Looks Like Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Got To The Spanish Government
from the and-here-we-go-again dept
We had just been noting how Spanish courts seemed to be actually interpreting copyright law in a reasonable way, and slapping down industry attempts to abuse the laws. Of course, that couldn't last. It appears that Spain is now proposing new copyright laws that would bring its existing laws down the well-lobbied path of draconian punishment, increased third party liability and other mindless ideas that have more to do with propping up an old business model than encouraging the creation of new quality content. A bunch of professional content creators in Spain are organizing to protest these new rules, but do they stand a chance against the usual onslaught of industry lobbyists?
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 ]
Re:
You should take some time to thumb through the last--let's say year--of posts and you'll find your ignorance concerning Mike's stance on piracy washed away by a torrent (not pun) of newly acquired information; a torrent only equaled by your mother's alcohol consumption while she was pregnant with you.
(Seriously, who would name their kid 'Anonymous'? She must've been REALLY drunk.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, and yes. I download things like Linux distributions, open source software installs, music and videos are are legally shared in P2P systems. I also watch lots of online videos, play online games, often times have high quality audio streams playing while browsing the internet and someone is watching a Netflix movie in the next room. So a high speed internet connection is incredibly useful to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does the grandparent think that just because someone enjoys their nice internet package that they are raporists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Approve? No. Nor do I participate. But that has nothing to do with the law being proposed, which would add third party liability not to those who pirate, but those who provide basic technological services.
Without piracy, do you honestly think that most people would run P2P stuff on their computers all the time?
Why should that matter? This is an honest question. It is happening no matter what you hope will happen. So why bother with conjecture that is an impossibility?
Do you think they would pay an expensive internet connection to share only legal stuff?
There are tons of reason to pay for an internet connection that have nothing to do with piracy. I believe that internet penetration would be almost identical in the absence of piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I participate. There are tons of reason to pay for an internet connection that have to do with piracy."
Oh, it was all in code but I figured it out. Mike can no longer hide!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is the thing that I don't think these entertainment people can get a grasp on. People like some of their stuff, and for those that aren't true fans, when it's free they'll go ahead and grab onto it, sometimes becoming true fans and sometimes not.
But if you take that stuff away from them, no problem. They'll go get other free stuff. Amatuer artists, lesser known indy bands, free news, etc. etc. etc.
We can all argue the morality and/or economic impact of piracy until we're blue in the face, and I think there are at least a couple of different legitimate viewpoints, but this notion that the entertainment industry has that the thirst for connectivity and content that makes up the demand for the internet revolves around them is arrogant on a level that is hard to comprehend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
First off, third party liability only exists if there is in fact piracy. Without piracy, there would be no liability, right? So what you are saying is that there shouldn't be third party liability because it is likely that there is piracy.
An anti-piracy stand would be more like "Let's get rid of those pirates so that third parties can't be found liable of anything".
There are tons of reason to pay for an internet connection that have nothing to do with piracy.
Way to read HALF a thought!
Without piracy, do you honestly think that most people would run P2P stuff on their computers all the time? Do you think they would pay an expensive internet connection to share only legal stuff?
There are plenty of reasons to have a good internet connection (mine runs nearly 20MB/sec), but the question is would people who currently are the backbone of P2P networks continue to be that way if they could only share legal stuff? Do you honestly think that TPB would be such a popular site with only legal torrents? Do you think that kids would pester their parents into getting an even faster internet connection if the only think there were doing was watching videos (that stream at I believe that internet penetration would be almost identical in the absence of piracy.
Again, a deflection. Internet penetration could include everyone on a dialup. Speed isn't a measurement. The question would be the penetration of ultra high speed internet, and perhaps even use of a significant amount of bandwidth with it.
Third party liablity might go a long way to stop service providers from thumbing their noses at copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Problem solved. There are laws already in place. The laws aren't stopping the content industries from acting.
Weren't these laws lobbied by the content industries in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you aware how deeply insulting this statement is!
You are claiming that all the content produced by those who are happy to share it is worthless with your disparaging "only legal stuff".
Please show some respect for those who accept the implications of the new technology and don't try to fight an unwinnable war against it.
Please show some respect for those who are happy to put out their work on creative commons or free software licenses.
Please show some respect for those authors and musicians who respect and trust their fans.
Please show some respect for the tradition of sharing in the scientific community (especially the physics community) out of which the internet and the worldwide web was born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And by including those numbers you completely and utterly undermine what you just said.
The numbers are of course fictional - but what you are saying is:
(I have total respect for you)*0.000001%
and 99.999999% disrespect.
I don't call that respect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please show some respect for the tradition of sharing in the scientific community (especially the physics community) out of which the internet and the worldwide web was born.
The military might have something to say about that gentle re-writing of history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really should RTFA before you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. That's why gun manufacturers are held liable for shooting deaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, you can't have third-party liability. Go away, now, since you make no sense at all. And no, I'm not going to give you a metaphor. I know you're not that stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd have the big fat internet pipe no matter what. I do way too much other stuff not to have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess we should make having hands illegal then? The number one enabler of criminal acts is our hands after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dispute! I'd say we should all get lobotomies, because the brain has to be ranked higher than hands in causing criminal behavior...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess we should make having hands illegal then? The number one enabler of criminal acts is our hands after all."
Actually it's our brains, as criminal activity is a behavior. So in order to cut criminal activity off at the knees I propose World Lobotomy Day, and I believe AC should be the spokesperson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without racing, do you honestly think that most people would speed in their cars all the time? Do you think they would pay for an expensive sports car to drive only at legal speeds?
Yes. And it's not so much approving of piracy as it is trying to get the punishment fitting the crime. I mean, do J-walkers deserve to be amputated (so they can never j-walk again)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we should start a political party, i would suggest to start lobbying and fight fire with fire but we can't; as basic human rights aren't supported by billion dollar industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know what we stand for. Who wants a drink?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
non commerical copying and fair use
and ill say it
FIGHT THEM
riaa/mpaa are bad evil trolls and you will see them funny part is
A) am i a thief in canada for using my blank cdrs ( CDR LEVY ) no
B) am i the thief or are they with 17.07$ pop n popcorn at movie theatres
C) cam law got one person convicted in 1.5 years ...LIKE OMG how much taxppayer money wasted on that could have went to foodbanks OR lowering taxes
its economic american terrorism plain and simple by a small group who need like hockey players to take some pay cuts and USE TECHNOLOGY not be scared whiney of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have seen plenty of "internet penetration" and very little of it has involved pirates.
ty ty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you appear to have been at least 58 seconds late there, love child.
Daddy knows best!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Spain....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it hard to understand how it can be that different governments suddenly start to write new copyright laws so close after eachother.
And I find it even harder to understand why these governmental agencies don't look at more experts, rather than just lobbyist from one side of the equation.
Are they all blind and stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it looks like this:
$$$$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Used tools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]