RSS
Twitter
Another Court Ruling In Spain Finds Personal File Sharing To Be Legal
from the no-profit-motive dept
While the entertainment industry has been working over time to try to stop file sharing in Spain, court ruling after court ruling has found that personal file sharing is perfectly reasonable and legal -- and that sites that merely link to content rather than host it (i.e., search engines and trackers) aren't breaking copyright law either. In the latest such case, a judge found that a guy who downloaded and shared over 3,000 movies wasn't violating copyright law, because it was all for personal use with no intent to profit.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my file sharing. Prepare to die.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
LOL, nice.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
lol
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
*giggle*
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
comment
The times have changed and it's time for the record and movie companies to face the facts. Good article!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LOL
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Interesting. If you download a 'legal' copy of a movie or song while in Spain then come back to the USA, is your copy a legal copy?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
good question, although likely the argument would be a: where you reside is your jurisdiction vs b: where you performed the act was legal thus it is.
Most courts tend to go with B, as that happens in many situations such as when laws of one state conflict with another. It's pretty well established, and it's unfortunately why things like tax avoidance via overseas are not pursued in court often.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
It also goes the other way. One can legally buy marijuana in Amsterdam, but they can't then bring it back to the US and have it be legal. An 18-year-old can buy beer in Germany, but they can't bring it back to the US. So, it depends. In the US, is possession of infringing copies a crime, or just distribution? That has not been absolutely decided in court, but the outcome would determine the answer here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LOL!
Is Spain a safe harbor now? If torrent sites, fans, and filesharers aren't punished there, won't this really let the cat out of the bag?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
EVERYBODY SING WITH ME!!:
Yo ho, haul together
hoist the colors high...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Because is not for profit and 270 million € has already been paid in advance.
There is a leave in CD, DVD, Hard Disk, Mobile Phones, MP3 players.... calculated so at least that amount is obtained by the collection agencies to be "distributed" among the authors to compensate them from the personal not for profit copies.
And if they get more than that they are suppose to tell us so we reduce it in a couple of year but no need to show us the accounts we have confidence that the collection agencies would never cheat.
Like getting the money for it and try to send the people to jail at the same time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Yes, the collection agency want to eat their cake and still have it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Anyone know a good open proxy in Spain?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Its about friggin time
Its about time!!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"because it was all for personal use with no intent to profit."
This is what crosses my mind when I think of copyright laws. How and why are you going after people that do not "steal" your stuff when they aren't making money off of it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Because they feel that every person who downloads for free would have paid if they couldn't download for free. Therefore, the sale was lost due to 'piracy'.
Furthermore, they think, if 'piracy' were gone they'd have made $20 off of you, but since 'piracy' is a viable option, they are making $0 off of you. So you "stole" $20 from them.
Even worse, because you didn't pay them the $20 you would have paid them had the internet never been created you owe them $150,000.
Per song.
It's horribly flawed to the point of insanity, but that's their story and they're sticking to it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Additionally, you took the $20 you didn't pay them, shredded it and then burnt it. Thus damaging the whole economy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Plus they're fairly certain you're a sheep-humping transvestite...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
With the ability to run through their studios naked holding a dead baby in one hand and a burning bible in the other.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mmmm, dead burning bible...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Last laugh to the media companies, who are collecting the "tarif" on blank media and the like.
Nothing is free. That is just an illusion, making you not see the cost because you didn't take the money out of your pocket right this instant.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment