Italian Court Says Non-Commercial Downloading Shouldn't Be A Crime
from the and-yet-it-is dept
Joining similar decisions in both France and Spain, Italy's top court ruled that downloading content online isn't a crime if there was no profit motive. In other words, private, non-commercial downloading shouldn't be illegal. Of course, as with both Spain and France, other laws may make that point moot. The article about the Italian lawsuit notes that getting around copy protection is still a crime, thanks to Italy's own anti-circumvention law, and that other laws are pending that would add a fine for anyone caught downloading, with no concern for the profit motive whatsoever. In other words, as soon as the courts come out with a reasonable ruling, the politicians will change the law to favor the entertainment industry in their crusade to protect an out of date business model.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That should be the case. If it's for non-commercial use, not a crime!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Software, music copies, softdrugs, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-Commercial Cause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
digital asylum in Italy, Spain, France for peer-is
peer-to-peer per se is not an illegal activity
yeah
you peer to peer-ists are not crooks In Italy, Spain, France
yeah
no jail time for using peer to peer
yeah
does anyone understand how oppressive government is
"where have you gone,
Thomas Jefferson"
The country needs you.
"I consider this sentence as a very intermediate step in clarifying what is legal and what is not legal," said analyst Carlo Alberto Carnevale Maffe, the president of Assodigitale, a think-tank on digital technology. "This sentence marks an important step in that peer-to-peer per se is not an illegal activity. What stays and remains illegal is copyright infringement by cracking copyright files, and distributing it for commercial purposes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Sharing is the copyright infringement. The act of distribution is the "civil offense" (not actually a crime).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tired argument...
Elimination of too many greedy middle-men will be the key. They are the dinosaurs in this equation. I think that it is only the content producers that can make it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tired argument...
iTunes is a perfect example that people will pay for content when it is simple and reasonable. I know many teens that have purchased songs at iStore that they could have gotten for free because the .99 cents was fair. Billions & billions of revenue annually can not be ignored....
(Forcing $15 albums down a consumers throat for usually just 2 or 3 songs on the album is where the problems arise).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how?
How can you defend taking something for free, for any use... when the owner of that item doesn't want to give it to you for free.
It's like saying "courts defend breaking an entering, if all you do is watch a bit of TV, and lock up when you leave."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how?
The MPAA would be fine with the B&E, as long as you watch all the commercials... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
agreed... sorta
Neither does that fact that music is over priced
Nor does the fact that people think it's ok to go for it in these cases.
They're all just moral justifications - false justifications.
The point is simple: Doing it is against the law. Dr Kevorkian may end suffering, but he's still a Murderer. Robin Hood may have helped the poor, but he's still a theif.
In any other market, supply and demand would solve this. We have to let it solve it here too. The problem is, we're addicted to music. We can't go without it. It's why they can raise gas and cigarettes too. But unlike gas and cigarettes, we don't "Need" music to continue on living.
If we all stopped consuming (yes I'm afraid for this to work, you' have to stop legally buying AND downloading, AND any other method by which you obtain music)
Only when the demand lowers will the supply build up, thus causing the industry to lower prices, or re-evaluate their methods.
When it comes down to it though, there's no justifiable reason to download music without paying for it. Even if you're giving it to poor dying orphans and donating the money you would have spent to fight terrorism and child porn - you're still a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: agreed... sorta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: agreed... sorta
Uh. No. The court actually said the opposite. It is NOT against the law. That's why courts exist. To interpret the law.
In any other market, supply and demand would solve this. We have to let it solve it here too.
Hmm. That actually goes against your argument. Supply of a song, once created, is infinite, which means that the law of supply and demand says it will be eventually priced at zero. The market is simply supporting that fact.
When it comes down to it though, there's no justifiable reason to download music without paying for it.
If you're walking down the street and hear a song, are you a criminal? If you listen to a song on the radio, are you a criminal? Listening to music shouldn't be a crime.
Also, if you're correct, how do you explain all those bands out there that encourage downloading? They seem to find it quite justifiable, in that it helps get them more fans.
you're still a criminal.
Not according to the court in Italy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justifiable reason
Give me a store that I can walk into, grab a handful of cd's off the shelf, and tell the clerk I want tracks 1,3,6 off that cd, 2,6,9 off that cd and 10,11,12 off that cd, then that clerk puts them on a cd for me. Yeah, then that will almost justify the outrageous prices of CD's today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws against sharing of information (music, knowledge, etc.) are unjust and lead to nothing more than the slowing down of progress.
The internet is a medium by which ideas and thought flow freely and any organization that tries to stop this should be abolished.
Peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]