Judge Rules P2P Legal, Sites Innocent

[squidrott]

I kept rereading the bold article heading trying to figure what P2P network "SPain" was. lol

...it's gonna be a long day...

 

[brendano257]

[citation][nom]The_Blood_Raven[/nom]This is great!Now if we can only kill off the RIAA with extreme prejudice then the world would be so much better.There was Caesar, then there was Vlad Dracula, then there was Hitler, then there was Stalin, then there was Saddam, and now there is the RIAA.[/citation]
They're all dead.....does that mean...IS THE RIAA GONNA DIE TOO?! =D

 

[elbert]

For decades the company's make up the RIAA has conspired to keep music prices high. Used cheap media known to have short life spans. Done everything possible to increase profits and in my eyes a cartel. I see this in and of itself illegal.

The company's making up the RIAA are reaping their actions from the past several decades IMHO.

Has the RIAA try to restrict markets? They tried and failed to sue MP3 device makers. Should we see the RIAA sueing P2P as a means to restrict distribution channels? They sued Napster while they was trying to make it a sales channel. Due to this P2P's should not be held responsible or be forced to change.

The RIAA uses any change to music download as admitting of guilt.

I don't illegally download and I suggest anyone else to not. I do suggest boycotting music.

 

[elbert]

Boycotting music from the company's under the RIAA.*

 

[biometricsguy]

They've come an aweful long way since the Franco years. ¡Viva España!

 

[Regulas]

One judge not on the bankrolls of the RIAA, good for him, real justice served.

 

[jotiocomomola]

In Spain we have different copyright laws than in the US or other EU countries. When you buy a book, movie (VHS, DVD etc) or song (LP, CD etc) you have the right to make personal copies (security backup, CD to mp3 etc) and you can share this copies if you don't earn money with this action and the receptor owns the original too. P2P only works as vehicle for these purpose.

On the other hand we pay a fee for every VHS, CD, DVD, hard-drive, scanner etc any think that can be used to copy or store all this data. All this money goes to our RIAA (SGAE). So you will pay this fee always, even if you use your CD for those family pics. Where is here the innocence presumption? When you buy a CD you pay because it's assumed that you will use it for copying copyrighted material.