Slashdot Mirror
Spain To Clamp Down On File Sharers
pbahra writes "A bill that would allow Spain's authorities to close down illegal websites with limited judicial oversight has caused anger among the country's Internet users. The law, known as Sinde's bill (after the current culture minister Ángeles González-Sinde) is designed to close the loophole that sharing sites such as Roja Directa have exploited. If you go to the website today, you will find a pithy warning against Internet piracy, courtesy of the US authorities. The US has exerted considerable pressure on Spain over what it sees as Madrid's failure to tackle Internet piracy. A banner with the seals of the US Department of Justice, plus two other bureaucracies, informs Internet users that the Spanish domain name, formerly a hub of illegal sports content, has been seized in accordance with US copyright law. But if you do a search, it takes very little to realize that Roja Directa is alive and kicking."
My RSS reader is showing the comment box, for me to type something in. This is bizarre.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
[The Inquisition exits]
Chapman: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!
(...)the Spanish domain name, formerly a hub of illegal sports content (...)
Is a Spanish-focused site, and in Spain, file sharing is not proved in court to be illegal (some argue that it is, some that don't, but certainly no judge has pronounced the word "guilty" to a file sharer). But the summary is even more wrong. Quoting Roja Directa's blog:
Not only does Rojadirecta not transmit the aforementioned content, but it does not directly transmit any other type of audio or video content. Rojadirecta is simply an index of sporting events available on the Internet and not a provider of audio and video content.
Don't know about the US, but this is certainly not illegal in Spain. That's why the government has introduced Sinde's bill. Sinde's bill allows a civil commission (yes, bypassing courts!) to seize websites that link to content. I wonder if they will try to shut down Google or Bing.
Would the monarchy/empire icon be more fitting than the Jolly Roger, as most of the civilized world does not (yet) share the US' views on so-called intellectual property and copyright?
so many people hate the USofA.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
A new spanish inquisition! what a show!
I find humurous that a country has to "attack" other country to force this one country to change laws, and other similar stuff, to shutdown a website that seems to host TV from soccer games.. you know, what VHS was invented for. Oh, terrible!, some spanish people is saving a boring soccer game and sharing it on the internets!.. TERRIBLE!.
-Woof woof woof!
I wonder how legal this can be?!
- ICANN is a corporation and thus open to be sued by Spanish government... even if acting on behalf of US government.
- The US government doesn't have jurisdiction in Spain (for the servers) and the domain name doesn't pose an infringement.
- There's no legal process.
- ".com" is not ".us" thus open to challenge in international law.
- If you people take your "product" to US they are importing it , sounds like the US suing Cuba for their citizens buying there cigars and taking them to US soil...
... the bill would allow to close LEGAL websites. The Sinde's bill does not change what is legal or illegal (that would require modifications to the Intellectual Property law, which the bill does not include), and with the current laws what those websites do is legal, as evidenced by about a dozen cases in which judges ruled that there was no crime, versus zero cases in which the ruling was the opposite. Also the bill most likely goes against the Spanish Constitution, as it allows to close websites without a judge overseeing the process (whereas the Constitution mandates that a judge orders any interruption of a publication, such as closing a website, forbiding the distribution of a printed publication or the transmission of a radio or TV program, etc.): the judge is only asked whether closing the website affects freedom of speech, nothing more. Furthermore, the judge is explicitly forbidden from examining if there's a justification for closing the website (i.e. if there's anything illegal going on).
Except those activities are legal according to Spanish law. Read this comment, my ill-informed friend: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2209976&cid=36332594
"A bill that would allow Spain's authorities to close down illegal websites with limited judicial oversight... a pithy warning against Internet piracy, courtesy of the US authorities... A banner with the seals of the US Department of Justice, plus two other bureaucracies... in accordance with US copyright law..."
Read the linked comment. Read the Spanish IP law. Learn about concepts such as "private copy", and "blank media levy" and what they entail according to Spanish laws. Then, when you know what you're talking about, come back and we can start having a meaningful discussion on the topic.
I read the comment. Of course, you'll excuse me for not blindly accepting the legal conclusions of a hinted-at-but-not-actually-made-anywhere argument, courtesy of the /. brain trust, and instead concluding that the Spanish government knows what it is doing and will sort out any legal/constitutional challenges – on their actual merits – if the bill passes.
In the meantime, if you actually wish to have a "meaningful discussion" on this legal topic, you might start by actually stating an actual legal argument, rather than merely hinting that you have one and that it is unambiguously correct.
Best.
LT
You would think Spain would be concerned with more pressing matters right now...like their 20% unemployment rate, the tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets, and the likely collapse of their financial system.
No one is telling you to blindly accept anything. But at least make the effort to become slightly less ill-informed (actually, I want to say "ignorant", but you may take offense if I do). For starters, start by learning that the bill already passed, which it shouldn't have as it violates the Constitution. Also realize that legal/constitutional challenges can't be sorted out AFTER the bill passes, because the bill would be illegal until they're sorted out. And while you're at it, take into account that sorting out constitutional challenges requires modifying the Constitution, which according to the Spanish laws requires the government to dissolve, have elections, and then the newly elected government must proceed with a referendum to decide if the Constitution is actually modified.
As for starting an actual legal argument (which I partially have, or maybe you thought that me referring to what the Spanish laws say and what the judges have ruled was just a load of BS? Surely it can't be that I am -prepare to be surprised- both Spanish and knowledgeable about this particular topic, as are the many lawyers that have stated the same things I have?), frankly I see no reason to do so until you can prove that you know what you're talking about, which so far you've failed to do. As I said, read the Spanish IP law, learn about "private copy" and "blank media levy" and what they entail, learn about what the judges have ruled so far in related cases, and then I'll gladly start that legal argument. Otherwise, it's like Einstein trying to argue about physics with me (that meaning that I barely know the basics when it comes to that field, never went further than high-school level physics).
If you were half the Spanish IP lawyer you claim to be, you could have given a useful synopsis of your legal argument in half the page space you just plastered with sarcasm. And if you were the most intelligent Spanish IP Superlawyer in the world, and I were the biggest idiot able to breathe and walk upright, the Einstein analogy would still be pretty silly and overwrought.
I also can't be bothered to do the research that would prove your point, or even reveal your basic position. This, as I'm sure you're aware, is customary.
Offhand, I'm assuming a "blank media levy" is a surtax on blank media that goes to pay IP owners to offset the damages they will predictably suffer when the blank media are used for infringement. Offhand, I'm also assuming that a "private copy" is a lawfully owned and lawfully created backup copy. Am I wrong on these details? Will all this come together into an argument that, e.g., Roja Directa is a legal service used largely (or perhaps exclusively) for legal purposes? Or perhaps some kind of useful explanation of how or why this law supposedly violates the Spanish constitution?
I can only wonder and wait, since the arguments are apparently too powerful to be seen or heard by others.
Seriously the US and its Corporations are removing peoples rights left and right. Except for weapons and 300mil consumer what the hell does the IS have to offer the world anymore? There's a billion consumers in China and India more then plenty do supply the world with cash flow. Lets develop the third world countries and be done with the US.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
"Spain’s creative industries generate about €62 billion in annual added value for Spain’s €1 trillion economy. They also employ 1.2 million, in a country with five million unemployed, just over 21% of the working-age population."
If they would like to foster their creative industries they would limit the copyright, if not abandon it altogether. Where all the neo-liberals that we all known and love for free market, free trade, liberalization of the markets etc. if it comes to copyright law?
In the only instance where market liberalization should be really done (in the "I.P." market) they push for more government protection, but in every other market where it doesn't make sense and it harms the economy (labor market, financial market) they all push for less government intervention. Such hypocrite assholes.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Your reading comprehension is even worse than your understanding of the topic, apparently. Where exactly did I claim to be a lawyer, oh wise one?
As for the synopsis: article 31.2 of the Spanish Intellectual Property law. That "synopsed" enough for ya, bro? But yeah, you're right, this is Slashdot, where nobody gives a rat's tail if someone makes factually wrong statements and people never bother to check if what they say is right, which leads to things like this conversation between you and me, which could have been avoided if you didn't insist on talking about things that you know nothing about.
Also, your second assumption is wrong indeed. A "private copy" is not necessarily a backup, since the maker of the copy is not required to be the owner of the source of the copy (i.e I can make a copy of stuff I don't own). That doesn't mean that I can't make copies of stuff I own, I can and it's also considered a private copy. Note that the concept of "private copy" does not apply to software, though: in the case of software, you MUST be the owner of the source of the copy, and you don't have to pay the levy (theoretically, in practice you pay it even when the law explicitly states that you shouldn't; in fact, this has prompted a decision by the European Court that mandates that Spain changes the current levy system to one in which those that don't have to pay according to the law are not forced to pay).
Regarding Roja Directa... They merely tell you where someone else is streaming a certain content. How is that illegal (under Spanish laws, don't try to be smart by referencing laws that exclusively apply elsewhere).
Finally, about the violation of the Constitution... I thought you had read the comment I linked to earlier? It's already sufficiently explained in it.
So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about, aren't a lawyer, and are so sure your position is crap that you're afraid to even state what it is? That being the case, it's understandable that you've now emitted pages of blustery rhetoric without so much as making a single point that may be discussed or debated.
Again, pardon me if I side with the Spanish gov't on its own laws and constitution over some fucking twit on Slashdot who simply demands to be regarded as right but can't be bothered to explain WHY (or what, exactly, he's arguing) and doesn't actually have the credentials or ability to make that argument in the first place.
Government attempts at censorship only make those sites more popular in accordance with the Streisand Effect. I suggest using the MafiaaFire Redirector Addon for Firefox. Since the US Government starting seizing domains I've found some excellent torrents sites I never before knew existed. Roja Directa is still up. You can access it here http://www.rojadirecta.es I for one am thankful my government is clueless as to how the Internet works.
Police chief says downloading content from eMule is no problem
http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_13688.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk7j_Pe1itg 2:48 - 3:12 (Spanish)
‘You can download whatever you want from eMule. Just DON'T SELL IT.’
--Jorge Martín, Head of the Security Group of the Judicial Police Technology Investigation Brigade (BIT)
Downloads have always been legal in Spain as long as you don't do it for profit (e.g. Selling downloaded bootleg copies of X-Men on the street = NO. Downloading and sharing (for free) X-Men = YES). Pro-Copyright groups, such as SGAE and PROMUSICAE, keep spinning as fast as they can that downloads are illegal/alegal in Spain, which is a blatant lie. Not true. False. And they know it. Time after time judges have acquitted file-sharers & file-sharing sites webmasters. Hell, the judges even understood how torrent links work. Double hell! Spain's chief attorney issued a memo to all courts warning them that file-sharing links and P2P are absolutely legal in Spain. SGAE suffered such appalling, brutal defeats in the courts (some of the judges' comments are specially harsh on them) that they had to change strategy: lobby to get the law changed. That was just what the US wanted too! So all aboard the lobby boat! And that's just what has happened, as the relevant Wikileaks papers show: US Embassy lobbied to get the law changed. And that's, my friends, why in Spain they are going to put up with the "Sinde Act". Because downloads were (are still) LEGAL and the only way around that was to make new laws.
TL;DR: FACT: Donwloads in Spain are LEGAL (so far). Pro-Copyright SPIN 1: Downloads in Span are A-legal. Pro-Copyright SPIN 2: Downloads in Spain are I-llegal but there are loopholes. Pro-Copyright SPIN 3: Downloads in Spain are I-llegal but police won't enforce the law because they consider them petty offenses/Spain is lawless/... FACT: Both domestic pro-Copyright groups and US Gov. lobbied to get the laws changed since they couldn't win in court. FACT: Wikileaks papers show how the US Embassy lobbied to get the law changed and how easily and readily the local authorities bent.
There are tons of info on this topic, but mostly in Spanish. However, at Torrentfreak they have some posts on these issues.
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Really? There's no statute that's explicitly prohibiting you from breathing, but that doesn't mean your behaviour is lawful or even "legal". Stop breathing this instant, you leech on the nation's atmosphere, you!
"For starters, start by learning that the bill already passed, which it shouldn't have as it violates the Constitution."
Certainly, it shouldn't have been passed: it certainly seems to violate our Constitution. But "shouldn't" doesn't equate to "wouldn't". And, please, remember that the Constitutional Court can't work 'motu proprio': it has to be called by either a Congress group or by appealance after trial. Obviously the party in government and sponsor of Sinde's law wouldn't do, and the main oposition party, which regarding to IP laws shows by its facts being in the same boat, didn't do either.
"Also realize that legal/constitutional challenges can't be sorted out AFTER the bill passes"
Bullshit. In fact, a bill can't be challenged BEFORE it passes. The Constitutional judges can be asked for their opinion prior to a bill to be passed but CAN'T make an officiall claim till after it has been effectively approved, just like any other tribunal can't make a claim for a fact that still didn't happen.
"take into account that sorting out constitutional challenges requires modifying the Constitution"
What did you smoke? Sorting out constitutional challenges as sorting out challenges to anything else, requires changing ANY of the two parties in the challenge, in this case either the constitution... or the law, which in the last 35 years has been the preferred way (i.e: this law is declared inconstitutional: you either change or derogate the law).
"which according to the Spanish laws requires the government to dissolve, have elections, and then the newly elected government must proceed with a referendum to decide if the Constitution is actually modified."
Which is another stupidity that shows your absolute lack of knowledge of the Spanish legal system. What you need is a majority in Congress of two thirds, for most of the Constitution, or an absolute majority for some other parts of it (some argue there's a hole in the Constitution since the very article that states the two thirds majority is one of those that can be changed with "just" absolute majority). No government dissolution nor popular referendum needed.
"maybe you thought that me referring to what the Spanish laws say and what the judges have ruled was just a load of BS? "
Not only is blatant absolute bullshit but you didn't mentioned ANY judge rulement.
"as are the many lawyers that have stated the same things I have?"
Not single one that I know of.
"As I said, read the Spanish IP law, learn about "private copy" and "blank media levy" and what they entail"
They say basically that you can copy everything you want unless for profit or for public redistribution.
"learn about what the judges have ruled so far in related cases"
Basically that you can copy everything you want unless is for profit or for public redistribution and that the "blank media levy" is vastly abused (as high courts from at least Valencia, that I know of, have stated).
No, in other words, I know what I'm talking about despite not being a lawyer (since when does one need to be a lawyer to be knowledgeable about laws?), and have stated my position clearly, and explained why I'm right (but I'll explain it again for people like you that don't have half a functioning braincell: article 31.2 of the Spanish IP law, all court rulings so far, and the opinions of all lawyers that are not paid by the Spanish equivalent to the RIAA and MPAA say that I'm right). Also, if you're siding with the Spanish Government you are not siding with the Spanish Constitution, because THAT BILL VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, as previously explained (and in case you missed that too, it's because the Constitution mandates that a judge oversees all the process, whereas the bill forbids it).
So in short, it'd be in your best interest to stop trolling. The only thing you'll accomplish if you don't is showing slashdot readers how stupid people can be on the Internet.
Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
--
codk
I know that "shouldn't" is not the same as "wouldn't", thank you very much. In fact, I never said they're the same thing.
Now, if you knew how to read and think at the same time, you'd have realized that if there's a constitutional challenge and it is sorted out after the bill passes, that bill IS ILLEGAL until challenges are sorted out. Therefore, the Government responsible for passing it commited a crime in passing a law that goes against the Constitution. Either way, what I meant, as anyone with basic reading skills could tell you, is that such challenges should be shorted BEFORE the bill passes (i.e. the bill shouldn't pass until it does no longer violate the Constitution).
As for the requirements to modify the Constitution (the "modifying the Constitution vs. modifying the law" issue has been cleared in the previous paragraph, your lack of reading skills made you miss it but I was making the assumption that the Government won't want to change the anti-constitutional bill, 'cause as you said, if they wanted to change it they would have already called the Constitutional Court)... You clearly know nothing about it. Not all changes to the Constitution require a referendum, that's correct. But some do. I'll let you discover which ones. Tip: Read Article 168 of the Constitution and take into account that the bill violates Article 20.5, which is part of Title I, Chapter II, Section I. ;)
As for judge rulings... I've mentioned them. In the comment I linked to in my first reply to this branch. Are you even bothering to read stuff?
And finally, lawyers... I doubt that you don't know a single one that says that filesharing is legal (Bravo, de la Cueva, Almeida, etc. are pretty well nown), so I'll assume that you haven't understood what I was stating, as evidenced by the many errors I already adressed in the preceding paragraphs.
In short, you've done a magnificent job of proving that you are an ignorant twat. Next time, remember that it's better to shut up than to try to give lessons on a certain topic to people that clearly know more than you about it.
I had a long reply, but Slashdot ate it, so you get the abridged version now:
I've already pointed out which parts of the law prove that I'm right (article 31.2 of the IP law[1] for the legality of the activities of filesharing sites and sites that link to streams and article 20.5 of the Constitution[2] for Sinde's bill being against the Constitution; that last one I didn't mention in comments directed at you, though, so you're right at least on that, it's my fault for thinking that you have enough braincells to keep up with the other sub-branches of this conversation), and I trusted that you were intelligent enough to find and read them yourself. Clearly, you're not.
I've also already explained my position, but you seem unable to comprehend it. I'm not directly providing citations or research (although I'm telling you where to look if you want to find it, apparently to no avail since you seem to prefer being spoon-fed and want me to take your hand and guide your every step) because all of it is in Spanish, and I'm assuming you don't know the language (no, online translators and similar tools don't cut it for complex legal texts). If you do, or if you'll accept my own translations, I'll gladly provide such citations and research.
So, in short, just because you don't understand my arguments, can't debunk them, or can't be bothered to use a search engine after being told what to look for, it doesn't mean I'm wrong or haven't proved anything. The same applies to me "failing to stake a position", my position has been clearly stated, staked and explained, it's not my fault that you're unable to grasp it.
P.S: your claim that the bill wouldn't have passed if it violated the constitution is laughable, and proof that either you're the most naive person in this world, or you don't know anything about politics (specially Spanish politics) or what it takes for the Spanish Constitutional Court to make a ruling on something (both have been explained in the comment below this one, so if you really have no clue about it, it's only your fault for failing to read what other people say).
[1] Which states that, subject to the payment of a levy on blank media and other related devices, it is legal to make copies of already released works protected by the same IP law (with the exception of software), as long as the copies are for private use and no profit is made. Therefore, sites that merely tell you where you can find a source for making such copies (i.e. they merely host links, not the content) are legal, because they're not distributing content, but merely helping to locate it. If that was illegal, then Google would be illegal too. Now, it's certainly debatable if the actions of the actual people that upload the actual content are against the law, since it could theoretically be considered "unauthorized distribution", but that's unrelated to the legality of the activities of the sites that link to the content (or in some cases, to files that certain programs can use to access the content) or the legality of the actions of the people that obtain the content through the use of such sites and programs.
[2] Which states, among other things, that in order to seize a publication (a website, a magazine, a TV program, etc) a judge must issue an order, which normally requires that the judge decides that the publication is infringing the law. The bill, on the other hand, states, by means of a modification made to the law that regulates the procedure for Administrative Requests (i.e. requests made by the Government or by organisms related to it, such as a Comission of a Ministry) in order to obtain a judge's order, that in the specific cases that Sinde's bill deals with, the judge must merely issue a ruling regarding whether seizing the publication affects freedom of speech. This was done in order to bypass the judges, because so far they've ruled on about a dozen cases (namely, all cases in which it wasn't obvious from the start that the defendant wasn't violating the law and therefore weren't dismissed) that the activities of filesharing sites are legal.
You're fucktarded and have zero clue how the law operates. Each post reveals more evidence of that fact. Your painfully wrong and misguided views on the way the law works and the way you think it should work are both going to bring you great frustration when they consistently fail to reflect reality. If you want to continue this conversation, find one of those lawyers who is on your side and get them to explain your "position" and defend it. Their account/explanation will undoubtedly be free of the defects which reduce your own comments to the useless ramblings of someone who insists that others accept his conclusion without showing why it's correct. Otherwise I'm done rebutting this nonsense peppered with insults.
What your side MAY have, enthusiastic young idiot, is called a "colorable legal argument". ("Colorable" generally means "plausible" or "believeable".) However, your comments have not revealed one and the outlook does not appear especially favorable.
You have done nothing but insult me, say that I'm wrong, and fail to present any arguments to prove that I'm wrong. Furthermore, youu have ignored all my arguments, and answered none of the questions I asked in order to better present to you "research" and "citations" that further prove that I'm right, then proceeded to attack me for not presenting said "research" and "citations". I, on the other hand, have sufficiently explained my position, directed you to the specific laws (and articles from those laws, which I have even translated for you) that prove my point, and entertained your trolling for far too long. I think I'm the one who's done "rebutting this nonsense peppered with insults".
P.S: re-reading your previous comments, your assumption on the meaning of "blank media levy" was also incorrect, somehow amongst the gargantuan amounts of idiocy you spewed in that comment I missed that particular bit. Just FYI, its aim is not to compensate for losses due to infringing actions, because "private copying" is not infringement. Also, if it was created to compensate for infringement, it'd be illegal. It's against the law to allow illegal actions in exchange for imposing a tax. Infringement is prosecuted, proven, and compensated after a trial on court. Not allowed in exchange for indiscriminate payments that must be made regardless of whether the ones paying actually commit the infringement.
You're an idiot.
I hope this information helps you out a bit as you struggle through life.
Oh, I should also add that you should be concerned for your safety and freedoms; if your government is willing to do something that is so obviously unconstitutional that there isn't even an argument on the other side, it won't be long before tanks are rolling through the streets of Madrid and armed SWAT teams will be going door to door to check your "papers".
Oh, I should also add that you should be concerned for your safety and freedoms; if your government is willing to do something that is so obviously unconstitutional that there isn't even an argument on the other side, it won't be long before tanks are rolling through the streets of Madrid and armed SWAT teams will be going door to door to check your "papers".
Keep showing the world (well, the Slashdot readers, actually) how much of a cock-gargling retard you are. It's actually pretty funny.