I always see you in the park

you’re always wearing dodger blue….

“Yeah I’m a spanish citizen. Don’t forget we pay taxes on all blank media, too.”

Not if you buy them from the many TODO 100 shops(mostly run by chinese people), €6.50 for 25 DVDs isn’t bad :-))

LOL!!

Sounds more real thus:

Absurd. It seems like the USA is the only country in the world that has outdated, bizarre and unjust copyright laws which ONLY favor to the content providers (middlemen) and not to the creators of content (the artists).

When you hear a song on the radio, do you slam your hands over your ears and cry out “NO THE COPYRIGHT LAWS… AAHHH”. Shut the hell up! The only difference between sharing and radio is the fact that you can control what you hear. And the best thing about it is you can discover new music and determine if there’s something out there that justifies buying an entire CD. Bit torrent will eventually put an end to all those “one-hit wonders” I’ve spent way too much friggin money on already. Talk about stealing!

Congratulations Spain!!

“It’s truly beyond me how any with a brain could say that illegal P2P doesn’t violate copyright laws.”

Correction: P2P is LEGAL in Spain and the Spanish Law indeed says that P2P DOESN’T violate copyright laws.

Sorry, neo, but peer-to-peer technology just isn’t illegal with respect to issues of copyright infringement. Categories are not illegal at all. There is legally distributable television, movies, music, software, magazine, and so on that can utilise those categories. Categorisation simply allows for a multitude of content to be appropriately categorised for ease of use by the end-users. There’s nothing illegal about that. How would you go about categorising different types of media if you yourself were in the business of operating a service that allowed for users to distribute content through the use of modern I.T.?

I understand your position. I can see how many of these services operate with respect to copyright with their oftentimes blatant promotion of the availiability of copyrighted works through use of their services, and that many appear to do it in the interest of making money for themselves through advertisements, subscription packages, donations … whatever, but still I think that if you are to read copyright law objectively with regards the act of unauthorised copying, distribution and broadcast, that actually it’s not actually the service providers who are guilty of those things, but the end-users. Maybe my interpretation is wrong, I don’t know, I’m not an expert of international copyright, but apparently this judge here also sees it this way.

You should probably stop using the term “P2P” because I think you’re confusing what it actually is, and file-sharing is by no means limited to what you may define as ‘P2P technology’, such as BitTorrent protocol. P2P means many things and encompasses many differing protocols. For you to suggest P2P technology is largely illegal is ridiculous. This TorrentFreak site is P2P technology of sorts based on the HTTP protocol; You’re a peer, I’m a peer; and we’re exchanging information through the intermediary service hosted at torrentfreak.com. Now if I were to digitise a copyright recording without authorisation and publish it here …

101010111010100010010010001000100101001

… are you going to start attacking the TorrentFreak to have it police the users of it’s service to remove that content or have the service shut down to appease your interests? Sure, TorrentFreak could oblige and remove that data, but what if a large number of people start doing the same? Is it to become the responsibility of TorrentFreak to protect your interests even though TorrentFreak isn’t actually the one infringing on the copyrights? I don’t believe that would be fair. It would be ME that you should be going after as I’m the one breaking the law.

If you’re unhappy with services being able to defend themselves against your desire that they shoulder the responsibility of protecting your content, then I think you probably need to go off and write some new law that specifically expresses such. Then I guess you can come down hard on all those evil services online that people can use to infringe copyright, which is pretty much everything, because that’s what teh internets actually is. Apparently you just don’t know it yet. Stop looking at it as being just some narrowly (and incorrectly) defined “P2P” thing that if you can kill will make all your problems go away. It isn’t, and they won’t.

I don’t see where The Pirate Bay “encouraged people to upload copyrighted torrents” at all. Can you give me a specific example? I see that enjoyed that people liked to use their service, and that they took the position that based on their interpretation of Swedish copyright law that they were not liable to be held responsible as a service provider for how end-users chose to use their service. If end-users use the service to distribute copyrighted content, then it’s the end-user’s reponsibility to ensure they act in accordance with law or, if caught, pay the price for not doing so. If The Pirate Bay’s “tracks” (?) “were comprised of probabaly 99% copyrighted material then I suggest you go after those that are distributing those tracks, which is not The Pirate Bay, but the end-users oftentimes using their home connections and personal computers to distribute the content.

And finally; “The only possible way someone could use that kind of service is to violate copyright.” Give over, that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Here’s a very possible way to use it: I use it to advertise and make available a recording of me farting into a microphone. There you go. Is that against the law (probably… somewhere)? It’s quite possible for people to use the service for perfectly legitimate means.

Yours sincerely. 

Everyone and anyone has permission to quote or repost or whatever anything I say. :)

Can you please give permission to quote that answer? It is that GOOD…

@neo.styles

Your reasoning falls to the ground with the assumption that published art products are “STILL” property of the creator.

From the moment they are published, they belong to everyone, they are: “CULTURE”. Wether that was the intention of the creator or not.

Granted, they own the rights to commercialization. But, P2P sharing, is NOT commerce. More, it can increase commerce, sending the creator to higher revenues.

The principle of one download = Lost sale, is a complete and absurd falacy. One download = One FREE Advertisment. So, instead of “hurting” creators, each and every download is actualy promoting their works for FREE. When, and IF, creators learn to capitalize on that advertisment, they’ll never again go back to the “Dark Ages” of being “Slaves” to the distributors they contracted with.

Right now, content producers, under their contracts with the distributors, publishers, managers, etc… Receive (sometimes they don’t) a very small percentage of the sales of their products. most of the times, they receive as excuse, that the reason they receive so small ammounts is because their stuff is being copied on the internet. That only fools a ignorant fool, so, nothing is really lost there. A clever, elucidated creator, knows that if a product is being copied, it’s because it has fans, and fans, BUY. Doesn’t matter what, doesn’t matter the price, if what you do is GOOD, and people love it enough to share it massively, many of them will buy…

So, instead of blamming who’s promoting you for FREE, who’s making you a STAR, re-examine your contracts, and maybe do a thorough accountability of those contracters…

Bottom line, we share, because we care. Be happy if we share your stuff. Sharers are creators best and sometimes, ONLY friends.

How cute, you changed your name. Anyway.

Copyright needs to change. Here’s why.

Once upon a time, the printing press was the most advanced means of distributing information. Copyright law was created in Europe in the 18th century in order to give authors some say in how their works got printed, among other reasons. As the public did not have access to effective distribution methods, copyright law at the time did not hamper or restrict the public in any way; it only restricted publishers by requiring them to obtain permission to distribute a work. The public recieved a gain (increase in creativity) in exchange for the removal of certain rights they couldn’t really use anyway. Pretty clear benefit for the public there.

Over the last century, copyright law has been left behind in the dust. Technological innovations, from player pianos to cassette tapes and now the Internet, have diminished the gap between public and publisher/distributor. In the digital age, the public is the distributor; with just a few mouse clicks someone can make their material available to the entire world, without the need to deal with a professional distributor. This is a massive improvement when compared to the distribution of content being controlled by a select group of companies and corporations, as has been the norm for some time. These groups- the record labels, the movie studios, the publishing companies- have all done a good job of commercializing art. Turning it into a product to be purchased.

Modern technology is helping to undo that commercialization. Control over the distribution of art is no longer held only by the companies; it is now in the hands of the public. For a hundred years copyright law has seen the introduction of new technologies that, for better or worse, help circumvent it. Copyright law’s initial response is not to adapt to these technologies; it is to place more and more restrictions on the public, on the people that copyright law was designed to favor. Laws like the DMCA, and the constantly increasing terms of copyright (the original life of a copyright was 14 years, renewable for another 14; today, copyrights can survive for over a century), have transformed copyright law from a series of artificial rights that favor the public, and social progress at large, into a series of artificial rights that favor the companies and their profits.

If present-day, obsolete copyright law is allowed to continue existing, the result will be greater and greater restrictions on the public in the name of profits for select companies. Let’s imagine that the next huge technological innovation is worldwide Internet access; any computer, anywhere, can wirelessly access the Internet. The entertainment industry’s idea of “three strikes” is obviously obsolete here; there are no longer ISPs to disconnect from. Their best bet, in order to control the use of their content, is to have access to everyone’s computers and be able to dictate what is used, how it’s used, and when it’s used. (This could actually happen.) If such a thing were to become reality, you would have no privacy on your computer and on the Internet… all in the name of profits for the companies. And it can only get worse from there.

When a p2p user downloads copyrighted material, he is contributing to the fight against outdated copyright, whether he knows it or not. The more people download, the more pressure will be on the law to change. Laws reflect human morality, natural rights and true justice; it should never be the other way around. The future looks very good indeed for p2p: despite anti-piracy efforts by the dying industries, people are still sharing, even more so than before. We have won, and we will continue to win.

Apparently you don’t understand this, but so-called peer-to-peer services are not inherently illegal. How an end-user chooses to use them might be though, so get your evidence together and go after them instead.

Evidently, I did. The fact that I said “illegal P2P” and not just “P2P” signifies that I realize that there are differences and that not all P2P is the same.

You can’t exonerate the people providing the services completely either. TPB encouraged people to upload copyrighted torrents and their tracks were comprised of probabaly 99% copyrighted material. The only possible way someone could use that kind of service is to violate copyright.

But the judgement doesn’t legitimise unauthorised copying, does it? To me it reads that the service providers shouldn’t be held accountable because they’re not seen to be infringing on copyrights.

<“P2P networks, as a mere transmission of data between Internet users, do not violate, in principle, any right protected by Intellectual Property Law”

Makes sense, don’t you agree?

Apparently you don’t understand this, but so-called peer-to-peer services are not inherently illegal. How an end-user chooses to use them might be though, so get your evidence together and go after them instead.

“the court order recognizes the possibility that public distribution may have occurred but this is difficult to prove”

Looks like the law may be unworkable then, doesn’t it? Quick, somebody call neo a waaaaaaaambulance before it cuts itself…

GO SPAIN!!

Just because you aren’t earning money doesn’t mean the copyright holder isn’t losing any. It’s truly beyond me how any with a brain could say that illegal P2P doesn’t violate copyright laws. Copyright places exclusive control of distribution in the hands of the respective holder and I doubt that someone who invensted massive amounts of money and work in something envisioned their work being handed out with no profit for them.

My take on this… I guess this judge got it’s SGAE membership revoked so now his pi55ed at them.

Most of the people in any judicial system are part of at least one anti-copyright-abuse organizations.

Take a look at TPB’s trial… the judge was dirty, so was the cu.nt that was supposed to investigate him and so were a lot others who had been involved in that trial.

Of course, each of them having their own agenda with its “benefits” of being part of such organizations.

That’s why it’s so hard to get a fair ruling in cases such as these.

sorry, I’m just a grammar NAZI

but its still progress, lets just hope another judge higher up cant be paid off to adopt a more anti-filesharing view

to run a torrent tracker , you need a lot of bandwidth that mean you need a lot money to support it .

as long as the sites found with ads or donation , that sites will be easy target.