. Next on the agenda: kill all the fucking lawyers.
I hate printers.
In Hungary, downloading is legal, but uploading not. So, P2P is in a grey area. However, there is a levy on all recordable media, even on pendrives and memory cards. So, clueful hungarians buy their recordable media from Slovakia where there is no such levy.
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
Heres is a poorly idea of the spanish system: ..think the italian president, but seems a no-factor
- you are allowed to make copys of the music you own. Call it backups
- wen you buy a HD, a USB pendrive, a printer, a escaner, etc.. you pay something like a tax. It could be $3 for a $50 multimedia thingie. Its supposed that you are paying with this tax, the money lost by music creators for making this copy.
- totally unrelated, but you can also download music, is not illegal, yet. That can change, but don't get in love with it.
- the govern tell people with ads campaings that downloading music is illegal. and is not true. So some money of our taxes is directed to help a campaing to propagate the ideas of our local MAFIAA.
- the govern is in bed with the people that want to fight piracy. Mostly the POP music industry, and the movie industry... the movie industry is moslty pseudo-intelectual fagots that get money from the govern to make pseudo-intelectual movies no one want to watch other than some old people.
- there are some rich people that own some medias,
- the big ISP's fight any anti-p2p thing, but are of course salivating with the idea of destroying net neutrality. So are your friend now, but can change the idea on the future and backstab the users. Data retention and big fat routers and such stuff cost money, anyway
Is not a good system, since even Bar's have to pay for having a TV (a TV can be used to ear music)... everyone is getting screwed. But Is probably a better system than the USA one, where you commits something illegal, if you download stuff. And maybe slighty better than UK, where you have to pay for owning TV machines.
-Woof woof woof!
That really happened, but...
That's the law in Spain, up to now. It has always been. If you aren't profiting by copyright infringement (other than getting the copied thing, that is), then you are in the clear. In any case the current (left leaning) government has drafted a new law that makes illegal all that the SGAE wants to be illegal .Well, not all, they would like individual users to be punishable too, and the government said no thanks; and they wanted the webs to be closed without judicial intervention, and the government initially complied but then changed it to need judicial intervention, but with the new law judges should put them down, anyway). So from now on (I'm not sure about if it's fully operative now but should be soon) it should be fairly easy to put down a "links" site. At least when it's hosted in Spain.
Anyway the situation in Spain is, I think, not too bad. Individual users are protected if they just download things for themselves or others, or even if they make a thousand photocopies of a book and give them away, as long as they get no profit from it. But that will surely change in the future too. When two groups fight for something, and one (the SGAE) has a clear financial objective, and the other (the file sharers) a vague convenience one, the first group will in the end prevail, against all reason, logic or fairness.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
It's called social rebellion, coming from an anarchist extra lobe in spaniards' hearts. They fuck you, you fuck them. Once equilibrium is restored, we can go back and reopen discussion with media, to plan what the future should be like. At the moment we have to be pirates (soft pirates, we don't go around with a knife in the mouth assaulting SGAE yelling "for Tutatis") in order to compensate for revolutionary tax that they have imposed on CDs and other materials.
By the way, I don't see any real discussion of future plans on how the arts business should be managed in an ideal society. Example: have you ever heard anyone talking about a science-like management of artists? they would receive fellowships/short-term-contracts and fight for resources just like scientists do. Only the good ones survive this sieve, and end up having a merit-based stable job. People now will come with the argument that art cannot be judged on absolute values....bullshit. Talk to real understanders of arts and they will tell that good art can be distinguished from bad art.
As demonstrated by Nine Inch Nails with their "Ghosts I-IV" album, giving away music for free can result in significant financial gain.
Look at it this way: in most music shops there's a section where you can listen to a CD before you buy it (at least here in Estonia). I can listen to an album without paying for it and then decide whether I want to buy it or not. It's the same thing with downloading music - I download it, give it a listen and if I deem it to be good enough, I'll buy it. I buy 4-5 albums a year this way. Of course, this comes down to my being responsible enough to actually buy the albums I like. That's not something you can write into law, though (since I can decide that I don't like a particular album). How is my behavior destroying copyright? Would strict enforcement of copyright (not allowing me to listen before buying) increase or decrease the number of albums I buy?
Overall, I see the ruling as accepting the current public opinion. If a government has a priori knowledge that most people under a certain age download music and movies via P2P networks, would it make sense to start prosecuting as many of them as possible, hoping that the public opinion regarding P2P will change? Sure, if you beat a man enough, you can make him say there are five lights instead of four - but would that work on a large scale? I mean, there has to be something terribly wrong if a large part of population (I'd love to cite some statistics here but couldn't find anything recent) is considered to actively participate in criminal/illegal activities. The people want their horseless carriages and no matter how hard you try to outlaw them (for example, by requiring the drivers to disassemble those carriages whenever seeing horses down the road), the public has already made up their mind about it.
Just because the courts have ruled that it's not illegal under current law, that doesn't prevent the labels lobbying/buying up politicians until there are enough to pass a new, more stringent law.
In the meantime it will be a useful experiment, if music sales in Spain don't suddenly drop off a huge cliff then this could be a strong message of support to people worldwide who have been saying downloading != actual loss for a long time (having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if the labels played it dirty, slashing marketing spend and raising prices to give the opposite result and an excuse for exactly those strict laws).
Strangely, a "try-before-you-buy" system might be the only niche where DRM could be effective. If I could have an album via a free, or at most nominal (a few pence per download) price for a couple of weeks to decide if I like it, after that the album disappears and I buy the non-DRM version, or not depending on my opinion of the trial.
Of course this terrifies labels because they can't rely on their old fashioned model of having two songs out of 8 worth listening to and hyping the hell out of them in order to sell the album, which is why we're unlikely to ever see it despite it being pretty much a no brainer in terms of the right fit of technology and marketing.
I wish you were right, but check Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You'll find that copyright, or at least something that offers that same basic principles is in fact a fundamental right. Where copyright does stray is in things like transfer of ownership- that's not covered as a fundamental right.
Now, I really have to agree I'm not sure this is something that should sit alongside things like the right to privacy, the right to fair trial and so forth, but unfortunately, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is currently written, it does.
The real debate is in determining how far above and beyond the basic rights granted by the declaration go if at all. I would say that right now, copyright strays well too far above and beyond those rights granted in the declaration.
Downloading a file (from a P2P network) for private use is perfectly legal as long as there is no lucrative or collective use of the downloaded copy.
So this pretty much destroys copyright in Spain, right?
No it doesn't. It just makes (or keeps) file-sharing legal.
wohoo, the search for intraterrestrial intelligence is over =)
It's pretty hard to have sympathy with Artists who despise the common people and spend their careers intentionally making art that excludes them.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Just to point out some cultural differences...
Say more that this judge ruled that FOR THIS CASE, P2P is legal. We use the Roman Law (Natural law you say?), so, a judge ruling do not creates jurisdiction. Tomorrow other judge can rule the opposite and be perfectly Okay.
Laws are interpreted, but not changed by a trial result.
This ambiguity will remain until the senate raises a law saying "P2P is legal for non lucrative uses".
I like lawyers. Can we kill the corporate overlords running the industry instead?
~ C.
Do you really think it is the corrupting power of dollar signs in their eyes that prevents them from taking even a little bit of time away from frantically making as much trash as they can and make some genuine masterpieces? Does it occur to you that this is completely ridiculous?
How is this ridiculous at all? Society continuously beats into our head that money is equal to success, and success is the only thing worth striving for in life. What kind of musician wouldn't want to be famous, rich, and have a huge following of fans? The kinds that are greedy and want all of this badly ARE the ones that rise to the top. They are shoddy musicians next to some of the deep underground ones, and they are so popular BECAUSE of their drive for money.
even though the artists themselves will end up being worse off, not to mention that most people will be deprived of the 'trash' that they actually like?
Britney Spears, Snoop Dogg, and Miley Cyrus wont be obscenely rich. Cry me a river. Meanwhile, bands that care more about artistic integrity might find themselves with more fans, or maybe not, either way, I'm sure they don't mind (being one of them myself). And when it all collapses people will just sell their iPods and everything because there is no longer any music out there that they would like, which is incredibly far from the truth.
and the great era of plenty
Quality over quantity. That's all I have to say. Who cares about the sheer amount of it when it is completely bereft of quality?
You are now manually breathing.
Well, it isn't exactly as good as it sounds. First of all, private copy is quite old. I think it comes when all people recorded tapes to his friends. Legislators thought that it would be easier to provide a legal way of doing this, than turn half of the citizens into criminals. So, copy of copyrighted products is legal in Spain (and many other countries as France) provided two conditions: don't make money with it, and don't publish it. In exchange, a canon was applied: for every tape bought, copyright holders would receive a little compensation. What judges say with this sentence is first, that p2p is a way of private copy, as it works peer to peer, and second, publishing links to a work, is not publishing the work. But the panorama isn't good at all in Spain. The author organizations still try to criminalize the copy, and lobby aggressively for it. Government is quite near this position, and last legal reforms hardens things a little. Also, government tried to legalize a way of closing websites without judges intervention (so a sentence like this one cannot prevent the closure). In mass media, this powers spread continually the message that copying and downloading is immoral and illegal (which is not true), comparable to terrorism or person traffic. US government is also making high pressure to make countries adopt a stronger copyright police. And no one wants to say no to Obama.
because when ACTA is rammed down everybody's throat... they'll have anti-porn filtering riding on the back of it... and by law, ISPs will have to block sites deemed to be distributing extreme and/or kiddie porn... what's the bets Pirate bay and other popular sites and their trackers get included on the filters then...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Are you suggesting basic rights are something that exists independently of social acceptance?
Yes. That's kind of the whole point of modern theory regarding these matters. Under your system, the Chinese government has the right to censor information and arrest and execute random people, the Iranian government has the right to brutally put down protests and every other evil regime would be justified because that's just how things work over there.
Do you really think laws define morality? Every day I hear people casually talking about the latest movie they pirated and joking about what trouble they would be in if the government found out how much they lied on their customs forms. And nobody reports on people who do this. If you went around talking about how you steal chocolate bars, you would be shunned from society pretty quickly. There is a massive disconnect between what is legal and what is right, and sometimes breaking the law is the only right thing to do.
This brings me to my whole point: these papers are descriptive, not prescriptive. They try, but often fail, to keep up even with what the socially acceptable view on morality is. Having sex with minors isn't wrong because the law says so, the law says so because it's wrong.
"Under your system, the Chinese government has the right to censor information and arrest and execute random people, the Iranian government has the right to brutally put down protests and every other evil regime would be justified because that's just how things work over there."
Absolutely, that's exactly it. If you only look at a localised section of the world- that is, in China, if you ignore all external views and treaties, you do not have the rights you do elsewhere. If however you do not focus purely on China, and instead look at China in the context of the world view, then because there is a stronger view that people in China have those rights, then they can be recognised as rights- again, rights can only exist when there is enough agreement to recognise and enforce them, or at least, for there to be the will and acceptance to recognise and enforce them.
You seem to finally get it in your last sentence.
This is exactly what I said- laws do not define morality, they formally define what has previously been generally agreed as to what is moral. This is precisely the case with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- it does not define in itself what fundamental rights people should have, it cannot, because that is subjective. It defines the generally accepted world view on what those fundamental rights should be to the extent that enough people are willing to recognise them as, and support them as rights.