Spanish Court Rules In Favor of P2P Engineer 365
Sir Mal Fet writes "In line with previous rulings discussed here, a judge in Spain has ruled that P2P technologies are 'completely neutral' (original in Spanish ; Google translation ), thus dismissing a lawsuit originated in 2008 from the Spanish Association of Musical Producers (Promusicae), Warner, EMI, and Sony suing Pablo Soto, a Spanish man who created the Blubster, MP2P y Piolet programs to share files. The labels demanded 13 million euros in damages arguing that the mere existence and distribution of P2P technologies violated copyright, but the ruling stated the technology itself was neutral, so the creator could not be held responsible for how the software was used, and demanded that they pay for legal expenses. Promusicae said it was going to appeal the ruling."
That is like suing Ford (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's good to hear that there're judges doing their jobs nowadays.
If by no other reason, it make us hope that some of them live on America.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:1, Insightful)
technology is neutral? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh that's a website, not BitTorrent or any other software. The developers who write P2P software are not running that site.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:2, Insightful)
P2P is neutral (Score:3, Insightful)
I only ever use P2P to download FOSS and, windows fixes. There are plenty of music streams if I want to listen to something. I suspect that Comcast is stepping on the streams though at the behest of XXAA or some other equally praiseworthy organization. These guys rip off artists and slander titles out of principle. So I hope someone is sticking it to them for a change.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone with half a brain knows that these services were created for the purpose of sharing copyrighted material. Sure they don't condone these actions officially, but they are certainly going to look the other way when it happens. As much as I hate the music/film industry, to defend these services saying that they are innocent and only intend for their networks to be used for legal purposes is lying to themselves.
That's not the argument. There's only question that matters: Is it possible to use the technology for purposes that are not illegal, even if it was never used for a legitimate purpose, or a legitimate purpose was never even conceived of before the challenge was made? If the answer is yes, then the technology is neutral.
You can rule on how people use the thing all day long, but there's no legitimate reason to ban a technology because people have used it irresponsibly.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
Why single out car makers? Just to have a car analogy?
It's like any technology. Think of any kind of technology, any kind of device, any kind of tool. There are no "good" or "bad" technologies, all of them can be used for good or bad. From a rock which can be used to crack open a coconut or to crack open a head, to a rocket which can be used to transport a satellite to orbit or a bomb to some other place on the surface of our planet. And if fissionable material only had nefarious applications, we wouldn't have a hard time convincing everyone that it's not a good idea to hand any to "questionable" countries. Hell, not even enriching it to make it weapon grade material is a dead sure indicator that someone has bad intentions, due to the way some reactors work only with such material.
I'm glad a judge finally caught on and noticed that progressing technology and inventing a tool cannot be seen as a crime by itself. It's how the technology is used that should be judged. Do not blame technology for anything bad happening. It's the people using it, not the technology!
Let's be honest, though... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Technology", in the sense of basic principles, is certainly neutral. However, specific assemblages of technology - from a car, to a gun, to a spoon, or a computer program, certainly aren't neutral. they have good points and bad points, which are determined by their intended or designed use, their practical or common use, and their potential or possible use. How we allow for the use of given assemblies of technologies depends entirely on how we view the social cost-benefit equation of the assembled tool.
Many people want to ban certain tools based on their potential usage, which is either irrational or irresponsible (or displays a hidden agenda unrelated to the merits of the tool).
However, it is equally dishonest to judge a tool merely on its proclaimed intended usage.
As a society, we must look at the whole picture, and hopefully, error on the side of permissiveness. That does not mean that we should be shy about outlawing things whose negative potential and common usage significantly outweigh any benefit that is intended or common usage provides. Like everything else, it's a balancing act.
In this case, the judge did just that, much to the *IAA (or Spanish equivalent's) disappointment.
-Erik
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason P2P technology is mostly used for copyright infringement is because the big media companies sued the fuck out of anyone who wanted to create a P2P system whether it was used for a legitimate purpose or not. So a lot of people who were doing legitimate research into creating P2P technologies stopped.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He wrote it to share files... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is still the question if banning illicit drugs actually make sense. It's more a thing of tradition, because from a objective point of view banning illicit drugs does not hinder their distribution, but increases the cost the society pays in terms of policing, criminality and wrongful deaths.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
What do buses, cars, trains, p2p, and http all have in common? They are general methods of transportation. Guns just transport bullets. At high velocity. Into a target. A gun is a weapon, not a neutral method of data transport. Unless the next step up from fiber-optic cable is bullets.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:3, Insightful)
People with guns kill people.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:2, Insightful)
I can use a gun to hunt, or self defense, or outright murder
Ah, so a gun can be used to either kill, kill, or kill. Gotcha. Clearly such a versatile tool.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
Also because ISPs in most parts of the world have made legitimate P2P impractical (the continued existence of asymmetric plans and download caps etc.).
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:5, Insightful)
People with cars kill people
There's the slight difference that cars aren't designed to harm people, guns are.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason P2P technology is mostly used for copyright infringement is because the big media companies sued the fuck out of anyone who wanted to create a P2P system whether it was used for a legitimate purpose or not. So a lot of people who were doing legitimate research into creating P2P technologies stopped.
Actually I think thats not the case.
If you look at previous big piracy enabling technologies you will see that they have always simply been adopted by pirates to fill a need.
BitTorrent is no different, it was originally designed to distribute large file like linux distributions without the need to put a vast load on central servers. It was and still is a way that people who download a linux distribution could help free software in a way that did not involve them writing a single line of code, they just donated a small part of their out going bandwidth to help other people download the same thing they were.
In the past though there was Gnutella. This may have actually been designed purely for piracy, I did not work for nullsoft at the time so I do not know for sure. It was certainly filling a pre-existing need though since Napster had only recently been jumped on by the music industry.
Before napster though there was still usenet, this was certainly not designed as a piracy enabling technology but it sure was adapted as that by a great many people. There was also FTP, in this case people went round looking for anonymous FTP sites with a badly secured folder where they could create a hidden subdirectory to fill up with Warez.
The point of all this is to say that whatever technology is used at a particular time is not really relevant. What is relevant is that there are an awful lot of people out there who are quite happy to obtains something without paying for it. While these people exist they will always find a way of doing so, the method they use is the only thing that changes but that is largely irrelevant. If BitTorrent never existed we would still be using Gnutella. If none of these existed we would just be exchanging dropbox accounts on mailing lists or something.
Trying to stop piracy by jumping on individual technologies is like trying to play whack-a-mole on a table with an infinite number of holes. The industry now seems to have realised this and is trying to spend more money on educating young people that "piracy is bad". This is far more likely to work on the next generation but that is far from guaranteed. My generation just got to see them as an ailing industry that refused to adapt as new technologies were created and so that will likely be our lasting memory.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:2, Insightful)
You try hunting without a weapon.
Anyway, guns provide a useful service just like how computer system security provides a useful service, even if hard to measure. You never know when you'll need them to put your out of control government back in its place.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
As a point of comparison, how many Canadian gun owners are murdering people?
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
You completely missed the point. The point is that we could eliminate cars and have a far larger reduction in deaths. The point is that death can not be avoided and the cost and benefit to society must be weighed. How many of those deaths were caused by illegally obtained firearms? How many were self-inflicted and would have likely simply occurred by other means had a gun not been available? How many lives have been saved or serious injuries avoided because someone was able to defend themselves? How much of a deterrent to abuse by government is a well armed populace? If you could go back and prevent the gun from ever being created, I might be able to agree with you that the world would have been better off without them ever existing, but there is no way to remove guns from those who shouldn't have them, so there is no good reason to take them from those who should. It would only make the situation worse, rather than better.
To look at the car example, it would be like saying that we are going to take cars away from everybody except those who do hit and runs. We'll let them keep their cars and give them more targets when people start walking in the road since nobody else has cars, so they don't expect to be hit. Oh, and we'll also remove all stoplights and speed limits. See how well it works out for society.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
Hard argument to make as softer doesn't matter (momentum is just a factor of weight and speed) and would likely make it impossible to fire and slower or lighter would make it considerably less accurate.
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit, no wonder all the sociopaths in positions of power are always trying to prevent everyone else from possessing guns (and to think they just want to "protect us from ourselves" - ROFL!!!).
Re:That is like suing Ford (Score:5, Insightful)
America's poor are fat precicsely because of bad welfare. Healthy food is expensive. Fattening food is cheap. Pasta, potatos ($2 for a huge bag), macaroni and cheese... no matter what the food, if it's good for you it's expensive, bad for you if it's cheap.
You try eating on $40 a month; that's how much a person on SSI disability gets in food stamps, and she only gets $600 in cash.
But you go ahead living in your fantasy world where the only people without jobs are lazy and nobody ever goes hungry here.