|
|
Spanish judge says 'Si' to music file-sharing
Author: Wil HarrisPublished: 3rd November 2006
RIAA? No way, Pedro.
The judge in Santander said that since the objective was to gain music for private pleasure rather than to generate wealth, the man could not be accused of stealing music.
Immediately after the ruling, Spanish ministers confirmed that they would be introducing a piece of legislation to outlaw the downloading of music not 'owned'.
However, in the mean time, you are perfectly within your rights to take a quick weekend trip and stock up, legally, on some digital music - all whilst sipping Sangria and eating omlettes, obviously.
As The Register points out, laws on copyright infringement vary wildly across Europe, and the regime appears to be one that European ministers will be looking at - especially if the big pressure groups get their ways.
Will you be partaking in some Spanish song? Let us know your thoughts over in the forums.
Related
Comments (23)
Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!
Compare over 100 broadband & mobile broadband deals online!
- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2009
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
Irn-Bru
He seems to have justified it quite fairly, personal use is a victemless crime.
Ah there we go. Don't feel quite so bad now.
Think many record industry execs who want some new mercs would disagree that personal use is a victimless crime, they'd argue that by taking it for free and not paying them money they are the victims.
edit: Topquoting but:
Just the south m'laddo, the north is still quite pristine and free of old uglies who refuse to speak the lingo.
<A88>
I helped construct a pool several years ago. it still brings enjoyment to the family that lives there. should I continue to ask them for money years after my work is complete, my costs have been recuperated, and I have made a decent profit? I understand that music movies and such are different which is why I would give them 20 years but after that they are just being greedy.
Actually wrong, the north is full of ugly old ladies and over tanned wives
* It's fair to both parties
* You don't have to get tracks full of DRM
* You don't have to rip your DVD's to put them on other media
* It still tells the track mongers that we aren't prepared to put up with the low quality high restriction rubbish that they are currently pushing.
* It makes it nearly impossible for the RIAA/MPAA and Spanish equivalents to sue random people without actually spending money to find out who the copyright infringer's are (Do they wear eye patches? no? then they aren't pirates)
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.phpi/693d9003/ibiza.jpg?cb=1115204527
This is why
I agree with that judge.
Excellente!!!
I hope here at mexico say the same!!
Werent there reports made that during the spring up of napster that the recording industry was making more money because their music was reaching a wider audience and thus people still purchased the music in the store?
DRM is killing media, lets arrest DRM. After all murder is a crime in most places.
Anyone who lives in Spain, here is your opportunity. Write/call/email your elected officials and tell them this is BS. Politicians want to get re-elected and if you make enough noise you can stop this. It's not often that we can do somthing personally about the DRM wars, but this is your time.
This is no surprise frankly. Although this is the first time there's an actual sentence, the Civil Code and the Law of Intellectual Property specifically state that as long as there is a non-profit intention in the exchange of intellectual property, it's not prosecutable. Beware though...it doesn't mean it's legal...only not prosecutable and not a crime.
The problem here is that this is still a grey area. Fortunately, the judges in Spain traditionally are reluctant to put too much weight in regulations that go against the common uses and practices of society, at least, while laws leave some room for interpretation in their hands of said judges. And fortunately too, we have several strong pro-consumer organizations (OCU), a few very vocal internet users associations (AI - Asociación de Internautas at www.internautas.org, in caes somebody speaks spanish) and a very unpopular RIAA-equivalent (SGAE). And more important, everybody and his dog knows and uses eMule clients on a daily basis ;)
In addition, there is a semi-official canon everybody has to pay on blank media, hard drives, DVD recorders etc. wich is given to the SGAE to account for the loss of revenue they *may* be suffering due to private recordings and file-sharing. This canon is quite high...for example, it accounts for the 60% of the price of blank DVDs (note: if you can prove that said DVDs are being used for personal recordings like private photos or Open Source software you can actually get that 60% back, but it's an arduous process...most people don't bother so the SGAE gets much more money than they should be entitled to). Despite many people opposing this canon, I'm actually in favour of it. I can share to my hearts content, knowing that what I'm doing is fully legal and that I'm actually paying for the media I get.
What scares me though, is that the socialist (PSOE) party seems to be much more pro-SGAE than the conservatives (PP) used to be. PSOE traditionally has enjoyed a huge support on musicians and film-makers, due to the amount of subventions they get from them .It's quite disgusting actually...about 80% of the films produced here would be financially inviable of not for those subventions...you wouldn't guess the amount of crap they produce just to get their financial help. And the PSOE loves it that way, as they get a strong and very vocal support from them. As such, I can see them pledging to the SGAE theories and banning file-sharing.
But meanwhile, my PC is on 24/7 with eMule happily donwloading Prison Break first season and my music collection grows by the gigabytes ;)
To me, this ISN'T fair. As much as I want to rejoice in free shizzle, this is not a stance that can hold weight for long.
Essentially, the judge is just saying that if you don't make money off of what you take, it's not stealing. Therefore, one could walk into a grocery, take all the food they want, and walk back out - as long as the person is only using it for personal use, that's fair, right? And before you start talking about it being victimless to download versus buying a physical good, I urge you to look up the understanding of the accounting principle of sunk cost.
It IS still an industry and there ARE still people who rely on it for an income - and entertainment is by definition personal use. So does that mean anything for entertainment purposes should just be free? How about video games? Add them to the list too? Whether we agree with quite how MUCH this stuff costs or how it's distributed, FREE is not a price model, and piracy is not a distribution method. It's this level of black-and-white that will keep the RIAA and MPAA constantly looking for the next new way to protect themselves...thus screwing everyone else. :(
um... 13500 mp3's in my playlist and i've paid for every one
FAO: Iago
So what happens if you purchased a HDD from France, would it be cheaper? And if you did, would you still be able to claim that you've paid for the privledge.
Regards
GiGo
I personally don't like iTunes because I like to have a physical copy of my music/movies, and I don't like protected files either. I would never put myself in a situation where I could lose access to my entire music library. My friends are starting to want a Zune/other MP3 player and are just now realizing they won't be able to listen to any of their music because of the DRM they've been buying for the past 2 years.
Off-topic: Is there any specific definition of what a "band" is legally? I mean, it's not really a company, right? Couldn't I just start up a band and call it "The Beatles" and start producing my own music under the same name? I guess that would fall under copyright laws. But say for instance, I create a band and over 5 years all the original band members, including myself, become slowly disbanded and replaced with other people. Is it still the same band, and would the above situation apply as well?