P2P and P2P Links Ruled Legal In Spain 265
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."
MAFIAA Loses to Jesus (Score:5, Funny)
I think my headline is a lot better.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, for a racist AC troll, his comment was pretty funny.
I'm jewish (by race, not by religion) so it's OK for me to say this. ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now, you see? There's a good way to do racism and there's a bad way to do racism. You have to have more imagination! Think of something witty! Show how intelligent and thoughtful a kid in his mummy's basement, pretending to be an ignorant hick, can be!
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it. If, for whatever reason, you happen to be against a certain group, and that group is defined by race (which, for our purposes, includes religion), unless you have an even lower opinion of your own race, then you believe your race to be superior to the other race. That's the definition of racism. It doesn't matter how much yo
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like an olden times Saddam Hussein, you could say?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, books say a lot of things.
Sure, it's pretty much impossible to tell if Jesus even really existed, but people here also talk about Star Trek characters as if they're real - so what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
At first I read "headline" as "headache". I think my version is a lot better.
Re:MAFIAA Loses to Jesus (Score:5, Informative)
News just in.
Pirate bay gives up vagabond lifestyle to move to permanent home in Spain.
Just two relevant points:
First, it seems that one of the reasons why the court ruled in such a way is because the aforementioned web page does not have any kind of advertising (no profit):
el dueño de la página "no percibe cantidad alguna directa o indirectamente relacionada con el servicio que ofrece", que ni siquiera tiene publicidad, por lo que no hay ánimo de lucro, ni directo ni indirecto.
--
The owner of the page "does not perceive any quantity direct or indirect related with the service he is offering", he does not even has advertising, hence there is no absolutely n o profit, direct or indirect.
[Translation mine]
Thus it seems that it will be a prerequisite from other P2P web pages to avoid adding advertising if they want to come clean in the future.
Now, another snippet that got my attention was about the "pago del canon" or canon payment which is a "tax" that Spanish have to pay for each HDD or CD/DVD they buy which goes directly into the pockets of the RIAA:
3. Qué pasa con el pago del canon?
En la sentencia, el juez considera que estas copias, si son guardadas en un disco duro o en discos ópticos, "están gravados con el correspondiente canon o compensación equitativa del artículo 25 de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual", por lo que se estaría cumpliendo con el pago del canon.
--
3. what happens with the canon payment?
In the sentence, the judge considers that these copies [made by P2P], if they are saved in a hard disk or optic discs, "they are taxed with the corresponding 'canon' or compensation from article 25 of the IP Law", hence it would be complying with the canon payment.
[Translation mine]
In my opinion that is the first time the Judicial system has made sense. I know for example that In Canada people must pay a similar tax (please correct me if I am wrong). I want to applaud the guy for standing up for his rights.
Quotes Source: in spanish [expansion.com]
Mod parent Informative! (Score:2, Offtopic)
I never know what to do with my mod points, and now that I find a very informative and insightful post with a score of only 1 (at the time of writing), I don't have any!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the "Offtopic" mod does nothing but harm Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the part (from TFS) I don't understand:
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. [emphasis mine]
What's with this "collective" thing? So, everybody can download a copy, but if you get them together in a building and play it through speakers it's illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because you would essentially become a movie theater. I think all current (legal) DVD's have the warning that you can use it for private viewings but not for public viewing in movie theaters, churches, festivals, bars, ... because at that point you would have to pay a different set of royalties.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That translation got botched. Instead of "collective" use you should read "public" use, in the sense of public reproduction (i.e., DJing, ambient music, playing a DVD on a restaurant, etc...). Any jurisdiction which followed the french tradition of copyright law bases their copyright law on a couple of principles, which are:
Re: (Score:2)
First, it seems that one of the reasons why the court ruled in such a way is because the aforementioned web page does not have any kind of advertising (no profit)
That's easy enough to deal with. Instead of running the database of torrent files on a web page, which requires hosting and fees and ads to pay for it, distribute it through p2p.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I would like to see this happen here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think in Spain they realized just how much the corporate superstructure of the media industry contributes to civilized society: Nothing.
Nah, the reason is probably just the fact that the copyright legislation here in the Old World isn't as "progressive".as the one beyond the pond. Now that it turns out how much the digital revolution reshaped the costs of production and redistribution of creative works, some people are arriving at the conclusion that the old system isn't as bad as some might think. (And I wonder how much do draconian copyright laws and huge corporations help people who actually produce good music and reach for their audienc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like lawyers. Can we kill the corporate overlords running the industry instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Is this what you are saying: artists make trash these days because that way they can make money, so let's make it impossible for them to make any money at all and they will have to switch back to making real art purely for the sake of art (and starving)?
What is preventing those same artists (all the Joyces, Mozarts and Shakespeares who, according to you, are wasting their talents in a movie studio somewhere) from making real art now, of the kind that you approve of and vast majority of people dislike (hence
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Quality is a relative thing, and music is a highly subjective medium. Some like Mozart, others like Rachmaninoff, others like Dr. Dre. Just because some music is made for the purposes of making someone rich doesn't reduce its impact on someone out there to whom the music actually speaks, for whatever reason.
There is room for both quantity and "quality". In fact, there is a vast quantity of quality out there now. Just because they aren't household names doesn't mean they aren't successful and happy makin
Re: (Score:2)
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?
There are lots of good quality artists out there. I have more than a week worth of songs on my mp3 player all made by current bands that I love. (To be clear, I mean no repeated songs that play 24 hours x 60 minutes x 7 days non-stop.)
Some times the issue is not lack of something but an inability to find it. Most of the bands that I really love, I found out about because I have friends obsessed with music. They point out bands regularly. But without them, I would not have half the music I listen to on
Re: (Score:2)
Is this what you are saying: artists make trash these days because that way they can make money, so let's make it impossible for them to make any money at all and they will have to switch back to making real art purely for the sake of art (and starving)?
I sincerely hope for return of maecenas (or sponsors). Problem with actual model that artists do not own their art anymore: they stripped of everything (except of authorship) by labels.
What is preventing those same artists (all the Joyces, Mozarts and Shakespeares who, according to you, are wasting their talents in a movie studio somewhere) from making real art now, of the kind that you approve of and vast majority of people dislike (hence it doesn't sell)? 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?
**AA have established channels for content delivery and if you are an indie without a huge money bag for promotions, you can forget about getting onto the channels. And most consumers know only of the established content delivery channels and thus do not even suspect about all the things around them.
That's why Internet a
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"kill all the fucking lawyers"
Well that is pretty bitter. Reading between the lines you seem to be suggesting that Joyce, Mozart and Shakespeare did not try to sell their work. That somehow, the total lack of available avenues to convert their hard work into cash made them better artists. Well, all three did their best to sell their art - Joyce approached publishers (lots of them), Mozart did gigs at weddings and the like to raise cash and Shakespear sold tickets to the Globe. This peculiar idea that art is only art if it is free and pr
Re: (Score:2)
>Thus, we won't get art in the vein of James Joyce's writing,
Where do I sign up?
Re: (Score:2)
Because what kind of civilized society needs laws?
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Insightful)
I hardly think digital transmission of data destroys anything.
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so a piece of paper written by a bunch of people in suits tells me what everyone's basic rights are? Next thing you'll be telling me that laws define morality.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, that's a rather simplistic and ignorant comment, I'll try and explain it for you.
It's a document that outlines the fundamental rights that must be respected by governments and citizens of any nations which has given official recognition to the document, which I believe is in fact every member of the UN- so every country in the world bar Vatican City, Taiwan, and Kosovo.
It tells you what the officially accepted view of rights is, and the fundamental rights which you have in the eyes of international la
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the SP's point about laws and treaties not defining morality, one could argue that
means that in the extreme case of there being no copyrights or patents there would be no material interests to protect, so the Charter only means that the rights defined by law must be enforced.
Once could also claim that corporate copyrights don't count
Re: (Score:2)
But it has to be absolute, either you accept the agreement or you don't, because the clause for the right to recognition of work exists because a large portion of the world do actually agree to that term. If you think picking and choosing is acceptable, then why do you think you have anymore right to ignore that principle than the music industry has to ignore your right to privacy and fair trial? It tries to establish ground that everyone should agree, and can compromise on.
Again, whilst I'm not convinced 2
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, this is an easy trap to fall into. Information can be very powerful. This is, in fact, the main reason why we enshrine free speech, as a weapon against corruption. To say that the mere stream of bits, or the vibrations of air molecules could destroy a person, or even a large group of people, seems counter-intuitive, but it can happen, and it has happened before. So, in general, don't underestimate the the transmission of data! It's a good thi
Re: (Score:2)
oh wait a sec....
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. Let me post it again.
Okay? Got that? It will be at the end of the post too, so you won't forget! Now let's try reading this again:
If I had meant "every single circumstance", I would have said "every single circumstance".
I mean, exactly how dumb are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it may well be a simple problem of business model, but as they say, a problem is only a problem if you have a solution. Currently, we don't have a solution, or at least, not one that solves the problem without introducing a whole lot of new, more serious problems.
If Spain (or any other country) makes P2P sharing of copyrighted works legal, then that's copyright essentially gone. Commercial copying? Who cares? It's the free copying that's by far the most appealing, and the practice that kills the most
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fantasy. If this actually worked, and was actually beneficial to the artist, we would be seeing more artists operating this way by choice.
I mean, come on. Did you really think that you could just force artists to provide you with free services, without repercussions? The artists who would be happy doing this, chances are, they are already doing this. If you're so interested in the artists' welfare, why don't you let them make up their own mind, eh?
And besides, I don't see what's so great about concer
Re: (Score:2)
However, adding to the building body of arguments for it, will... not make it any less false, I admit, but hopefully it will make others less wrong after they read it.
Did I say that? No, wait, I believe what I said was that their so called fans are forcing them into an inferior business model, which would be true if the GP got his way. How do I know it's i
Re: (Score:2)
copyright holders (i'm talking RIAA here) on the other hand think they can do as they please and that we should facilitate their ever expanding list of demands.
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
So who are the "real understanders of art", whatever that means? I've seen plenty of "high art" that looks to me like utter dogshit and I've seen pictures made by homeless people that made me cry with the beauty they captured.
By the way, the problem with the "science/fellowship" form of management is you'll e
Re: (Score:2)
Talk to real understanders of arts and they will tell that good art can be distinguished from bad art.
Except that a lot of great art was panned when it first exhibited. And an incredible lot of high art is really without any value whatsoever. It's an Emperor's New Clothes phenomenon.
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious example [prisonplanet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking News: ...
P2P file sharing is also legal everywhere else as well
Using it to upload copyrighted material however .....
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 does not. If I can extrapolate from the Czech state of affairs, they have probably a clause that allows an individual to make a copy of a copyrighted material for the sole personal use, and it covers all cases of fair use (that is, what is considered fair use by the local legislation), for example taking notes in classrooms, excerpting from books, taping radio songs, downloading web contents etc. It's just that the fair use scope is considered broader. It certainly does not destroy the basic tenet th
Re: (Score:2)
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.
As long as you don't sell it, Music is free?
No. You have to pay to see live music, you have to pay to buy a CD, you have to pay to buy guaranteed quality music from iTunes. You just don't have to pay to share music you like with other people, ensuring it gets the widest possible audience.
Collective use (what ever the hell that is) is also ok.
Are you sure this is what you want?
Yes. This has (at least) the following positive benefits:
- Killing recording industry (not musician's) profits (I want to help [flickr.com])
- As a side effect of the point above, helping independent music get an equal footing with artists backed by the big four [wikipedia.org] (this could l
Time for regimechange (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wasn't the US tacitly involved in 'liberating' Spain from (democratically elected) socialists about 80 years ago as well?
Re:Time for regimechange (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sucks to be you guys, posting anon for fear of... what exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Adolf Hitler was not democratically elected. In the last election the NSDAP won only about 30% of the votes. But after the Reichtagsbrand he got something else: An "Ermächtigungsgesetz" (Law of Empowerment) that actually removed the need for him to be democratically elected.
Hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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 upload speed of Spanish Internet is so '90.
In Hungary, too (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Same in Austria.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Spain there's also a levy: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_por_copia_privada_(Espa%C3%B1a) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You watch TV for free and you listen to the radio for free. Think carefully about value for money. If your barber overcharges you change barbers. If the Rolling Stones album is a rip off, the copyright is owned by a monopoly - no one can compete.
Re: (Score:2)
You watch TV for free and you listen to the radio for free. Think carefully about value for money. If your barber overcharges you change barbers. If the Rolling Stones album is a rip off, the copyright is owned by a monopoly - no one can compete.
No - I pay a fee to the BBC. Commercial radio is paid for in kind by me donating my time to listen to corporate messages. It is not free. And are you saying the Rolling Stones and artists generally would be better off if they were not represented by a record company? The open source model of music has been tried and two things have been learnt... first, quality suffers and second small bands can't survive.
Re:In Hungary, too (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite simple, really. Some artists and corporations feel they should not be bound by that part of the copyright law stating that after a limited time the copyrights return to the public. This is motivated by limitless greed. The public response has been to renege on their end of the agreement, and copy freely. In other words, greed begets greed. Monkey see, monkey do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If copyright returned to the public after a designated period then everyone will be going around listening to free 60's music, modern musicians would not earn a penny and modern music would die.
Or maybe current musicians would just have to create something that's as good as the stuff from the 60's.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No that's a perfect example. 60's music is old crap that everyone is tired of hearing. If that was free, then new music would have to be better to attract dollars.
Instead, people are still paying for that 60's shit, indirectly, every time it's on the radio. And the radio just avoids playing new stuff, because it isn't very good.
I think you just nailed the issue of why obsolete media shouldn't be protected. Because it's obsolete. Everyone's heard it, and everyone has a copy already. There's no natural
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blatantly no true: think how many styles of music were not invented until after the 60s. All the fans of those types of music would still buy modern music. In fact, a short copyright period would encourage innovation, because only a really good band/composer would be able to produce new works in old styles with consistent success, since if it isn't as good as the old work people won't buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why don't people want to pay for what they use anymore?"
Do you pay the writer som money when you for example borrows a book from someone to read? Or what about when you listen to some music at someone elses house? Or when you sit in a chair doing so. Or do you want to use it without paying for it?
Re: (Score:2)
"I think i can speak for a lot of us here that we WOULD, in fact, like to reimburse the CREATOR for the content we download."
In other words - you would like to but you don't. You could just mail the artist some cash but it's too much trouble and, well, might not get there. It seems like a nice idea but... pfff... Personally, I am happy to pay £12 to see a film in the cinema, spend £12 on a DVD and also pick up some bargain DVDs for £3 knowing full well that some of what I pay gets to the artists involved and some goes to the company who made that product available to me. It is the same for pretty much every othe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You pay road tax? Do you pay road tax only for those roads you drive on? Similar system - and the best way artists have of surviving illegal downloaders reluctance to pay for what they use.
Except that setting up toll booths on every road would add a huge amount of overhead, and any kind of automated system would require tracking everybody's movement. Purchasing music, not so much.
Oh, noes! (Score:2)
Oh FFS! We are in a global war on terror, and those crazy Spaniards pull something like this? It is Thursday morning here in Europe, by Monday all of Spain's society will have collapsed and we will have another Iraq, right on our doorstep. Tuesday, tops.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh FFS! We are in a global war on terror, and those crazy Spaniards pull something like this? It is Thursday morning here in Europe, by Monday all of Spain's society will have collapsed and we will have another Iraq, right on our doorstep. Tuesday, tops.
On the plus side, we should make some excellent headway with reducing global warming [wikipedia.org].
Spanish system description (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the big ISP's fight any anti-p2p thing, but are of course salivating with the idea of destroying net neutrality.
The ISPs might publicly be on board with P2P because none of them wants to frighten away customers by being the first to say they want to kill P2P, but in reality their dream would be a world where the government outlaws this completely. People would still need the net for email, business, shopping, socialising, gaming, etc but these are all generally low bandwidth, high profit services for ISPs - it's a win-win for them, if a law gets passed they can play the good guys unwillingly complying with a draconia
Re: (Score:2)
The tax's on harddisk and stuff, is for the "lost sales" of backup copies from originals. Not from 'backup copies' from music downloaded from internet. Its a separate thing that you are allowed to make backup copies, and that you can download music. Maybe in the future the second option will be rendered illegal.
Reporting from Spain... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as the article itself puts it:
In the country, file-sharing is pretty much legal
That'd be along the lines of "if I kill someone he might only be 'slightly dead', so maybe I cant be punished ?"
It'd be so much easier to determine the meaning of the ruling, if the article at least would mention the prudent facts and legislation, as you have.
Re: (Score:2)
...and give them away, as long as they get no profit from it.
Are you sure about this? That is, the redistribution thing? I would find this peculiar and uncommon.
Re:Reporting from Spain... (Score:4, Informative)
Uhm, you are right. Redistribution is allowed but in limited form (making a copy of a DVD for a friend is allowed). If you do it by the thousands, even if you get nothing from it, you are out of the clear. The relevant article of the law (in Spanish):
Artículo 31. Reproducciones provisionales y copia privada.
1. No requerirán autorización del autor los actos de reproducción provisional a los que se refiere el artículo 18 que, además de carecer por sí mismos de una significación económica independiente, sean transitorios o accesorios y formen parte integrante y esencial de un proceso tecnológico y cuya única finalidad consista en facilitar bien una transmisión en red entre terceras partes por un intermediario, bien una utilización lícita, entendiendo por tal la autorizada por el autor o por la ley.
2. No necesita autorización del autor la reproducción, en cualquier soporte, de obras ya divulgadas cuando se lleve a cabo por una persona física para su uso privado a partir de obras a las que haya accedido legalmente y la copia obtenida no sea objeto de una utilización colectiva ni lucrativa, sin perjuicio de la compensación equitativa prevista en el artículo 25, que deberá tener en cuenta si se aplican a tales obras las medidas a las que se refiere el artículo 161. Quedan excluidas de lo dispuesto en este apartado las bases de datos electrónicas y, en aplicación del artículo 99.a), los programas de ordenador.
Relevant here is the second point, where it says "copia obtenida no sea objeto de una utilización colectiva ni lucrativa", that is, "the obtained copy won't be used collectively or for gain". I guess the collectively is aimed to bars showing per-pay sport events in giant screens, a common thing in Spain, but anyway, it's limited.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
wohoo, the search for intraterrestrial intelligence is over =)
It's actually called the search for terrestrial intelligence & it exists: http://totl.net/STI/ [totl.net]
Well, sort of...;p
Ruled Legal is not correct... (Score:2, Informative)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the term you're looking for is "Common Law".
such a pity... (Score:4, Interesting)
That "collective use" portion... (Score:2)
It seems to me that's been the basis of all the P2P cases anyway. The "collective use" of files being shared between users of the P2P network. I don't see how that's any sort of endorsement that prevents more of these cases from coming forward in the future.
What means "collective use"? (Score:2)
...and does "lucrative" only refer to monetary benefit? I think this still leaves the door open to action against P2P, because any file that you are downloading, you are usually also uploading as well. Does that count as "collective use"? If you are uploading in order to maintain your "share ratio", and that share ratio is used to allow you to keep on downloading to acquire more material, does that quid pro quo count as "lucrative"? Wiktionary defines lucrative as "producing a surplus", not necessarily mone
Re: (Score:2)