Downloading Copyrighted Material Legal In Spain 323
Sqwuzzy notes a judge's ruling in Spain that makes that country one of the most lenient in the world as respects sharing copyrighted material over P2P networks. "The entertainment industries in Spain must be progressively tearing their hair out in recent months as they experience setback after setback. ... After Spain virtually ruled out imposing a '3-strikes' regime for illicit file-sharers, the entertainment industries said they would target 200 BitTorrent sites instead. Now a judge has decided that sharing between users for no profit via P2P doesn't breach copyright laws and sites should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise." This ruling occurred in a pre-trial hearing; the case will still go to trial.
I heard the same thing about Sweden... (Score:5, Informative)
I heard the same thing about Sweden... then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.
Re:What isn't copyrighted material? (Score:2, Informative)
Depends on the jurisdiction. Also, the copyright on some material has expired.
Re:What isn't copyrighted material? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What isn't copyrighted material? (Score:3, Informative)
There's only 3 countries that haven't signed on to the Berne Convention (Iran, Myanmar, and another one I can't remember), and Spain isn't one of them.
Now, you are correct about the expiry of some copyrights, but let's be honest, the overwhelming percentage of works being shared by P2P and torrent sites are still under copyright.
Re:nice! (Score:5, Informative)
Now I can have legally approved sex with a 13 year old AND listen to my downloaded Counting Crows album at the same time... *take a holiday in spain, leave my wings behind me*
I am sure you are joking but just an fyi - if you happen to be coming from the US - going to another country with the intent of doing something that would be considered illegal in the US (e.g. sex w/13 y/o) you would be convicted of doing that crime upon your arrival (assuming they 1) knew of your intent and 2) prove that you did it).
/. so step 1 is out of the way :)
Well you made a post on
BTW there was, about 6 months ago, a trial where a guy sent e-mails to his friend talking about going to south america to get underage prostitutes. He did this. When he came back the cops arrested him. Not sure how they knew he actually did the deed (I don't remember) but they used his e-mails to show his intent. He is in jail.
Copyright was intended only for commercial use (Score:3, Informative)
Well... the original intent of copyright was as applied to "commercial copying"... his reading of the law is 100% valid.
Re:What isn't copyrighted material? (Score:5, Informative)
There's only 3 countries that haven't signed on to the Berne Convention (Iran, Myanmar, and another one I can't remember)
The one you can't remember is Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kiribati, Kuwait, Laos, The Maldives, Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, The Seychelles, Sierra Leone, The Solomon Islands, Somalia, Taiwan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda and Vanautu.
Re:Spanish Justice : a oxymoron (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What isn't copyrighted material? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, we do. We also pay to SGAE (the spanish RIAA) when you buy a DVD recorder mp3 player, a mobile phone or a hard disk. 6 months ago I bought a 500 GB hard disk, and 13.92 of it went to SGAE.
Obviously, after paying that I demand the right to pirate all what I want.
Re:pre-trial ruling (Score:5, Informative)
(IANAL but I live in Spain...)
Re: Following suit... (Score:3, Informative)
No new laws have been created, all the judge did was spell out Spanish law to the RIAA, ie. that non-profit copying isn't illegal here and never has been.
Re:nice! - WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps he didn't know that the Canadian provinces are in a separate country?
Re:nice! (Score:3, Informative)
I am sure you are joking but just an fyi - if you happen to be coming from the US - going to another country with the intent of doing something that would be considered illegal in the US (e.g. sex w/13 y/o) you would be convicted of doing that crime upon your arrival (assuming they 1) knew of your intent and 2) prove that you did it).
That does not appear to be correct. The anti sex tourism law is 18 USC 2423. It prohibits going to foreign countries for illicit sex. It defines illicit sex as that which would violate 18 USC 2241 if it had occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the US, or any commercial sex act with anyone under 18.
So, going to Spain to use a young prostitute is right out. But if you are going to Spain in the hopes of non-commercial sex with a 13 year old, then 18 USC 2241 is what you need to watch out for.
18 USC 2241 gives us these rules. Under 12 is right out. 12 through 15 is out if the person is more than 4 years younger than you and you used force or threat, they were unconscious, or you got them drugged or drunk either by force or threat, or without their knowledge.
As far as I can see from these statutes, it would NOT violate US law to have a consensual, non-paid, sexual relationship with a 13 year old Spanish person.
Re:Spanish Justice : a oxymoron (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't go so far as calling us "lucky"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita [wikipedia.org]
Re:Short lived ruling? (Score:3, Informative)
And lastly, a lot of good programmers want steady income to work on products, not occupy the lowest rung of the ladder/innermost circle of hell.
Something like 95% of programmers work on in-house projects for their non-software companies.
DRM works. It's not foolproof, but it does cut down on the piracy.
No, it doesn't [guardian.co.uk]. Not even a little bit. Not a smidgen. There is no credible evidence to support that position.
Re:nice! (Score:3, Informative)
I looked up the text of that law and I'll take a stab at parsing it (however, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.)
(omitting the punishments and also omitting the bulk of sections (a) and (b) since those apply to individuals of any age and I'm mostly focusing on their role in the proper interpretation of (c), i.e. "the circumstances described")
US CODE: Title 18,2241 [cornell.edu]
A couple of things I'm noticing, if I'm reading it correctly.
– "Knowingly"... if you're unaware that you're doing it, it appears that you can't be charged.
– however, if you knew you did it, it's criminal whether or not you were aware the other person was under 12 years old
– 12-15 is illegal if you are more than 4 years older AND you used force, threat, rendered them unconscious, or administered by force, threat, or deception an intoxicating substance which impaired their ability to make the decision of giving consent
So, it appears that if someone between the ages of 12 and 15 were still conscious, engaging in a sexual act with them would be legal as long as you didn't force, threaten, or deceive them into their intoxicated state. Assuming they willingly intoxicated themselves, (c) would not apply to you as long as they weren't unconscious at the time.
Also, I'm not sure what's meant by the clause about maritime and territorial jurisdiction and whether or not it is supposed to apply to the part in (c) about persons between the ages of 12 and 15...
As I said before, IANAL. If anyone finds an error in my interpretation of this feel free to correct me.
P2P sharing is not downloading (Score:3, Informative)
When you upload a file to an FTP server you are violating copyright laws, since you are using the right to distribute copyrighted content. When you share the same file on a P2P network, from the legal point of view, you are using your right to private copy of copyrighted content. Here in Spain we do still have the right to private copy, so when I buy a CD I can copy it for personal use. I have the right to lend my original copy of the CD to a friend, but private copy rights allows me to lend not the original but also the copied CD to a friend. And what can be shocking is that private copy law in Spain does not restrict users to a fixed number of copies for personal use. So, from the juridical point of view, sharing your CD songs on Bittorrent network is no different from lending your CD copies to friends.
Having reached this poing technology has evolved much more than laws. So copyrighted content sharing is no longer related to lend some CDs to some friends or relatives, but to the whole world. Spanish RIAA (SGAE) is struggling to press politicians so they "adapt" the private copy law or even make it disappear. I think they are taking the steps, though the things go slower that in other near countries. They have not managed to limit private copy law but they have succedeed in broadening the range of the "Canon compensatorio" [wikipedia.org], that could be translated as compensatory fee. This is a tax that has been around since tape times, and used to add a percentage to the price of blank tapes or photocopiers among others (books, as copyrighted content, were also protected by this law). Nowodays SGAE has managed to extent this compensatory fee to not only blank media supports (DVDs, CDs, etc.) but also flash cards, mobile phones, hard disks, computers, mp3/4 players, etc. They even managed to ask for a fee on the Internet connection, though I think they have succedeed in it yet. It has been reported that the average Spanish family pays now over 300 euros a year with the current compensatory fee, that is entirley redistributed between Entertainment companies and artists (though the say they share it between artists) by SGAE itself, which is an obscure and privately led organization. 300 euros a year pro family is much more than what an averege Spanish family spent on copyrighted content a few 10 years ago (when copying means where not so effective).
Having said all this I would thank that at least I no longer have to put up with the ads at movie theaters or on TV calling me a thief for legally sharingmy copyrighted content, when I am just using a right, for which I have literally paid a significant amount of money. And not only that, but also taking into account that this money goes to an obscure and mafioso association (not even a company, that must keep its balance clearer), whose role in society is quite a bit less than beneficial.
Re:What isn't copyrighted material? (Score:3, Informative)
To be clear, the SGAE is not "The Spanish RIAA." The RIAA is a trade group representing record labels. The SGAE represents music composers, lyricists, and publishers. They are the Spanish equivalent of ASCAP and BMI.
In the eyes of many Slashdotters, this is a meaningless difference -- both groups are interested in protecting the rights of the folks behind the stuff that we feel should be freely (as in beer AND freedom) available and thus are the "bad guys." But if you're of the "artists good, record labels bad" mindset, then organizations like SGAE, ASCAP and BMI should wear white hats.
Why? Because membership in these organizations allows artists to make money completely independently of the record labels. The revenue streams that these groups protect just might be key to ditching the concept of record labels altogether, a notion which I believe most Slashdotters support.
Re:What isn't copyrighted material? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:nice! - WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
For the other folks who asked about "well what is considered under age, since each state is different". Honestly I don't know what the federal rules are...maybe it goes by the state in which you reside, maybe it goes by some federal limit - I don't ahve the answer - just relating an article.
For those worried about the proprieter of said services (be it drugs, prostitutes, etc) - don't worry the US can't and won't prosecute them. They are selling a product in their country and have to deal with their country laws. Only US citizens/companies have to worry about the US laws.
For those that mentioned college kids going to canada - yes they can be prosecuted for it, but prosecution has to prove there was intent to do so. Considering the offense is DUI (for those under 21 in the US, DUI is automatically given even if you are nowhere near a car) the prosection does not need to prove intent - they just say "we caught these kids in the US with alcohol in their blood." At that point nobody cares if they got their alcohol in canada (they would care if it is in the US since it's illegal to sell alcohol to minors in the US.
BTW the 21 Age limit is set by the state but every single state in the US has that 21 limit because the federal gov't gives bonus money to states which keep the age at 21 and older. So a state that keeps the age at 21 y/o+ gets federal money and makes organizations like MADD, DADD, and SADD happy. They piss off those under 21, but for the most part people under 21 don't vote, so it's a win-win for politicians.