Another Court Ruling In Spain Finds Personal File Sharing To Be Legal

from the no-profit-motive dept

Tue, Jun 2nd 2009 5:44am — Mike Masnick

While the entertainment industry has been working over time to try to stop file sharing in Spain, court ruling after court ruling has found that personal file sharing is perfectly reasonable and legal -- and that sites that merely link to content rather than host it (i.e., search engines and trackers) aren't breaking copyright law either. In the latest such case, a judge found that a guy who downloaded and shared over 3,000 movies wasn't violating copyright law, because it was all for personal use with no intent to profit.

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

Filed Under: file sharing, legality, personal use, spain

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Tgeigs (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 6:17am

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my file sharing. Prepare to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- minijedimaster (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 6:41am
  
  Re:
  LOL, nice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rebel Freek (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:05am
  
  Re:
  lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin Stapp (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:16am
  
  Re:
  *giggle*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven Randal, 2 Jun 2009 @ 6:22am

comment
The times have changed and it's time for the record and movie companies to face the facts. Good article!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Korrosive, 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:11am

LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin Stapp (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:18am

Interesting. If you download a 'legal' copy of a movie or song while in Spain then come back to the USA, is your copy a legal copy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:23am
  
  Re:
  good question, although likely the argument would be a: where you reside is your jurisdiction vs b: where you performed the act was legal thus it is.
  
  Most courts tend to go with B, as that happens in many situations such as when laws of one state conflict with another. It's pretty well established, and it's unfortunately why things like tax avoidance via overseas are not pursued in court often.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 2 Jun 2009 @ 12:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It also goes the other way. One can legally buy marijuana in Amsterdam, but they can't then bring it back to the US and have it be legal. An 18-year-old can buy beer in Germany, but they can't bring it back to the US. So, it depends. In the US, is possession of infringing copies a crime, or just distribution? That has not been absolutely decided in court, but the outcome would determine the answer here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:22am

LOL!

Is Spain a safe harbor now? If torrent sites, fans, and filesharers aren't punished there, won't this really let the cat out of the bag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 2 Jun 2009 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  EVERYBODY SING WITH ME!!:
  
  Yo ho, haul together
  hoist the colors high...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 7:41am

Because is not for profit and 270 million € has already been paid in advance.
There is a leave in CD, DVD, Hard Disk, Mobile Phones, MP3 players.... calculated so at least that amount is obtained by the collection agencies to be "distributed" among the authors to compensate them from the personal not for profit copies.

And if they get more than that they are suppose to tell us so we reduce it in a couple of year but no need to show us the accounts we have confidence that the collection agencies would never cheat.

Like getting the money for it and try to send the people to jail at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- madjo (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 8:19am
  
  Re:
  Yes, the collection agency want to eat their cake and still have it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CStrube (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 8:28am

Anyone know a good open proxy in Spain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Mamma, 2 Jun 2009 @ 8:54am

Its about friggin time
Its about time!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 9:14am

"because it was all for personal use with no intent to profit."

This is what crosses my mind when I think of copyright laws. How and why are you going after people that do not "steal" your stuff when they aren't making money off of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 9:59am
  
  Re:
  Because they feel that every person who downloads for free would have paid if they couldn't download for free. Therefore, the sale was lost due to 'piracy'.
  
  Furthermore, they think, if 'piracy' were gone they'd have made $20 off of you, but since 'piracy' is a viable option, they are making $0 off of you. So you "stole" $20 from them.
  
  Even worse, because you didn't pay them the $20 you would have paid them had the internet never been created you owe them $150,000.
  
  Per song.
  
  It's horribly flawed to the point of insanity, but that's their story and they're sticking to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Simon, 2 Jun 2009 @ 10:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    Additionally, you took the $20 you didn't pay them, shredded it and then burnt it. Thus damaging the whole economy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tgeigs (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 10:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Plus they're fairly certain you're a sheep-humping transvestite...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rebel Freek (profile), 2 Jun 2009 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        With the ability to run through their studios naked holding a dead baby in one hand and a burning bible in the other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tgeigs (profile), 3 Jun 2009 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mmmm, dead burning bible...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2009 @ 3:00pm

Last laugh to the media companies, who are collecting the "tarif" on blank media and the like.

Nothing is free. That is just an illusion, making you not see the cost because you didn't take the money out of your pocket right this instant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]