Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Courts The Internet

P2P and P2P Links Ruled Legal In Spain 265

Posted by samzenpus
from the pirate-friendly dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

P2P and P2P Links Ruled Legal In Spain

Comments Filter:
  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @02:15AM (#31519770)

    I think my headline is a lot better.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Jesus finally beat the Jews? Just in time for Easter!
    • by mqduck (232646)

      At first I read "headline" as "headache". I think my version is a lot better.

  • 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.
  • by Dionysus (12737) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @02:30AM (#31519818) Homepage

    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)

      by damburger (981828)

      Wasn't the US tacitly involved in 'liberating' Spain from (democratically elected) socialists about 80 years ago as well?

  • Hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZDRuX (1010435) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @02:42AM (#31519852)
    I was going to write a long reply but realized I won't have time before my plane leaves for Spain.. see you guys!
    • by Krneki (1192201)

      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)

    by little1973 (467075) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @03:11AM (#31519968)

    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.

    • Same in Austria.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by icebraining (1313345)

      In Spain there's also a levy: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_por_copia_privada_(Espa%C3%B1a) [wikipedia.org]

  • 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.

    • by delinear (991444)

      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].

  • by Tei (520358) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @03:25AM (#31520018) Journal

    Heres is a poorly idea of the spanish system:
      - 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, ..think the italian president, but seems a no-factor
      - 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.

    • Hey, English isn't a pro-drop language! ;) But I guess that the situation you are describing pretty much fits the rest of EU as well. Sometimes I wonder whether it is better to have a rigid and inflexible bureaucracy that slows down changes from this peculiar state of affairs both for the better and for the worse, or whether it would be better to allow for faster changes and risk the rather undesirable US influence finding its way into our structures.
    • by delinear (991444)

      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

  • by OpenSourced (323149) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @03:28AM (#31520030) Journal

    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.

    • by twisteddk (201366)

      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.

    • ...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.

      • by OpenSourced (323149) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @06:22AM (#31520826) Journal

        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.

  • SITI (Score:2, Funny)

    by sixtuslab (1130675)
    wohoo, the search for intraterrestrial intelligence is over =)
    • by VJ42 (860241)

      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

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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".

  • such a pity... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by advocate_one (662832) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @05:38AM (#31520596)
    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...
  • 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.

  • ...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

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Working...