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 (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Tgeigs (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 6:17am

    Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my file sharing. Prepare to die.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Steven Randal, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 6:22am

    comment

    The times have changed and it's time for the record and movie companies to face the facts. Good article!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Korrosive, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:11am

    LOL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Kevin Stapp (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:18am

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Designerfx (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:23am

      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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        hegemon13, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 12:10pm

        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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:22am

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 7:41am

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    CStrube (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 8:28am

    Anyone know a good open proxy in Spain?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Your Mamma, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 8:54am

    Its about friggin time

    Its about time!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 9:14am

    "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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 9:59am

      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 | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2009 @ 3:00pm

    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 | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This