Spanish Judges Liken File Sharing to Lending Books

[Danpascooch]

I get the impression these judges aren't particularly computer savvy.

What ever could have given you that impression?

Oh, maybe the fact that one of the judges said that people have been sharing movies since Ancient times!

"Since ancient times there has been the loan or sale of books, movies, music and more." the judges ruled.

Yes Judge, I believe it was the Ancient Greeks who first perfected the art of recording video onto film, and since those ancient times mankind has enjoyed copying and sharing films with each other, right up until Medieval times when the Templar Order of the Federation Against Copyright Theft rode forth from their castles and slaughtered entire armies of video pirates across Europe, plunging mankind into the Dark Ages.

I know Judges are supposed to be somewhat out of touch, but can they really get away with making such a blatant factual error?

I just hope it's a mistranslation of Spanish to English, and not an example of the Judge's knowledge on the matter.

I think you need to check your sources, and THINK before you post.

Of course movies have been shared for thousands of years, don't you remember all of those movie projectors found in ancient Greece and Roman ruins?

You must feel like an idiot.

 

[Kanodin0]

For someone who claims to not care about justifications, you certainly seem to have a lot of them. You can make these claims about quality all you like, but a product being inferior in no way means it's acceptable to illegally acquire it.

Yes, it is, if the game is shit I see no reason why I should pay good money for a crap product, you would never pay five dollars for rotten apples only to have the store tell you all sales are final and they swear the apples are good, games shouldn't be treated any differently if I don't like a game I should be able to get my money back within a set amount of time (11 days or so) if by that time I have not returned it then I like it well enough, if I do then it's the developers fault for making a crap product.

You seem passionate about this. Or, no, wait, you seem disproportionately angry about this.

I don't like some guy I've never met nor heard of telling me to get the fuck off of a service that is open to the public. I'm a member and he had no right to tell me to get off the internet because I have a different opinion. I'm a pirate, and it isn't like I steal anything that big a DS game here and there some music, and everyone does it, copyright laws are shit if a person with average intelligence looks at them and as I said there are laws to put pirates in prison forever for a song they "stole" two years ago, and there wouldn't be a second trial, trust me look it up, laws are really skewed to protect the rich. I'm not going to pretend to be robin hood or something, but why would I help someone who wants thirty dollars for something that is crap, it's like selling dog shit and saying there is gold in there, somewhere, and charging fifty dollars for it, there maybe gold, but not fifty bucks worth.

Sure I wouldn't pay for an obviously debunk product, but that doesn't mean I have a right to take a big bite out of every piece of produce in that store before actually buying anything. You have no right to the games you pirate. Period. You justify your actions by claiming poor quality in many games. but you also have no right to having a good game for your money. You live in a free market, and people can try to sell you anything as long as they are not outright deceptive. It is your responsibility to filter what is worthwhile and what is not.

I am sure you will claim they (they here being game makers in general) are trying to deceive you all the time, or that you lack information to make a decision because they withhold it and the media is in their pocket, but with a lack of information you can then simply assume it is a bad product and not pay.

With all that in mind, you still have many rights. You have the right to decide whether or not to buy the game, you are not in anyway coerced into doing so. Once you have bought it you have the right to ask for a refund if you are unsatisfied. You have no actual right to a refund, you have already made the choice to buy the product, you received the product you chose, so unless it is a defective copy the store has done nothing wrong, it merely did not meet your subjective standards it has no knowledge of. Still, you may request a refund and the store may accommodate you. If they refuse you have the right not to shop there in the future and to not buy products from that developer in the future.

This is how a free market works, economics 101, but you have decided you are above that market, that you have a right to never lose money because of your own decisions. In short you have serious entitlement issues. The only reason you get away with piracy is that your crime is a petty one. Finally you are not sticking it to the man, you are not rebelling against the establishment, you are just a cheapskate. Feels good to let it all out even if it is almost certainly pointless.

 

[Alar]

Long live Spain!

 

[Shru1kan]

I hope some big wigs in the industries followed this case. And I hope they decide to end piracy since obviously they aren't going to find any legal help whatsoever. Just shut her down. Oh that big game you have been waiting for is set to be released next month? Haha not anymore. Maybe that would put an end to this piracy doesn't hurt anyone nonsense when it starts hurting all of us.

I don't like to insult people, so I won't, but I feel like I would be doing you a disservice if I didn't let you know that this post makes no sense.

First of all, no "bigwig" wants piracy, you've heard of DRM right? (you can't really use this site without hearing about it constantly) that's them trying to end it.

Secondly, if they prevented piracy by not releasing games anymore, how would that be beneficial to them? They'd be saying "HAHA! No more piracy....wait...FUCK! WE HAVE NO SOURCE OF INCOME ANYMORE!!!"

Your solution is akin to ending AIDS by blowing up the Earth, sure it ends it, but it destroys everything that made it relevant, and caused a much more massive problem than it solved.

I am well aware of how that would play out. I know that you would be cutting of the leg in hopes of saving the toe. I also know it would never happen. I just find it somewhat depressing that this is the only hope they have left of ending piracy. And frankly incorporating ridiculous DRMs is not doing them much more good than just closing the doors down. Just look what it has done to Ubisoft's reputation.

Or they could just live with the fact that some Piracy is going to happen, and stop making DRM that DRIVES PEOPLE TO PIRACY! Thus raising their profits by cutting out an expensive piece of development while simultaneously lowering piracy rates.

Why should they have to live with it? Why are they not being afforded any legal protection? Why is everyone else safe but games are thrown to the wolves and it is ok?

They sue people for millions of dollars who only pirated thousands of dollars of software.

There's their legal protection, they are afforded the same protection every other group has when their copyrights are infringed, they want extra special treatment.

Plus nobody who has a digital form of their media is safe. Sure, they have legal protection if they can PROVE it beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have had not only the files, but that you never legally purchased them.

Any organization that individually checks these things would be a massive money pit, and the only way to truly stomp out piracy. Plus major invasion of privacy for no cause but a sneaking suspicion, and just overall not worth the legal armada it would take to both justify then prosecute the offenders.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Wow, government officials that actually recognize the ever-expanding progression of technology and social behaviors rather than shunning the existence of these young folk with their crazy gadgets.

Who wants to mark this one down in the history books?

 

[poiuppx]

You seem passionate about this. Or, no, wait, you seem disproportionately angry about this.

I don't like some guy I've never met nor heard of telling me to get the fuck off of a service that is open to the public. I'm a member and he had no right to tell me to get off the internet because I have a different opinion. I'm a pirate, and it isn't like I steal anything that big a DS game here and there some music, and everyone does it, copyright laws are shit if a person with average intelligence looks at them and as I said there are laws to put pirates in prison forever for a song they "stole" two years ago, and there wouldn't be a second trial, trust me look it up, laws are really skewed to protect the rich. I'm not going to pretend to be robin hood or something, but why would I help someone who wants thirty dollars for something that is crap, it's like selling dog shit and saying there is gold in there, somewhere, and charging fifty dollars for it, there maybe gold, but not fifty bucks worth.

All right, fair enough. I will start by saying you have as much right to be here as anyone. And yes, he has no right to tell you to get lost. And yes, you have a right to your opinion.

But really? Your logic is 'It's not like I steal anything THAT big'. That's really the move you want to go with? And you pair it up with the price being too high?

Here's an idea; buy used. Buy older games. Find a cheaper hobby. These guys who make video games owe you NOTHING. You have done NOTHING that make them beholden to you. You have no natural right to ANYTHING they have produced. Are guys like Ubisoft total dicks for their actions regarding piracy and their own customers? Yes. Was Atari's Alone in the Dark video game horrid? Without a doubt. Should a six-hour long game with no replay be priced the same as a 40+ hour game with tons of replay? That's a variable question. Do you have a right to their products? No. Utterly, utterly no. You have a discretionary right, as a consumer, to select other products. You have the right of ownership to borrow games from friends. You have the right to choose to use your funds on something else you'll have more fun with. You do NOT have the right to just take the damn thing.

Now, your opinion is that you do. That's fine. My opinion, the opinion of most lawmakers- Spain excluded evidently -the opinion of the guys making the games, and the opinion of those who would like video games as a whole to remain a viable field in the future... well, we don't feel the same way. We feel the alternative to Company X's products is to buy from Company Y, or Q, or D, or not buy at all. We don't feel you automatically get the right to steal from Company X. That's less capitalism and more anarchy.

 

[Podunk]

Lending one person a book that you in turn cannot access yourself while it is in their possession is the same thing as giving away a free copy to every single person who wants one. I see... It must suck to be a creator or artist of any kind right now, let me tell ya.

 

[Waddles]

Wow, I really don't know what to say. Who new the judges in Spain were so logical? I guess they've come a long way from the Spanish Inquisition.

Who would've expected?

No-one expected the Spanish Inquisition in the first place!

 

[Reverend Del]

I think some may have mistaken my idea a little. I mean to say that all costs should be factored in, including those needed for the next production. Now as to who would buy? That's why you don't set a date, just a target. In order for the product to be free it has to reach a certain threshold. If it doesn't then the product stays retail. Simple as. I do see it's a flawed idea, but it goes towards preventing the disease more than DRM is managing. That is the key, you need to make buying more attractive than piracy. Arkham Asylum managed it to start out with, by gimping the Bat. Excellent idea. Why not do that to every other protagonist? Make Commander Shepard drunk if the retail code isn't input. Sure you can play the game, but double vision and a propensity for falling over mid fight is going to make it difficult, what if master Chief found it very hard, nay impossible to reload if the code was incorrect? What if the activation code was linked to the barcode? If the barcode is scanned then the activation code works. If it's not, then oh well, one shot guns for you. Sure that code can be stripped out by the folks who strip the DRM, but hide it. Deep, if they want to crack it make it very very hard work. Make it so that even when they do it'll be long after that initial sales season of any new game. When it really doesn't matter anymore.

Oh and what struck me as reprehensible about the post and the reply by the guy I'd just stood up for was the attitude of "I'm right, my opinion says so." Meaningful discussion is impossible in that environment. And I am ALL for meaningful discussion.

 

[Kollega]

I'm torn, really.
On the one hand, awesome for freedom and all, on the other hand, artists can't make money off of things only a few people buy and the rest lend... or can they?

Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.

Exactly the same here. I would have supported the file-sharing 100% and all the time - if i couldn't see both sides of the argument, that is.

On one hand, draconian copyright laws destroy the main good side of the Internet - freedom of information - and bring us yet another step closer to living in a cyberpunk dystopia. On the other hand, if everyone is pirating stuff, artists will eventually run out of money. Especially those who make indie games. Those guys don't have any corporations behind them, they're just single people or very small groups creating games at their own expense and trying to turn a profit. Yet their stuff is also getting pirated, which means that most pirates are as big of a jerks as megacorporations they constantly piss off.

So i'm not sure who to side with. Classic moral dilemma.

 

[Ldude893]

That is a very logical ruling, especially when coming from the Spanish judicial system. I really hope countries like the U.S. see it this way.

I never expected this Spanish Rationalism.

 

[samsonguy920]

I am hoping that there is some realization that this isn't a free pass to piracy in Spain. The only matter this case addressed was file distribution, which handles a lot more than just pirated copies of My Little Pony 2:The Lost Stirrup.
It is a good turn of events though. One can hope this does set a precedent with other courts and software, music, and other media companies get a slap in the face for their own overstepping of copyright laws.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

I can certainly see their point, but the scale is way off.

You can only lend a book to one person at a time.

You can upload a game once and thousands of people can download it.

 

[Zhukov]

I am surprised at the responses to this news.

Usually, whenever the subject of piracy and file-sharing comes up, you folks are all lining up to declare your heartfelt hatred for it.

 

[HK_01]

This doesn't make sense. When I lend my book I don't have it anymore, and I can't lend it to more than one person at a time.

 

[PurpleSky]

 

[FaceFaceFace]

I can tell they're quite old because they think passing a physical object to your nearby friend is equivalent to distributing infinite amounts of something to infinite amounts of people over the internet. In other words, an unfortunate blow to intellectual property rights.