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.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Another Court Ruling In Spain Finds Personal File Sharing To Be Legal”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Designerfx (profile) says:

Re: 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.

hegemon13 says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...