File Sharing Ruled Legal In Spain

stupid_is writes "As a follow-up to a previous discussion a judge in Spain has ruled that under Spanish law a person who downloads music for personal use can not be punished or branded a criminal. This seems to be a teeny bit clearer than the first article, which points out that downloading is a civil, and not criminal, offense for individuals. The Spanish recording industry federation Promusicae is predictably a bit peeved, and says it will appeal against the decision." From the article: "The state prosecutor's office and two music distribution associations had sought a two year sentence against the man, who downloaded songs and then allegedly offered them on a CD through email and chat rooms. However, there was no direct proof he made money from selling the CDs. Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopéz Aguilar says Spain is drafting a new law to abolish the existing right to private copies of material. Due to different regulatory regimes in Europe, the proceedings against file sharers differ greatly in each country. However, most European judges tend to take a harder stance on file sharing. Twenty two people in Finland were fined €427,000 last week for illegally sharing movies, music, games and software, while courts in Sweden also fined two men who had downloaded movies and music for personal use."

Downloading != Sharing

[Fastolfe (1470)]

Everyone also needs to keep in mind that in most countries where these things are issues, the offenses related to downloading things versus sharing them are completely different. I don't believe anybody even in the US has been taken to court merely for downloading. It's always about sharing (redistribution). It's frustrating when the media tends to use the two things interchangeably.

Re:

[giorgiofr (887762)]

Nobody downloads mp3 via http from pimply-faced youths anymore. People get music on eMule and movies on BitTorrent. So, everytime you're downloading, you're uploading as well.

The sad thing is...they wanted two years in prison

[Joce640k (829181)]

Two years in prison for copying a few files. Sheesh.

Still, they're working hard to change the laws. What they want now is for downloading to be illegal, AND for a tax to be placed on all recordable media. If they manage to pass it then I'll be paying the RIAA for all the CDs I use for data backups, all the CDs which end up as coasters because I dared to touch the mouse while it was recording, etc.

Re:The sad thing is...they wanted two years in pri

[compro01 (777531)]

all the CDs which end up as coasters because I dared to touch the mouse while it was recording, etc.

how old is that burner that you don't have buffer-underrun protection? i haven't had a coater in 5 years due to a buffer underrun (liteon 482448s burner), though i have had a couple due to other factors such as the power browning/blacking out at bad times (i need to get a UPS) or the burning software crashing or whatever.

This is where I get my troll mod

[mcmonkey (96054)]

We know the hive mind that is /. can't grok the difference between copyright, trademark, and patents, but I'd think the difference between uploading and downloading wouldn't be out of reach.

Oh well.

And before you reply, "but BitTorrent...," two points: 1) are there any torrent clients that do not allow the user to control uploading? And 2) if there are, so?

In the words of the parent poster, "Downloading != Sharing"

also not criminal!=legal

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

I don't know the US legal system but from what I understood, every law transgression is 'criminal'. In most EU states, the 'criminal' label describes only the most serious violation. There are less serious violation, not called 'crimes' (I think you would translate it by 'offense') that are still illegal but the difference IIRC correctly is that you cannot be sentenced to jail for an offense.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Detective: This is the home of Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica. Look. There's Lars now, sitting by his pool.

Kyle: What's the matter with him?

Detective: This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it. Come. There's more. Here's Britney Spears' private jet. Notice anything? Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she's had to sell it and get a Gul

Olé

[Abreu (173023)]

It seems that he managed to dodge the Music Industry bull charging right into him, with a quick waist movement and a flourish of his red cape...

Comparison invalid

[ruppel (82583)]

The comparison with Finland is invalid since the sentence was given for filesharing and not for downloading files. Untill recently the legislation in finland was as clear about downloads (i.e. they were legal). Now we have the new european version of the DMCA and there haven't been any cases to test whether that status has changed. Since the legislation is essentially (supposed to be) the same throughout europe, I would guess that simply downloading stuff is still legal.

Re:

[Jussi K. Kojootti (646145)]

They weren't even found guilty of filesharing: The court threw the copyright infringement charge out becuase there was no proof. They were convicted of "contribution to copyright infringement" (administering the website). This fact was pretty much forgotten by the media, they just put "Filesharers convicted - 400 000 bill" as the title of their news story...

"contribution to copyright infringement" -- well, I guess the Youtube guys are lucky not to live in Finland.

Ummm...

[Otter (3800)]

This seems to be a teeny bit clearer than the first article, which points out that downloading is a civil, and not criminal, offense for individuals.

I am completely confused:

1) The first article doesn't say that.

2) The second article sort of *does* say that.

3) Assuming that file sharing really has been ruled a civil but not criminal offense, the "Ruled Legal" headline via the dimwitted Register, plagiarizing submitter and sleepy editor is completely false.

Were they expecting an inquisition?

[weeboo0104 (644849)]

The Spanish recording industry federation Promusicae is predictably a bit peeved, and says it will appeal against the decision."

I don't know what they expect by filing an appeal.
I mean, nobody expects a Spanish inquisition.

Someone fetch the Promusicae the comfy chair or some soft cushions.

Moving to Spain now.

[krell (896769)]

All the bullfighting ballads you can download, for free!

What you don't know...

[kinocho (978177)]

Is that in spain there is "law" that allow the sgae and company (RIAA equivalent in here) to tax the cd's and dvd's with more than one euro each (in the case of dvd's), to "compensate" for loses due to piracy.

Just so you can understand better... last year they got 300 million euros just in that concept. And believe me, you can bribe a lot of people with that.

Oh, I almost forgot, that money is shared unequally among the capos of the SGAE, leaving all the other 80.000 members with nothing.

"Not Illegal" does not mean "Legal"

[jezor (51922)]

I agree with the person who posted that downloading and uploading are very different potential offenses; consider the difference between drug use and drug sales (or distribution). Another point to consider is that the law in Spain may not consider copyright infringement criminal if no money is earned. This used to be the situation in the U.S., which is why an MIT student named David LaMacchia was found not guilty of wire fraud in 1994 [greenspun.com]. At that time, even massive distribution of copyrighted material was not a crime, if no money was made, and U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns said what had happened wasn't wire fraud but non-criminal copyright infringement. As Judge Stearns wrote in his opinion,

This is not, of course, to suggest that there is anything edifying about
what LaMacchia is alleged to have done. If the indictment is to be
believed, one might at best describe his actions as heedlessly
irresponsible. and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking
in any fundamental sense of values. Criminal as well as civil penalties
should probably attach to willful, multiple infringements of copyrighted
software even absent a commercial motive on the part of the infringer.
One can envision ways that the copyright law could be modified to permit
such prosecution. But, "'[i]t is the legislature, not the Court which is
to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.'" Dowling, supra at 214
(quoting United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820)).

In fact, the U.S. Congress took Judge Stearns up on his suggestion, adding the concept of commercial value and intent to profit to the criminal portion of the U.S. Copyright Law in the No Electronic Theft Act [usdoj.gov].

I would not be surprised to see the Spanish law changed to close this loophole as well. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology [tourolaw.edu]}

For all those who want to leave the US...

[erroneus (253617)]

...but have no place to go, now you have a place to go!

Run with the bulls and download music and movies!

Not quite true

[Garabito (720521)]

Even when a judge ruled p2p legal in that case, that doesn't rule p2p legal in general. This is because Spanish legal system is based on Civil or Roman Law, not in Common Law like the U.S. or Great Britain.

In Common Law, this ruling would have made a precedent which other judges in further cases should follow. In the Spanish system, judges are only required to follow what is stated in written law; rulings for previous similar cases are used only as a guide, but are not mandatory.

Re:

[Svenne (117693)]

They are pirates, so I assume it's in gold doubloons.

Re:

[Volante3192 (953645)]

Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - one in three discs world wide is a pirate.

One in three discs is pirated. So, are you referring here to counterfeit discs produced on the black market and sold for 3 bucks in the subway? Bec

Re:

[Volante3192 (953645)]

...I actually stopped reading after the line I quoted.

Now I feel bad, wearing out my keyboard like that...

Re:

[scharkalvin (72228)]

Is the record retail business going bust due to filesharing?
Maybe, but there are other forces at work here....
You may be loosing business to the likes of Amazon.com, Ebay, and other non-brick and mortar
retail outlets that are undercutting your price. Also there are LEGAL download sites
(such as itunes) that offer customers the choice to buy just the cuts they want, not the entire
CD. Face it, your method of business is going the way of the dinosaur. File sharing may be
part of the problem, but by many accou

Re:

[Siberwulf (921893)]

While I know the parent is fake, and made up, I just caught this one line:

They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?

And I have to ask... how well has that War on Drugs turned out?

Re:

[Mister Whirly (964219)]

This is a totally old troll rant posted many times before. You all got suckered in again dammit...There is no record store people...

See - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160324& c id=13420069 [slashdot.org] and http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187189&cid =15444081 [slashdot.org] here and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171333&cid=142 69664 [slashdot.org]

Re:

[Penguuu (263703)]

There were 21 persons who are paying in all that 427000 EUR. So it's about 20 000 EUR per person.

And the persons who were sentenced were administrators of the torrent-sharing site, not some guys who just downloaded some songs.

Re:

[PhysicsPhil (880677)]

...I remember borrowing tapes and making copies. I never bought music, I bought blank tapes. If a friend didn't have a song I wanted, I listened for it on the radio and recorded it off that (granted the quality sucked). This is basically the same thing as file sharing. Why were they not tracking down the millions of kids that did this in the 80's?

Do you really need to ask? Widespread copying was a harder task in the 80s. You had to find someone who owned a copy of said music, which meant a local friend.