Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending

from the spain-gets-it dept

Once again, adding to the increasingly long list of similar rulings in Spain, a Spanish court has ruled that a popular file sharing site, CVCDGO, did not actually transfer or host any copyrighted works, and therefore did not violate copyright law. This is the same thing that numerous Spanish courts have found. The entertainment industry will surely use it as part of its media campaign demanding that Spain change its copyright laws (something which economists have noted would do more harm than good). However, wouldn't it be nice if, rather than the knee jerk reaction to these rulings, the industry actually understood what the courts were saying? They're pointing out a simple fact: the service provider isn't actually infringing on anyone's copyright, no matter how many times the entertainment industry wishes it were so.

Separately, the judge in this case noted that the industry seems to be totally overreacting to the issue of file sharing, noting that people have been sharing and trading content for ages:

In their ruling, judges Ocariz, Gutierrez and Campillo said that "...since ancient times there has been the loan or sale of books, movies, music and more. The difference now is mainly on the medium used -- previously it was paper or analog media and now everything is in a digital format which allows a much faster exchange of a higher quality and also with global reach through the Internet."

Filed Under: copyright, liability, p2p, spain

Spanish Gov't Moves Forward On New Law To Make File Sharing And Links Sites Illegal

from the that-didn't-last-long dept

A bunch of free culture sites got pretty excited recently when a Spanish court ruled that file sharing sites, as well as links sites, weren't illegal. Of course, we noted this was hardly a new thing. Spanish courts had already made similar rulings in the past. In fact, the timing of this ruling seemed particularly bad, since we'd noted a few months ago that there were proposals being pushed to change copyright law in Spain. So it should come as little surprise that just days after that last ruling, the gov't has started moving forward with getting the new law approved, and many expect it will be in place within a few months.

The new law sounds particularly bad as well. It would set up a governmental bureaucracy that could simply denounce any site as illegal, if it feels that it offers links to infringing content. Once "denounced," the Spanish high court would get a grand total of four days to determine if the site should be shut down -- and the only reason why it would be allowed to not shut the site down would be if there were clear concerns about freedom of expression. Basically, if the gov't feels a site has too many "unauthorized" links, it gets shut down with minimal review. So much for a more balanced approach to copyright law.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, legal, p2p, spain

Judge Rules P2P Legal In Spain Yet Again

from the proper-liability-placement dept

Spain continues to be one of the few countries out there that seems to not have its judges lose their critical thinking abilities the second anyone mentions the word "piracy." We've pointed out a few times in the past that Spanish courts have ruled that file sharing is legal and it looks like they've done so again. Infophage was the first of a few to send in an article about the latest ruling, which again found that just linking to infringing material is not copyright infringement. The judge apparently went further, though, also noting that using P2P file sharing systems does not appear to violate copyright law in Spain, as long as the user isn't doing so for monetary profit.

Of course, this isn't over by a long shot. Late last year, entertainment industry lobbyists got Spanish politicians to propose new copyright laws that would (of course) ratchet up copyright to make it more like it is in other countries (i.e., more draconian). And, as we recently noted, a bunch of Spanish record labels have sued the gov't for not doing enough to stop file sharing. But, hopefully, this country that has explicitly rejected three strikes laws will stick to its guns and recognize that perhaps the court rulings make sense -- and that the first response to an industry unwilling to adapt to a technologically-changed market isn't to change the laws, but to ask those companies to start adapting.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, legal, p2p, spain

Oxford University Bans Spotify, Apparently Prefers Students To Get Music Secretly, Rather Than Legally

from the that-doesn't-seem-helpful dept

For years, the recording industry has pushed universities to block file sharing apps and promote legal alternatives. In the US, the industry even pushed legislation that would require universities to support legal music services. Apparently, the folks over in Oxford are going in the other direction. IT folks at the prestigious university have banned Spotify, one of the most well-known legal music services out there, claiming that any P2P technology is not allowed, and then also claiming that it's a bandwidth hog. Finally, when confronted about it, the University noted that the service "cannot be justified as educational." There are lots of things online that cannot necessarily be justified as educational, but are totally allowed.

Given the multiple explanations, you get the feeling this may have been an overreaction on the part of the University by someone unfamiliar with Spotify. I would doubt that the application is really that much of a bandwidth hog -- and even if it is, you would think that there are better ways to deal with it than an outright ban. Either way, it's not like it will actually stop students from using it or some other means of accessing music they want to hear -- it's just that they'll do so in more secretive ways.

Still, a bigger question is why such an esteemed university seems to think that all P2P applications are somehow bad. You would think that an educational institution would recognize that P2P is just a way of using the internet -- often in a more efficient manner -- and it's been used in all sorts of beneficial and educational settings for years.

Filed Under: bandwidth, oxford university, p2p
Companies: oxford university, spotify

Anti-File Sharing Lobbyists/Lawyers Shove Each Other Aside To Blame P2P Rather Than Dumb Guy For Congressional Leak

from the try-harder dept

A couple years ago, some entertainment industry lobbyists hit on a new idea for trying to get Congress to legislate against file sharing software: figure out ways to blame it for stupid employees. More specifically, figure out a way to blame it for stupid employees... in the government. So, those lobbyists have worked hard to highlight every single time some sort of sensitive government information was leaked via file sharing programs, and then even got Congress to investigate file sharing programs, rather than government security policies or how the government deals with stupid employees who put sensitive information on home computers that also have file sharing software installed improperly (set to share everything). The latest is that they were even able to get a ridiculously poorly thought-out law proposed that would cause problems for nearly every software you use online. Brilliant.

So, of course, as the news broke that there was a leak of a Congressional ethics investigation, because a staffer put the document on his or her home machine that had file sharing software on it, the usual crowd of folks wasted no time at all in highlighting the use of P2P software and presenting file sharing as if it (rather than dumb employees and bad government security) was a huge national security threat and (of course) to urge Congresss to pass laws against file sharing programs. The one thing in common? All of those calls come from people who get paychecks from the entertainment industry.

Funny, I don't see them calling for laws that would lock down and secure laptops, even though government employees lose thousands of laptops every year -- many with sensitive information. I don't see them calling for laws against email software, though I would bet that a lot more sensitive information is leaked by people simply emailing it to the wrong party. They don't call for laws against the telephone, even though people leak info over the phone. What? No laws against dining in restaurants where you might hear some info from folks at the next table? This has nothing to do with file sharing software. It has everything to do with poor security setup and dumb government employees. The claims that this happens so often are misleading. The federal government employs nearly 3 million people. We hear about these sorts of "leaks" once every year or so. Out of 3 million people, if anything, I'd be amazed there are so few leaks.

Filed Under: congressional ethics, file sharing, leak, p2p

File Sharing Sites Team Up To Help Promote Indie Films

from the no-legitimate-purpose? dept

While some continue to insist that there's nothing good or legal that comes from file sharing sites, many content creators who have embraced those sites have found them to be wonderful tools for distribution and promotion. Now, it looks like a bunch of them are teaming up to do even more. Mininova, The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, Miro, Vuze and Frostwire have all agreed to work with a new project called Vodo, which will help promote indie films. Filmmakers can offer their films through Vodo and get promoted on the various file sharing sites -- and the system is designed to let people easily donate. While I'm not a huge fan of a pure "donation" business model, it should be interesting to see how Vodo evolves over time. Certainly, it could be a valuable tool to indie filmmakers who recognize that obscurity is a much bigger threat to their efforts than piracy.

Filed Under: file sharing, films, p2p, promotion
Companies: frostwire, isohunt, mininova, miro, the pirate bay, vodo, vuze

Congress Moving Forward On 'P2P' Warning Law

from the unintended-consequences,-anyone? dept

Back in May, we wrote about a bill being proposed by Congress, at the urging of the entertainment industry, to force any kind of file sharing app to put certain ridiculous restrictions on the app, such as requiring it to put up a big warning sign every time you use it for sharing files, and requiring the user to "consent" to use the software. Public Knowledge notes that the bill is back in action and going through the markup process, with little in the way of complaints or warnings from the many, many software developers this will impact. Public Knowledge outlines many of the problems with the bill:

1. Legislating Software Design: The bill is aimed at a specific technology and kind of application instead of simple non-tech-focussed consumer protection and disclosure principles. Instead it's aimed at legislating the design and workings of common software. It's the exact kind of thing that has all kinds of unintended and unforeseeable consequences.

2. Over / Under Inclusive Definition: No matter how narrow the definition of "covered file-sharing program" may seem, it's going to include more and less than is intended or desirable. Over inclusive: bill would include basic operating systems like Windows 7 and Mac OS X that enable file sharing; iTunes shares media files as well. Under inclusive: bill would not include applications that simply upload the entirety of a user's hard drive to the web.

3. "Initial Activation" Needs Clarification: The amendment, just like the previous bill, requires the software to notify the user at installation and "initial activation of a file sharing function." The problem remains that there are a number of interpretations of what this means, here are three: A. The first time an application is installed and launched; B. Every time the application is launched; or C. Every time the feature is enabled. Unless the language is made clear, developers not wanting to incur penalties will err on the side of notice, which means the most notifications.

4. Applies to Software Already Written: Software that has already been written and is still being distributed, but not maintained by a developer or manufacturer may fall prey to the provisions of this bill. Unless otherwise exempted, this would require developers to update their older software at great cost, unless they wanted incur penalty of law.

5. Interferes with User and Administrator Choice: This bill would require a fundamental change in how much software operates. Users, especially system administrators, make informed choices about the applications that will meet their needs -- especially those that "just run" without user interaction. In many cases, how an application installs, launches, and operates behind the scenes is part of their decision, and this bill would interfere with how they run their systems.

This bill is bad news, and it's yet another attempt by the entertainment industry to get Congress to start slapping specific restrictions on any software it doesn't like.

Filed Under: file sharing, laws, p2p

Brazilian Court Says It's Illegal To Distribute File Sharing Software If You Have Ads On Your Site

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

A judge in Brazil has apparently told a website that offers downloads of a P2P file sharing app that because it has ads on the site, its operators can be found guilty of criminal copyright infringement and may face jailtime. Specifically, the entertainment industry had sued a particular website because it distributed a piece of file sharing software called K-Lite Nitro, even though it does not make or control the software. After first demanding that the software filter out a huge list of content, which was impossible since the website operators had nothing to do with the software, the company behind the website is now being told by the court that just offering up the software is infringing. So... first there was contributory infringement for file sharing apps themselves... and now they're going after sites that distribute such software? What is that? Contributory contributory copyright infringement? The site plans to appeal, noting that there are plenty of legal uses of the software as well. They also might want to point out that some forms of Brazilian music has done quite well by embracing file sharing to their advantage... But, for some reason, no one ever seems to want to look at that side of the equation.

Filed Under: brazil, contributory infringement, copyright, file sharing, k-lite nitro, p2p

P2P Banned In Antarctica?

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

We know that there's been an ongoing effort by entertainment industry lobbyists to convince politicians (and others) that file sharing and P2P apps are somehow to blame for stupid government staffers accidentally leaking files via those programs. Apparently the propaganda campaign has worked in at least one area: employees of the United States Antarctic Program (USAP) were sent an alert that they need to stop using all P2P programs. The "scenarios" described in the note are the same ones that entertainment industry lobbying group Arts+Labs has been spewing for a few years now. However, rather than assume that the real lesson is that users should actually understand the software they're using on their computer, and make sure not to use it in a dumb way (such as exposing sensitive documents), the director of IT simply told everyone that while on Antarctica, they must disable any P2P apps on their computer. Hope no one there uses Skype to keep in touch with family...

Filed Under: antarctica, blame, file sharing, p2p

Once Again, Congress Wants To Blame Limewire For Stupid Staffers, As Arts+Labs Propaganda Campaign Works

from the limewire-ain't-the-problem dept

This started a few years ago, when suddenly grandstanding Congress-folk started blaming Limewire for "leaking" a confidential terrorist threat assessment. Of course, that was misguided. The problem wasn't Limewire (or any file sharing software), but idiotic gov't employees who (a) put file sharing software on gov't computers (b) didn't properly wall off the software and (c) put confidential info where it could be shared. Earlier this year, suddenly, the issue came up again (again targeting Limewire). It was instigated by some aggressive entertainment industry lobbyists, who have concocted this huge story about how Limewire is to blame. And politicians always seem willing to buy it.

The latest is that some in Congress are planning legislation after claiming that "Secret Service safehouse locations, military rosters, and IRS tax returns" were available via Limewire (funny... those are the same things mentioned in the PR email I got from the entertainment industry lobbyist's PR person...).

Our Congressional critters tried to one up each other in stupid proposals, with one, Rep. Bill Foster, even tossing out the idea of passing a law to block the Gnutella protocol (though, he admitted it wasn't likely to work). Others just planned to pass laws that would ban the use of file sharing software on gov't computers (you need a law for that?!?) and to have the FTC investigate Limewire. And, of course, the real goal in all of this, politicians want to pass a law demanding that the gov't "undertake a national campaign to educate consumers about the dangers of file sharing software."

That last one, of course, is actually the end-goal here. The entertainment industry and their shills such as the group Arts+Labs (who was behind much of this campaign) have been demonizing file sharing software completely, and now want the gov't to help. So the best way to do that was to find some folks who misused the software, get some headlines about how P2P software "exposed" Obama's safehouse locations and then get the gov't to put in place some entertainment industry propaganda. Arts+Labs wins completely. It's backers include the various entertainment firms (bonus! gov't pitching their propaganda story) and a few tech companies who sell filtering/blocking technology (bonus! gov't increasing demand for their technology).

Filed Under: blame, file sharing, government, p2p, polticians, propaganda
Companies: arts+labs, limewire