Spanish Judges Liken File Sharing to Lending Books

[Heart of Darkness]

Uh, I hate to argue with judges, but no. They're wrong. File-sharing is not the equivalent to lending out books or DVDs.

The difference comes down whether or not the item in question is a physical medium or a digital medium. A paperback, if lent to other people, would only be restricted in its circulation by the speed at which that person reads. An eBook, if lent to others, would only be limited by the speed of one's computer and/or Internet connection. Assuming that it takes these people a day to read the paperback, and they pass it off to the next person when they finish it, that paperback would be read by 365 people, not accounting for wear, tear, and abuse; the eBook would be potentially able to reach 365 in a day.

The same argument is true for both the physical and digital forms of movies, music, and games. Physical lending is only limited by the rate of consumption; digital lending has no such restraints.

 

[Captain Pancake]

But when you lend a book, there's only one copy to lend. In file sharing you're making copies of that file and sending them to other people.

Now that I'm done playing Devil's advocate, I still think it was a good ruling overall. These kind of cases are about as petty as you can get and still take in to a court.

 

[Eldarion]

I made this same comparison on another thread and I stand by it. Good for spain.

 

[felixader]

Hm. Tough call. I can see their point, and in this case I have to agree with their judgement. The guys weren't doing anything that wrong themselves (legally, anyways).

However, how often do you lend out your books or DVDs? Handful of times, I assume. With file sharing, you're talking thousands of times so the impact could be greater. It's not as black and white as they said, and books are different to DVDs. I don't think I've seen a book that has told me I'm not allowed to lend it out, but I'm pretty sure that a DVD has (or was that hiring? Hm).

That was hiring. ^.^


To be honest i have to say that i agree on the point that the guys can't be taken down for making this site in regards for the illegal sharing.

But i definately disagree on the "like lending books" thing. It isn't even like lending CDs or DVDs.
In case of lending you give a physical copy of something away and will (probably) get it back one day.

File Sharing is not like that and you DON't have the freedome to steal.

 

[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.

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. 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.

Yeah, I am above the market. Why? Because I can't get a job in this "market" of yours. I'm 19, I have applied everywhere in my town and nothing, at all. I was also forced by my school system to go to a shit school full of drug addled retards because I didn't do my homework, so I feel entitled to take whatever the fuck I want as long as I can't be held accountable. If I had the money to spend on these trial and error runs then I'd be ok with it, unfortunately I don't see a reason to pay 30+ dollars for a game that may or may not be good without at least getting a fair crack at it. I'm not trying to "stick it to the man" I'm just a poor guy who can't afford to buy the good DS games at their absurd prices, hell most games I play for a few hours then dump, and cheating is easier due to built in code applications. I also buy every other game I own used and I don't own anything over PS2 generation, so I'm utterly under the radar, I have never pirated anything new that was for anything other than the DS, and my sister still buys alot of those games.

Yep, completely pointless, ah well. Speaking as someone the same age as you, if you ever want to solve those problems you will have to stop blaming everything but yourself. Beyond that your only claim is that you really are special and more deserving than everyone else.

 

[poiuppx]

Get it out of your god damn head right now that piracy = loss of sale, cause that's a lie, most pirates either A)don't have the money to buy the game, or the game is a known piece of shite they intend to give to their child (any of those 20 dollar princess type games for the DS) or B) only intend to test teh game for a time before deciding if it is crap or good enough to buy. I'm a pirate, and I only pirate DS games, but I also talk about the games I play on forums and stuff so as to advertise the games I felt were good enough to talk about, shit will be left in the dust and good games will be spoken of, I talked to several people about the game Dementium 2 and at least five people I mentioned it to shown a real interest in playing it, they not being pirates themselves would have to buy the game, therefore I generated a potential 5 sales to people who had never eve heard of it. Piracy could be a really good thing. Also pokemon platinum has been downloaded at least 400,000 times on this one site I go to, but it has sold millions world wide, do you really think that the 400,000 really affected the total outcome? How many kids probably bought the game release day anyways even though they could have gotten it for free hours later? Fact, gaming industries are lying assholes who want you to think that piracy is going to ruin them, also fact, they are trying to pay their own incredibly huge wages while producing products that are normally sub par at best.
Also what if I miss one of those shows on like fox that they only play once and then you have to wait for reruns in about two years, is piracy so bad then?

you just read the first sentence i wrote, didnt you?

if you actually read what i wrote, you see im not against piracy. im against the place piracy is heading.

im gonna restate exactly what i wrote in a simpler manner: if things become easier to download than actually go and collect for FREE at a store downtown, and the quality is on par with the product at the store, society will enter a depression over time.

piracy is all well and good as long as either (or both):
a) its lesser quality than the product you pay for.
b) its inconvenient to get a hold of (11 hour download which eats all your download speed, or gotta spend 1-3 hours searching for a file which isnt recorded on a cell phone)

if both of these doesnt apply to the pirated software, we WILL have a problem when the whole modern world gets a slight understanding of pirating (something we will, especially if we follow the progression weve had till now)

please read all before you hit "rage"-button.

I read it all and guess what, games have this thing called anti piracy that will stall you from playing the game for anywhere between two days to a month (pokemon soul silver/heart gold still isn't fixed and they just did a text swap) so there are things in place that make piracy seem like a pain, but what people need to stop and think about is all the time that these pirates spend cracking this AP and translating some games from japanese to english (the Tales Of Innocence translation has taken almost 2 years) and they don't get SHIT other than some thanks and a bunch of whiners. also I'm ALWAYS in rage mode, just different settings, and if you've seen even half the shit I have about how piracy is "ruining the industry" and million other things you'd be perma-pissed too.

You mean that people in the industry want to protect the products they put (a lot of) time and effort into making? They want to actually eat and have a roof over their heads? The greedy bastards! How dare they...

Yet furthermore, the people who spend time and effort to, instead of create games themselves, shameless rip open other people's work and facilitate thousands of other people stealing it are not PAID FOR THIS TIME?!?! What is the world coming to?

You don't walk through a supermarket taking a bite out of every product in there before deciding which one to buy, if you didn't do your homework and don't have the qualifications for a job that's nobody's fault but your own. If you don't have a job and don't have the money to buy a car you don't just go and steal one because society didn't provide one for you, and anybody can tell that the person who broke the car's window and hotwired it for you doesn't deserve the same pay as the car company.

You say you're raging because you see people saying that pirates are ruining the industry, well how about all the self-entitled self-labled 'consumers' (thieves) stop stealing from the industry and see if it suddenly gets better overnight? Don't rage at people for saying that thieves are ruining the industry without showing them the alternative.

First I'm not talking about someone who dumps games, that's as easy as having the right equipment, I mean there are quite a few good games (ASH archaic sealed heat, Soma Bringer, Tales of Innocence all for the DS) that do not get released outside of japan and there are people who have spent YEARS translating it and they won't get anything at all. They do this out of the kindness in their hearts and you would have then arrested because they are pirates? I for one find that sick, there are a lot of games that will be pirated until Japan starts localizing them, because people want to play them. Now then, no I do not sample things at the market because they will not make bananas taste any different or change flavors, unlike games that change all the time, give me a demo, a good one, one that has about an hour of gameplay and story, then I won't need to pirate a game to test it, but they won't do that. And I am a consumer, if you intend to buy a game, you are a consumer and you have a right to know what you are getting into without all the lies and puffery they give you. Look, this will go nowhere, I will continue to do what I do, you will continue to complain like a whiny little kid who had his toy taken away, and until either the internet DIES, or companies stop making games neither side will win. this is me, walking away, and praying that you either do not quote me so I won't come back, or simply taking the high road with me and agreeing to disagree, you want to follow laws, fine, I see them as unjust and stupid, there is no one saying you have to read this, or respond, or anything. There is no point in continuing this fruitless conversation. I'm done (unless otherwise provoked, which I have been multiple times already by people who are raging harder than I am over something that is as simple as you do or don't. It's like I called god a fag or something, geez why don't we fight over something that matters, or that I actually care about.)

So, wait. You're not part of the market, you gladly pirate, you feel entitled to take anything you want... but we- the non-pirates -should take your side because... you have trouble getting a job and we don't respect fan localizations for games that don't get state-side releases? I'm starting to think this guy isn't a real pirate, he's an anti-pirate looking to make real pirates look immature, short-sighted, and sophmoric at best.

Also, I love the 'just give me a demo' excuse. It always seems to be said as if it'd take the developers five minutes to chop out a chunk of their game and upload it.

 

[Legion]

I'm the consumer, I have final say, if I don't want it I won't buy it.

"I am the consumer, so if I don't like it I will steal it instead of buying it."

That makes perfect sense! Why don't we all do that?!

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.

Not to mention the fact that it is still yours. Whereas file sharing is basically scanning the book and giving out those copies to friends, except rather than friends it is to thousands or even millions.

 

[Dan B]

huzzah for sense!! Over herer in sunny England, you can get arrested without trial over here if suspected of downloading anything deemed illegal...

Do you mean arrested without trial or sent to jail without trial? Getting arrested and then going to trial *after* you get arrested is normal.

And if you mean going to jail without trial...damn that is scary.

you can go to jail without trial*, really need to proof read my posts lol. But yeah it is scary, basically people who download have the same rights as terrorists... some people just REALLY like money, so that's why I love this story as it is someone in the legal system applying some sense, though I know that not everything can be free, downloading gets you bigger sentences and/or fines than some physical robberies... and they get a trial. Something is clearly wrong.

you only go to jail without a full trial by a jury of your peers if you plead guilty, that applies to terrorism and piracy/online crime, although on suspicion of terrorism they can theoretically hold you for upto 38days, in a comfortable investigation area.
or if your visiting somebody in prison...you dont get a trial for that either

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

Exactly, it's not going to work, so they need to live with it, and minimize it by making games without pirate-turning crippling DRM.

They are being afforded the same legal protection as everyone else, they just want more.

 

[omega 616]

I'm the consumer, I have final say, if I don't want it I won't buy it.

"I am the consumer, so if I don't like it I will steal it instead of buying it."

That makes perfect sense! Why don't we all do that?!

We should, so when devs go bankrupt the pirates can blame devs when no more games are made 'cos they have no money.

In fact why don't we all steal pirate books, films, music and games why not right? Were helping the devs after all, without us they wouldn't have any customers. Makes sense to me! There is not one flaw in this plan, muhahaha!

I know next to nothing about technology but I think devs should fight back and flood pirating sites with viruses and use technology they use to catch peados, to catch pirates and charge them double the price of the thing(s) they pirated.

 

[Yoshi-Pop]

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.

 

[shadow skill]

Right, I forgot you can lend ONE book to few thousands of people at the same time, everyone able to use it as if he had bought it, and he can keep it forever.

Any of the people could simply memorize the books contents and then pass it off. What is the difference again? Or do you think we should be locking up the occasional mutant who can't forget anything because the fact that they are alive infringes upon copyright?

The chance of a person with perfect memory writing someone a 1000 page book, in 50000 copies FOR FREE, even to Australia and Antarctica, within 10 hours each is so minimal, I think us being killed by a gamma radiation blast from a star 9000 light years away from us in the next day is more likely.

Besides, "passing on" usually means using computers to copy things or writing with your hands. I think if you re-write a book... it's still illegal. Quoting, paraphrasing is not, but xeroxing is illegal. At least in my country.

Again, file sharing works like this - one person uploads, 100 people download, then those 100 people can upload to... 100000 people? And so on, so on. So my example should be "one person giving a book to 50000 people, who all have perfect memory, and they can give the book to more people".

So the publishers should be able to exercise thought control if they can find some arbitrary number of people with perfect memories? The moment someone creates working thought transfer should we have to have a debate about whether a publisher should be able to hide memories from people? Will we be stuck listening to some lawyer argue that people don't own their own memories, therefore the publisher should be able to prevent you from sharing them with others? Should a table manufacturer be able to turn its products to dust at will because they come up with a method of doing so without physically entering a person's home?

Maybe we should work on putting chips into the brain that manipulate the optic nerve so that "unauthorized" individuals cannot even view items they do not own themselves? Heaven forbid they see a movie without paying for it by going over to their friend's house for movie night.

 

[Abedeus]

walloftrolltext

The copyright on books and films etc. Should be there only to protect the creator from someone taking a work and passing it off as their own. Not to enable creators to tell me that I don't own (In the same way I own a chair.) the data on my hard drive or in my brain.

Yes, and locks in your door should only protect your dog from running away, or from creating a wind current inside of your own home. Who are you to tell the potential thieve... I mean, people desiring your property that they can't barge in and take whatever you have on your hard drive?

Wow, it's fun to compare things that are completely irrelevant. There is a separate section for frauds, intellectual theft (WHICH PIRACY IS) and copyright issues. Hell, there is even a section in the Polish law which states that piracy, as in copying books, movies, music, games and everything else that was COPYRIGHTED is punishable by law.

Look that word up. Copyrighted, means the author has legal paper stating that something belongs to him, and if you want to use it, you must pay whatever the author wants for it, as long as it's not monopolizing the market (like what Microsoft was accused of some times ago). However, chairs are not copyrighted, unless someone makes a uniquely designed chair made of mahogany and ivory, encrusted with jewels and gold ingots. And someone is bored enough to accept the copyright claim.

Again, before talking about something you are obviously oblivious about, look up a few legal words. Copyright, then intellectual theft, then piracy.

 

[shadow skill]

walloftrolltext

The copyright on books and films etc. Should be there only to protect the creator from someone taking a work and passing it off as their own. Not to enable creators to tell me that I don't own (In the same way I own a chair.) the data on my hard drive or in my brain.

Yes, and locks in your door should only protect your dog from running away, or from creating a wind current inside of your own home. Who are you to tell the potential thieve... I mean, people desiring your property that they can't barge in and take whatever you have on your hard drive?

Wow, it's fun to compare things that are completely irrelevant. There is a separate section for frauds, intellectual theft (WHICH PIRACY IS) and copyright issues. Hell, there is even a section in the Polish law which states that piracy, as in copying books, movies, music, games and everything else that was COPYRIGHTED.

Look that word up. Copyrighted, means the author has legal paper stating that something belongs to him, and if you want to use it, you must pay whatever the author wants for it, as long as it's not monopolizing the market (like what Microsoft was accused of some times ago). However, chairs are not copyrighted, unless someone makes a uniquely designed chair made of mahogany and ivory, encrusted with jewels and gold ingots. And someone is bored enough to accept the copyright claim.

Again, before talking about something you are obviously oblivious about, look up a few legal words. Copyright, then intellectual theft, then piracy.

I know what it means. I also know that that Copyright does not actually entitle the creator to set the price of the item after the initial sale. So I would suggest that you go look that word up. I also recognize the fact that the digital representation of any copyrighted material exists on media that I own free clear. Making any number of copies of that representation should not be a legal issue unless I am selling the data. Chairs and other physical objects are patented which is like a copyright except for the fact that you are forbidden from making a chair or other object in the same way for a period of time. Holding a copyright does not prevent mutli books involving action etc from being written.

Yet somehow I am to believe that the publisher should have control over the digital representation of an item, when no publisher would be given the right to enter my home and take a book through analog means, because I am magically renting the item even though in most cases the transaction is identical to a sale and not a rental. If we are going to start claiming that people don't own, in the traditional sense, items that exist on media they do in fact own; there is absolutely no reason why the content creators should not be able to physically enter your home and take your stuff! Unless of course you contradict your own logic and claim that people own the objects data exist on but not the representations contained within them.

Amazon had trouble with Kindle and deleting books last year, had people bought the deleted items from a physical store the publisher of the content could not have gone into the purchasing customers' homes and confiscated the books. Yet because the items were digital representations suddenly it was legal for them to enter customers' property (The Kindle device.) and delete the item because they could. Do you not see the problem here?

It becomes legal for content providers to enter into people's devices and remove content without permission merely because it is possible. Therefore the test for legality is the ability as opposed to the right to do something.

 

[Flying-Emu]

Why not? As far as pirates are concerned, isn't this a major victory?

Maybe the judge's quote, but not their ruling. If pirates consider some old Spanish dude comparing file sharing to lending books a "major victory," I think they've got some worrying to do. First off, no legal precedence was set here; All it does is make INDIVIDUAL sites responsible, rather than ones that link to off-site downloads.

And really, that's not a big deal.

 

[Danpascooch]

Why not? As far as pirates are concerned, isn't this a major victory?

Maybe the judge's quote, but not their ruling. If pirates consider some old Spanish dude comparing file sharing to lending books a "major victory," I think they've got some worrying to do. First off, no legal precedence was set here; All it does is make INDIVIDUAL sites responsible, rather than ones that link to off-site downloads.

And really, that's not a big deal.

Police tried to shut them down for linking to off-site downloads, the judge ruled that they couldn't do that (thus setting the precedent that linking to off site illegal downloads is legal is Spain)

Sounds like a victory to me.

 

[Flying-Emu]

Why not? As far as pirates are concerned, isn't this a major victory?

Maybe the judge's quote, but not their ruling. If pirates consider some old Spanish dude comparing file sharing to lending books a "major victory," I think they've got some worrying to do. First off, no legal precedence was set here; All it does is make INDIVIDUAL sites responsible, rather than ones that link to off-site downloads.

And really, that's not a big deal.

Police tried to shut them down for linking to off-site downloads, the judge ruled that they couldn't do that (thus setting the precedent that linking to off site illegal downloads is legal is Spain)

Sounds like a victory to me.

Minor at best.