Copyright Law

Spanish P2P Developer Goes to Court for ?Unfair Competition?

By soulxtc

Record labels accuse him of profiting from file-sharing programs that allow users to download music for free and thereby “free ride” over their property.

The trial against P2P software designer Pablo Soto has finally begun in a Spanish courtroom. The Promusicae association of Spanish record labels along with EMI, Sony, Vivendi Universal, and Warner Music are suing Soto what they call “unfair competition.” They are demanding $19.9 million USD in alleged damages, $35,000 for the PI?s it used to get the secret pics above, plus court costs.

“They allege that with a ’conservative calculation,’ each downloader of the software has shared one copy of protected musical material,” Soto’s lawyer told ZP after the suit was filed. “As Pablo?s companies sell software and advertisements, he is ‘free riding’ over their property and, as free riders, they are liable and have to pay.”

Promusicae and the majors say that some 25 million people have downloaded free music using the company’s P2P software Blubster, Piolet, and the best known, Manolito P2P.

The problem however, is that Spanish courts have repeatedly ruled that file-sharing isn’t illegal so long as it’s not for commercial gain.

The labels decided to sue Soto after unsuccessfully suing individual file-sharers. One case in particular, Judge Paz Aldecoa argued that a guilty verdict would ?would imply the criminalization of socially accepted and widely practiced behavior in which the aim is in no way to make money illicitly, but rather to obtain copies for private use.?

Record labels are trying to make the novel argument that the file-sharing software created by Soto was commercialized “with the finality of exchanging musical files… to defraud intellectual property rights.”

Guisasola adds “his activity is parasitical towards ours, and he is getting rich by doing it. He has created a tool for fraud, and for that he must be made responsible.”

Soto, who was not questioned by the accusation on the first day of the trial, told reporters outside the court that his technology was “not designed to transmit any concrete activity, with or without copyright. I do not feel a scapegoat, but neither the hero of illegal downloads.”

Soto added: “Technology is always neutral, and you cannot accuse the developer of a program because of the use made of it by its users.” He claims he does not have the kind of money demanded by the labels, and points out that he uses public transport.

The case is a last ditch effort by record labels to fight P2P, but the notion that if you sue a software developer in order to somehow contain file-sharing is just ridiculous. The record industry needs to channel this time and effort towards creating new solutions to meet the demands of music fans, and not waste it on what is essentially a losing battle.

A ruling is not expected for several months.

Full post as published by ZeroPaid on May 22, 2009 (boomark / email).