Spain Outlaws P2P File-Sharing 432
Section_Ei8ht writes "Spanish Congress has made it a civil offense to download anything via p2p networks, and a criminal offense for ISP's to allow users to file-share, even if the use is fair. There is also to be a tax on all forms of blank media, including flash memory drives. I guess the move towards distributing films legally via BitTorrent is a no go in Spain." Here is our coverage of the tax portion of this law.
So let me get this straight (Score:1, Insightful)
This seems really dumb.
Also how can they possibly enforce it? Block at the ISP level? Using what? ports? They can change. Checking individual packets for p2p signatures? Might be possible if you want your bandwidth to be non-existant.
I really hope the rest of world does not follow this example, it's like saying roads should be banned because criminals use them.
What is this world coming to? Because i'm not sure if i wish to live in it.
why the tax? (Score:5, Insightful)
R.I.P. ISP in Spain? (Score:4, Insightful)
"unauthorized downloading" is possible via HTTP, so they ISPs might as well stop completely. I wonder how long this new law will hold up, I wonder if it's even allowed according to EU guidelines.
Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.
The problem is (Score:2, Insightful)
Score (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish p2p would include some sort of payment system. If I could fire up Gnutella or Azureus and have a big debit button where I could pay with a click standardized as a common framework for anyone to plug into their app then the issue would mostly resolve itself. Basically a Gnu_iTunes. P2P isn't bad, missing payment systems is.
Re:The problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
I would certainly recognize this kind of rule as a violation of my own copyright, by abridging my
right to disseminate my creative works.
Spain is so backwards (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I call Dupe and FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA "banned unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing in Spain" authorised sharing is still allowed.
These new laws are really no more restrictive than those from other countries.
say what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WoW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WoW (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
The linked article says "unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing". So you will be able to download your prescious WoW-Patches, you will be able to send your own videos to your friends... because its not "unauthorized". Where's the problem?
In other words: the summary was BS and you did not get it straight...
Re:it's not FUD.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this make any sense at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
So now they are paying the copyright owners, presumably to cover all of those copies that the Spanish people make. So if the copyright holder has been compensated, why in the workd outlaw P2P? Rather than outlawing P2P becasue some uses of it may infringe on copyright, even though it has many valid good uses, why not realize that the copyright holders have been compensated anyway? Sure, I expect that some politicians lined their own pockets in order to pass these laws, but still how can the justify taxing all media, that used for copying and that used for uses that in no way infringe on copyrigh, even flash drives, and then over agressively start outlawing things that might (but certainly don't always) let users copy copyrighted materials when they have already paid the tax?
Re:why the tax? (Score:3, Insightful)
But Canada has the same... (Score:1, Insightful)
With quite a number of dissentors here about the validity of the article, I thought to mention that Canada has a similar levee applied to blank media, and that from what I've heard it's one of the biggest reasons as to why it's difficult to make illegal copying in Canada.
That said, introducing a tax to cover possibly illegal acts and then making the action criminal altogether doesn't make much sense. Basically another good point to disprove the article's claims.
Keyword is CIVIL OFFENCE!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
as i said it before, there is a growing need for networks such as anonet [anonet.org] to free people from persecution in repressed countries, i'll just add spain to the list, i might not have anything to hide but then again if i want to share a file i created with a friend i will, if you build it i will find a way to get around it.
should we blame the governments or their advisors, or should we blame the people that build these type of things to restrict us?
if you are one of the following, please erase your mind: drone, sheeple, religious or government robot. if you are not one of them, please stand up and say somthing.
Re:And if you do use P2P.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES (Score:3, Insightful)
While I can certainly understand where you come from in saying that slashdot editing has gotten worse, I don't feel that this story is necesarrily one of those. It's a bit overstated, yes, but I don't think that detracts from the fact that the article simply states 'unauthorized downloading, even for personal use'. To me, that implies heavily that the article states a bit more clearly that the ban on p2p transfers reaches much further than a simple ban on transfers that infringe on copyright, and reaches into the domain of banning any and all.
Ultimately, I think that without being able to read the text of the law, noone can really say based simply on the article. All you can really do is take it at face value, which to many is in agreement with the
Finally, on a more offtopic note, get off your horse man. Having a 4 digit UID doesn't mean shit; I'm sure there's plenty of people with 6 digit UIDs who read and enjoyed slashdot for ages before finally registering. I know for a fact that there are people who had accounts and forgot passwords to email accounts used for registration, then forgot the account info for slashdot as well. Who knows, maybe it happened in a different order? Long story short, they made another account. I'm sure there were other considerations too, I'm not going into depth.
All in all, just my 2 cents. Cheers.
Re:Yuo 1337 sLasHdOt reading 5k1llz (Score:3, Insightful)
Flash drives? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SENSATIONALIST CRAP and LIES (Score:5, Insightful)
And no matter how long you've been a member, it's nice to see you offering as little information as you complain about!
What's wrong? Where? How is it wrong and what's the correct version? Without offering such an analysis, you're just spewing hot air (hot bits?) yourself.
Now, as to that...
Saying that no content is downloadable is contrary to the article, which states that only the downloading of unauthorized content is banned. I agree that that is sensationalistic, factually incorrect, and should have been caught.
On the other hand, the article does seem to indicate that ISP's may be criminally liable for the actions of their users:
But the government is going after Internet service providers; it's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.
Now, that still leaves open to interpretation what "facilitation" may be-but in this case, the summary does seem to match the article.
Also, it is stated in the article that despite this new regulation, blank media will -also- be taxed! It seems to me this is a bit of "having it both ways" on the part of the content providers-outlawing personal copying AND getting tax revenue. Again, it seems that the summary is essentially correct on this point.
While the summary is incorrect on one part, and it should have been caught (and should still be corrected), this is still a subject of interest to many of us who visit this site.
However, regardless, if you're going to make assertions as strong as you just did, it's generally helpful to back them up. If you can't manage that, don't let the door hit you, there's enough of those here.
Re:This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why the tax? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing has change. The article is a FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
I know the IP law. I have studied the reform of the law, and theres nothing in the law that substancially change the P2P legality.
The head of the article is a FUD. Obviously, illegal contents like child porngrafy is not allowed, and ISP, if had notice of that illegal transit are responsible (see European Directive 200/31), but P2P filesharing of copyrighted material, for non profit, is not ilegal, as it was with previous law.
So nothing has change, in my opinion. And nobody, with the full legal text, can say what the article sais.
Re:money terms.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies would really like this because it would mean they get twice the amount in damages as they would get if you buy it in a store.
Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a pretty fucking stupid thing to say. But then again, it is an Ayn Rand quote.
A government has whatever power it is given, by whatever agreement or coercion it used to get it.
In the US, for instance, the government has the power to print money, to sign treaties with other countries, to go to war, set standards for trade (like standard measures for weight and volume, labelling laws), and so on.
Where does the Apollo program fit into this "criminal" idea? What about the interstate highway system? The post office? Research grants for improving crop yield? The DARPA work that created the Internet?
I guess you could twist each of them into the "criminal" idea, but I really think you'd be kidding yourself.
Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely. A government has the rights that its citizens give it, and nothing more. Do you have the legal or moral right to forcefully take your fellow citizen's money ? No, and neither shall any Government you delegate your rights to. Do you have the legal or moral right to decide what's right and wrong for your fellow, equal-in-rights citizen to do ? No, so neither shall your Government.
Downloaded linux without paying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Spain is so backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spain is so backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
Spain outlaws telephony? (Score:2, Insightful)
And all this craze in Europe due to corruption in EU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janelly_Fourtou [wikipedia.org]
Re:money terms.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong Wrong Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.
2- The blank levy is not a compensation for massive, indiscriminate filesharing on P2P networks. Rather, it is a compensation for the (perfectly legal) private, physical copying and sharing of copyrighted works, within the circle of family and close friends, and in low numbers, which I understand is definitely allowed in Spain. France and Canada have a similar scheme.
Basically you're allowed to make a few private copies, and in return you pay a bit more for your blank CDs. The money is they redistributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to the royalties they earn from other, more easily quantifiable sources (sales, public performances, etc.). Not perfect, but that's the best way they could find. It certainly sucks for those of us who use CD for non-musical data, but I guess we're regarded as "collateral damage".
If I burn a CD of my own copyrighted works, will I get the tax refunded?
It's not a refund, it's a payment based on sales. The money levied from the tax is distributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to their royalties. Note that anybody can register, including Joe Musician; in fact registering is a prerequisite to receiving any kind of royalties. So if you produce your own copyrighted works (and register to the appropriate body), AND some people buy your stuff or play it in public or use it for any other activity which involves payment of royalties, you'll definitely see some money from this tax.
If you burn a GNU/Linux cd, do you think the copyright holders are going to get paid by the Spanish government?
As I said, it's only for music, so basically no. However, I understand that the tax is only applicable to individuals, not corporations (a bit like VAT tax I suppose), so if $random_spanish_distro sends you a CD of their distribution, they won't have to pay the tax on the CD they burn.
Not About Lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's not a question of whether you're afraid of getting sued by Blizzard: The patch simply won't come down the pipe.
Re:why the tax? (Score:1, Insightful)
With that in mind, why not impose criminalization of peaceful, voluntary activities and tax those same activities at the same time? If you can have your cake and eat it too -- which obviously government can -- then why the hell not?
Wal-Mart wouldn't pass up a chance to expand their market share. Neither would government.
Re:This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
Not bypassable by Joe Average or as it is in Spain that should actually be Pedro Promedio
I've found that the average Joe has no trouble using OpenVPN. All you do is double click on a configuration file and the entire network connection is setup, DNS and all. VPN Networks like anoNet (http://anonet.org/ [anonet.org]) provide unlimited access to the data (porn) and services (P2P) that users want. The user never has to worry about the heavy hand of The Man, as all links are encrypted with rotating keys.
Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "pretty fucking stupid" you mean "right on the money", I agree.
A government has whatever power it is given, by whatever agreement or coercion it used to get it
No. A government has whatever power it can get away with up until its citizens revolt. Consider, as a trivial example, the NSA spying program. Blatantly illegal, yet since we haven't revolted, not only don't we see thousands of executive branch employees (as well as complicit corporate partners) going to the federal pen - We see a push to legalize such activity in one of the most blatant guttings of the 4th amendment in US history.
Furthermore, you have a missing modifier on "given" - Who has given that right? We all speed (and many would go even faster than they do if not for the legal risk), yet the government seems to believe it has the right to limit how fast we can drive. Over half the US considers current drug laws far too draconian, yet we still have an inmate population made up primarily of nonviolent drug offenders. We all recognize that our election system has more flaws than any so-called "democratic" system can bear, yet rather than fix it, we just switch to less auditable polling mechanisms.
Spit out the Kool-Ade and open your eyes.
Where does the Apollo program fit into this "criminal" idea?
The "circuses" part of "bread and circuses". Keep the plebes entertained, and they'll bear far more before rising up.
Research grants for improving crop yield?
The "bread" part of "bread and circuses". A starving population recognizes that it has little to lose by risking death a few weeks sooner than would happen otherwise.
What about the interstate highway system?
You do know why Hitler commissioned the Autobahn, right? And why Eisenhower copied it? However convenient the rest of us might find it in times of peace, it exists for the purpose of facilitating military deployments - Between existing military bases, to points of foreign attack, and, if necessary, to the location of any potential insurrection.
The post office? [...] The DARPA work that created the Internet?
If you don't see the need for a tyrranical regime to have efficient lines of communication, I don't have the words to explain it to you.
I guess you could twist each of them into the "criminal" idea, but I really think you'd be kidding yourself.
Well, at least one of us would kid themselves, but consider the cost of error... Incorrectly distrusting the government has basically no cost. Incorrectly trusting them - Well, Arbeit Macht Frei, right?
Now, before you dismiss me as a complete loony - I don't think the US has gone too far quite yet. The current Megalomaniac-in-chief has certainly pushed us closer to the edge than anyone since Lincoln (including Nixon - You'll notice that when he got caught with his hand in the cookie-jar, he had the decency to step down. Even Reagan at least still had the humility to lie about his actions). But we can still turn things around if we can wake up enough of the zombies. Sadly, I consider that unlikely, but at least still possible.
Re:Not About Lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
laws and laws +enforcement (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments pass laws all the time and then don't put for the effort to REALLY enforce them (immigration in the U.S. for example). I expect anything to do with file-sharing to be the same.
Take the RIAA and the MPAA. How many people are downloading movies and music vs how many people they are actually prosecuting? Percentage wise of the violators we are talking VERY little. It's all about LOOKING like you are doing something, not actually enforcing or getting rid of the problem. Software piracy is the same way.
We passed the point LONG ago in world where the government can break into your house rifle your things and find something to throw you in jail with.....copied tape? where is the master CD? Can't find it...Ooooo..that's 5 years and 20,000 dollars. That rifle in your basement, is it registered? No? Antique? Doesnt matter..off to jail you go. Speeding? What's that? It's stupid that the speed limit is 25 mph and everybody else is going 50? Tell that to the judge, I'm throwing you in jail for reckless driving.
No government official is going to enforce a law that hurts his/her voters or campaign contributors. If many of them are at home downloading MP3's they will turn a blind eye, But you can bet if it HELPS them in any way they will enforce.
FUD, FUD and more FUD. (Score:1, Insightful)
The funny thing is it just states the same most spanish papers.
In Spain there is a legal term called "Private copy"
The private copy was created after law makers realize that make illegal a common act as copying a vinyl disc or tape from a friend to a tape for your listening pleasure was not possible. To compensate the industry, they created a kind of tax (called "canon for compensation of private copy") on blank media.
The definition of "Private copy" is "a copy made from a legal copy for personal use. This copy cannot be used on public, nor get profit from it."
Another funny thing is that the word says "legal copy". Not original. Not bought on a shop. So a private copy is a legal copy, so you can copy it as well.
So, a download of a song, movie, etc is legal.
In the other side, uploading is a bit more tricky... It's illegal to make a copy public to everyone. For example, having mp3 on a web site is illegal. But, for now, P2P is considered an "exchange among friends", and it's considered private copy (for now).
TCMnet says: "Now Spaniards caught grabbing content from, say, eMule, will have to reimburse rights holders for losses --- although such losses will be difficult for authorities to track."
Yes. It's true. We are paying the cannon since analogic tapes, and we still doing it with CD and DVD blank media. The funny thing is that we do it even if we use the media to burn a copy of Debian, a backup of the hard disk or whatever personal use. And there's no way to get the money back.
TCMnet also write: "Spanish police closed 17 illegal Web sites in a nationwide raid April 8."
In fact, the police acted because considered that the sites were getting profit from publicity on them. What the news doesn't say that most of the sites are running again.
As I said FUD, FUD and more FUD.
Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? (Score:2, Insightful)
The GP took issue with the statement by Rand that,"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them." He then listed many powers of government that do not fit that mold, and hence called the statement stupid. You did absolutely nothing to refute his point.
You seemed to be arguing that all the functions of government are designed to give power over the people. Whether true or false, this is something the GP didn't dispute.
Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, let's go... Are you sure you must be calling people uninformed?
So, the law makes it illegal to do something already illegal... I can see why Congress toke the time to create it... And the GP is concerned about automatic banishment of "unautorized" P2P, how do you thing that will be enforced? Yea, right, companies will have the right to distribute stuff, people will not.
So it is a compensation for something legal? And because of this it is not a private tax?!
Re:Not About Lawsuits (Score:4, Insightful)
This is great as long as both parties are using it...
As usual, the Professional Pirates (tm) can easily overcome this obstacle.
At most this new law will increase the cost of internet access in Spain, decrease, diminish, and increase the difficulty of the ligitimate usage of the net, and possibly result in some legal actions that ruin some kids lives and criminalise some ISPs (further increasing the cost of internet access!).
Overall though, you're right: Except for those lives that get ruined for the profit of a mega-corp, nothing substantial will change as a result of this.
Re:money terms.. (Score:4, Insightful)
(In point of fact, you are republishing copyrighted material when your computer sends it over in packets, so you are *also* directly breaking the law yourself.)
If you want an apt analogy, here goes:
Stuff that _I_ sell? But _I'm_ not doing anything; it's _them_ bringing the contraband to the register and _my employee_ that hands it to them! It's their choice to pick the items off of the shelf!!
---
BTW, amusingly, the downloaders make the reverse argument: "Stuff that _I'm_ downloading? _I'm_ not doing anything! I'm just making a copy of what's already being published on the web!"
---
None of this has any bearing on the morality of copyright laws. If you think (as I do) that copyright laws in their current form are a bad thing, then petition to have them changed. But don't pretend that P2P sharing of copyrighted material is somehow "white" or "gray": legally, it's "black."
Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's worth noting that Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical treatise wrapped in a rather awkwardly executed work of fiction. The Ayn Rand "quote" is the words of a character. Unlike PhDs writing academic papers, who must carefully frame their claims and exhaustively make caveats for all assertions, writers of fiction have the luxury of creating characters that are permitted to speak in hyperbole, and make utterly reprehensible statements. Judging the words of an arrogant bastard character as if they were part of a peer reviewed paper is the real stupidity here. Rand was making an expansive, dramatic point, based on a kernal of reality. Pedantically pointing out that there are some things the government does without "creating more criminals" is an utter (and probably willful) failure to recognize the difference between writing fiction and writing a research paper.
Re:Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? (Score:3, Insightful)
This argument essentially the same as saying that you have no ability other than eating. If you don't eat, you cease to live, and therefore you can not do anything else. Of course, no one would accept this argument; it is false. If Rand had said that the ability to punish criminals is central to, or the foundation of, all government powers, that might be reasonable, but saying that the government has no other power is simply incorrect. For someone like Rand this is just the MO, take a reasonable and true statement and stretch it until you've got something completely unreasonable.