Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spanish Judges Liken File Sharing To Lending Books

Posted by kdawson on from the publishers-don't-like-that-either dept.

Dan Fuhry writes "A three-judge panel in the Provincial Court of Madrid has closed a case that has been running since 2005, ruling that the accused are not guilty of any copyright infringement on the grounds that their BitTorrent tracker did not distribute any copyrighted material, and they did not generate any profit from their site: '[t]he judges noted that all this takes places between many users all at once without any of them receiving any financial reward.' This implies that the judges are sympathetic to file sharers. The ruling essentially says that file sharing is the digital equivalent of lending or sharing books or other media. Maybe it's time for all them rowdy pirates to move to Spain."

7 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Re:But, but, but,,, by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's no worse an analogy than calling copying 'theft.'

  2. Space analogy by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real problem with the file-sharing phenomenon is that it *has no* accurate analogy. Nothing like this has ever been possible in history, and until it wasn't even imaginable by most people until it had already begun. The first-world legal system, relying so heavily on comparison and precedent, is woefully unequipped to deal with events that do not fit into an existing paradigm. That's why judgments range from "100 biiiiiilion dollars" to "Nothing to see here, move along". Hell, capitalism isn't even prepared to deal with something like this. Asking a market analyst what happens when the cost of production reaches zero and is available everywhere is like asking a physicist what happens inside a black hole - neither one has the foggiest fucking idea. All they know is that the conventional rules of the last 200 years don't apply, and that anything going in will never come out.

    Brave new world indeed.

    1. Re:Space analogy by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is pretty much the problem, yes. There is nothing like information. Nothing else can be reproduced and distributed at will without (or with insignificant) cost. And until we invent matter-energy transformation (and we got access to a cheap energy source, else that's gonna be tough) no tangible good will ever be comparable.

      The problem is also that our economy system is based on the idea of supply and demand. And when supply reaches infinite, which it does if reproduction is free, demand can not even remotely match and hence the price plummets. Which in turn means that, since the original creation of the information was not free, the original creator cannot recover his cost and, following the law of capitalism, hence would have to stop creating.

      And maybe that's eventually what has to happen. That the creation of easily reproducable art (I use that word loosly here) has to become a non profit activity, where you could only generate profit by selling things that are not in limitless supply, like concerts (you can't clone the singer and have him appear everywhere at once), authentic autographs (photocopies don't count, people that want something like this want the real deal) and the like.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Space analogy by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many good artists actually have to work for their money. They run from gig to gig and play for their audience. The problem are the ones that once created something and want to milk it for the rest of their life.

      It's like a bricklayer expecting to be paid annually for every house he ever built.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:But, but, but,,, by jnnnnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, America is trying to strengthen copyright law so that it can make more money.

    Multimedia is one of America's biggest exports. It is economically obvious (at least in the short term) that those who look after the country should strengthen copyright law.

    It's up to other countries to flip the bird or extract economically equivalent concessions in return.

    IANA (I am not American.)

  4. Re:But, but, but,,, by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure. Calling it robbery. As they do in German, there it's a "Raubkopie" ("robbery copy").

    You know what a "robbery copy" really is? When I go to Best Buy and force the store clerk at gunpoint to copy a CD for me. Then you may call it that.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:But, but, but,,, by testadicazzo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Let me clarify:

    First: Primarily my argument disputes the copryight oligarchist argument that copy==theft, and intends to use an existing institution (libraries) which are well respected, to obviate the emotional association the oligarchists are attempting to establish with their copy==theft propaganda campaign.

    Second: who says the impact of a local library on sales is negative (I'm assuming that you mean a reduction in sales of x%). This is a completely unwarranted assumption. I'm an avid library user, but my library use does not have a negative effect on my purchasing of media. Quite the opposite in fact. On the other hand, it does allow people access to more culture and information and culture than they could otherwise afford. This enriches us all. Oh hey, look, the same arguments apply to file sharing (I'm an avid file sharer, but it doesn't affect the amount I spend on media at all .

    Third: While libraries and copying might negatively impact sales, the amount of "harm" done by their existence has to take into account the totality of their effects. They increase our net cultural and intelectual wealth, by providing information and culture to people regardless of how much they can afford them. They provide new mechanisms for the propagation of culture and information, freeing us from the necessity of oligarchal, profit motivated distribution firms. They provide small artists, intelectuals and creators a much more level playing field, allowing ideas and culture which are less marketable, less acceptable to the oligarchists (who act as defacto, dollar oriented censors). This gives us a richer, more vibrant culture. It also allows unestablished creators more access to revenue. These benefits have to be weighed against the "harm" of reduced sales and profit for the big mass media creators and publishers.

    If copyright weakens, shortens, declines, or disappears entirely, incentives for creation won't disappear, they will simply change. I personally believe they will change for the better, but trying to justify that belief would be a long discussion, and full of conjecture. The above statements are however firmly grounded in objective, testable fact.