Cancellation of the fee
On March 24, 2011, the National Court annulled the order that regulates the rates applicable to the various devices and supports recorded with the digital canon. The reason is that, because it is a regulation, it needed procedures related to supporting and economic reports that were not carried out.
On July 12, 2011, the Congress of Deputies voted favorably on a non-law proposal that urges the Government to abolish said canon and replace it with another compensation formula for authors and content owners that is more suited to copies and uses actually made.
On December 31, 2011 the canon was definitively repealed by the newly constituted new Congress of Deputies, being replaced by a new payment this time by the State whose procedure is about to be developed.
Source (in spanish): https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_por_copia_privada_(Espa%...
I join the clapping, sorry for the nitpick!
Still, too lazy/don't have the time to do it.
I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for at least being honest about it.
That is its very purpose.
The purpose of art or media is whatever the creator wants it to be. If they are an artist creating solely for the purpose of making art for be people to enjoy, then your premise is acceptable. If the artist is trying to earn money for their work, then that is their choice. If the artist wants to release their work for the world to enjoy, there are legit ways of doing that and protecting it so that other cannot prevent that free enjoyment.
I know I'm tilting at windmills with this topic on this particular website, but creating art isn't free and nobody has the right to be entertained by it just by being (either the work or the viewer) be default.
Your argument is complicated by the fact that a lot of media, and especially for old out-of-print works, the copyright holder is not the person who actually created the work. At best it is a descendant family member, at worst it is a person or corporation who came into the copyright without the knowledge and consent of the artist.
U.S. of A would like to have a word with you.
> The purpose of art or media is whatever the creator wants it to be.
The purpose of art and media is to generate revenue. People who create just for art are an insignificant minority. The main issue is that when this art does not generate revenue it is thrown away. Then it is no more art. It becomes (like) garbage.
I applaud the effort at legitimately trying to get a copy. However, sounds like an opportunity still might exist. Small record labels are always hard pressed for cash. Maybe there's a business deal to be made. I'm sure they would be open to licensing the music to you. You could then release the album yourself, or maybe a compilation album with tracks from other artists in the same style of music. Now you have the opportunity to bring that music to a wider audience based on your interest while maybe making a little money on it as well.
This is HN after all. Maybe there's some new website you can make that allows cash strapped record labels to distribute the music legitimately using some new programming language of the day. You could then write up a Show HN and let us all know. We might even be interested.
I have personal experience of starting a niche record store with a friend. We were both tired of the music we wanted not being available and decided we'd do it ourselves. Neither of us had any idea about the music industry. We both put in $500 each. Every dime of that was used to buy the initial inventory. We had no money to have a website built (circa 1999). So I learned how to use MySQL and PHP and built one. During the years we ran the business, there were many conversations with artists and record labels. We sold compilation albums where other people licensed individual tracks from labels and arranged them together onto a CD. We even had several discussions about starting our label, but stopped short of that.
My brother made a song with 10 yearly listens and I can find it on there.
Also Bandcamp is a thing. Very few dinosaurs or really, super niche artists are on neither platform.
Not sure if you've heard of it or not, but Discogs might be a great place for you to source and purchase a used copy of those albums.
However,seller declined to ship me discs(to india) even though i was willing to pay shipping. He said customs tends to seize items like music cds
I don't know specifically about Spain, but this 'copyright tax' [that was introduced in most, if not all European countries, probably a directive] was for you to legally be able to create copies on your devices of legally acquired contents.
The interpretation you have been giving it, is mentally satisfying, but not legally tenable
There seems to be contents on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manouche . I leave it for you as home-work to ddgo the solution from there.
But yeah "I took a backup but lost the original, good thing I took the backup!" ;).
I'm not advocating for or against what you are choosing to do, but the position of "it's my only choice" is not really accurate. You have no inherent right to that media.
Popcorn Time and other P2P file sharing tools are convenient, but let's not be hypocrites about it, they enable illegal behaviour and allow you to go against the wishes of content creators, denying them both revenue from and control of their creations.
It's hard to justify why you think that creators have a right to the contents of your hard drive and wallet. I don't remember being party to the social or legal contract that created such rights nor realistically do I have a voice in changing it.
If society says that as a poor person in addition to having less of everything else I ought to enjoy less movies, music, books, games then perhaps society can go to hell.
I'm not saying the acts are equivalent, just that the positions are.
It also feels like statistically I should have read at least one comment where someone is convinced by argument that their copyright infringement is wrong but over twenty years on the Internet, I actually haven't. Very interesting.
It's also pretty easy for me to not judge since I've done things of dubious ethicality myself: I've never paid for a full copy of a textbook. Either I've bought the Asian copy or I've been part of a pool-and-photocopy group. Even now I use scihub preferentially.
Interestingly, the scihub usage is more acceptable online than the pool-and-photocopy but in real life no one has given me any grief for either.
To be honest, I don't feel very guilty either. And I'd do it again. If I attempt to see it as something shameful, convincing arguments defending myself pop out. I suspect it's something in the shape of the elephant and the mahout - the justification comes because I've already decided what I'll do. What I'll do is not rationally justified - that's coming after.
I'd speculate (idly) that this is the same mechanism in other pirates.
The legal system in your jurisdiction may disagree with you on that one.
> It's hard to justify why you think that creators have a right to the contents of your hard drive and wallet
I never tried to "justify" creators doing anything to your computer or anyone else's? Show me where I said that? That's a preexisting grindy-axe you brought along with you, friend..
I simply said that P2P file sharing denies content creators (big and small) control over the use of the works they own.
Which is strikingly similar to your position that other people shouldn't control your belongings, don't you think?
The agreement is that the government will attempt to keep you and I from improving each other's lots by sharing under the idea that the notes hanging in the air forged of air and emotions are sort of like a ham sandwich.
From what I can tell they have secured increasingly one sided agreements mostly by legalized corruption wherein the parties who write nothing, sing nothing, express nothing, invent nothing but own much make campaign contributions.
Physical property is problematic itself but certainly cannot be fixed incrementally or in total by pretending property isn't a thing because one must still deal with the exclusive nature of physical goods whether we acknowledge the fact or not whereas piracy can indeed simply route around the upper classes contact's.
I know I don't regularly worry about how a broken system funnels food into American's trash cans while others starve because I personally have never been in a position where starvation is even remotely possible.
Keep in mind that many of the content creators are now dead.
That being said I use popcorn time and stremio and torrents regularly. The difference is, I don't justify my crimes. I'm aware of what I'm doing, I don't need to live in a universe that is a self created moral illusion. I likely will do something unethical if I could hide it and it made economic sense. I am human and, morally, I am imperfect, but unlike most of you, morally, I am aware of my imperfections and I don't try to construct logical scaffolding to lie to myself and others. I can pirate because most people pay for the things I pirate, such a model is only sustainable if most people don't do what I do. Things like popcorn time threaten to change the balance.
If you want to save the world or do better for the world, do not assume that the world is as described by our parent poster pachico. It's not intelligent to assume that people are going to use popcorn time then purchase Netflix to offset some of that guilt (still a crime btw). Assume the world is made out of people who are as pachico really is.. people who are morally grey but make up lies and illusions to comfort themselves into thinking they are justified in their crimes.
I stopped pirating games 10 years ago when my salary crossed a threshold where it wasn't worth my time anymore to pirate a game vs. the convenience to buy it from steam. The way to combat piracy is to create systems that appeal to the previous aforementioned logic.
Spotify was a step in the right direction but it eliminated much of the huge profits made by the music industry. Perhaps those profits were ludicrously too large anyway. Either way, the way forward isn't trying to justify your crimes. It's admitting that hey, we are victims of the tragedy of the commons, we use popcorn time because it's free and easy to use... to combat this situation you either need to take steps to destroy this product or come up with something way better.
Don't forget copyright is a human construct and is far from being perfect. Also the amount of years after which art becomes public is human made and totally arbitrary. Why not 2 years? Why not 500 years? Ethics are not in the game here, I'm afraid. I'd like you to reply but please, restrain yourself from insults this time. Thanks
My point is what you're doing is wrong and you know it on some level.
That wasn't the point. The point is that a lot of these technicalities are self constructed justifications. Illusions and lies we tell ourselves to cope with our imperfection. I conflate because I don't care about the technicalities, I'm talking about something primal and simple.
In its most simplistic form, this is what I mean:
If I create a work of art to make money or even for just limited showings and you copy it and distribute it without my permission, than you are doing something wrong and you know it.
That's all. My argument is saying that anything on top of that is an attempt to justify your actions.
I am also tempted to tell you that you might want to revise you usage of the words morally and ethically and that these are probably more profound than to be applied to a kid wanting to buy an album but failed to find it. Having said this, have a good day.
Don't make it profound. Make it simple. The kid couldn't find the album so he DLed it illegally. The kid is aware of this illegality at some level.
That awareness is how simple the situation actually is. The profoundness arises when someone tries to justify the situation. I use the word ethics and morals as one would use it in common english parlance about discussions of such matters, I am not asking for a philosophical definition of said terms.
What's going on with your 'philosophy' now is a complicated attempt at justification.
If the artist is okay with it great! But if the artist is not okay with at all does he own the rights to the art he created? Does he have the right to permit you not to copy his things? That is the ethical question.
Did you have the right to do it without asking the artist for permission? What if one day the artist did actually want to make a profit off his work?
Quite a shit mix of contradictions.
This is an utter lie. I never said this. Me being aware of my actions does NOT make any of my actions more moral. I never said this. You are either lying or delusional.
I'm actually a very high scorer on the psychopathy spectrum. The official term is antisocial disorder. This means I am technically less moral than most people.
Me being aware of my actions only makes me aware of my actions and my morality and who I actually am as a person. That's it.
>as long as you don't claim they're the original. It doesn't fit this scenario.
You're getting into technicalities. Let me put it simply. It fits. I'm talking about the general notion and feeling about plagiarism. This is the ENTIRE point of my conversation. Copying something without permission is in general wrong. There are cases where if the author is dead for over a century then things may feel gray, but who cares.
I don't want to get into technicalities because I don't care for the technicalities and neither do you. We all are aware of the cases there's no need to argue about it. If you want to argue about how a "technicality" makes the original posters plagiarism correct than don't care yo have that conversation because it's a waste of my time.
I remember once writing to an Aussie record label asking for a copy of an old album of Brett Garsed. They told me I wouldn't find it here in Europe nor they had the means to send it to me. Should I just accept it? Once again, I could find it in Nicotine++.
I can't find many movies I like in original language in Netflix, HBO and Amazon, all services I have legal accounts for. Again, should I just accept I won't watch them knowing that I might find them in other channels?
I live in Spain, country where I pay a compensation copyright tax for every pen drive, computer, hard drive, TV set, etc, I purchase just in case I download something "illegally".
It turns out I'm lazy/I choose not to spend the required time and I accept not enjoying albums and movies I otherwise would.
Well, let me tell you I applaud Popcorn Time.