Yesterday we learned of a ruling by the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona for the appeal was known to ruling dismissing claims against elrincondejesus.com SGAE. It seems like a very novel sentence. So far, all court rulings had found that provide links to works protected by copyright posed no public communication or any intellectual property infringement. However, the decision of the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona seems to match the existing majority opinion so far, so stated in the press , which entitled it has been condemned by "links to direct downloads" . Let's see if it is.
The ruling states that from the site in question could do three things: 1 .-
direct downloading of music files.
2 .- Play music streaming . "
3 .- Access P2P links.
is in the first two points where we should focus, because what the sentence says is that from that page to download could directly and listening to streaming phonograms. That is, we would not be a case of links, but that public communication is made by defendant's own website, as is offered by the archives, either for download or to listen online . Thus the court ruling is logical and expected, and there is nothing new.
Thus, the sentence is truly amazing, but not because he has declared illegal something that no other judge had done, but because they change the facts. Certainly leaves quite puzzled now appears that from this site itself is engaged in acts of public communication, when it was assumed that there was nothing but links. Moreover, the statement adds, which is surprising, that "the defendant himself in the act of the trial, acknowledged" . It's so strange that may be thought that the judges have confounded the links to direct downloads to the fact that these were hosted on the web, which is not the same, obviously.
In any case, if we stick to the text of the sentence, which must be made clear is that at no time is said to provide direct links to downloads or works streaming pose a public communication, so we continue as we were before: the web pages of links do not violate property rights intellectual.
0 comments:
Post a Comment