The Spanish government has passed an anti-piracy law that offers a way for copyright holders to have sites that illegally host content and those that link to them (read: trackers) taken down. It's known as the "Sinde law" after the Spanish culture minister who originally pushed it, and it creates a commission headed by the Secretary of Culture that receives and investigates claims from copyright owners against websites. Once the commission reaches a decision (hopefully within ten days of receiving the complaint), a judge will look over the finding and, if the site owners can be contacted, request that the infringing material be removed or the site shut down. If that's not possible, the judge will be able to order ISPs and other web hosts to have the site taken offline. That seems to offer a little bit more protection from overzealous abuse than the controversial SOPA bill in the US, but it's not clear how these pulldowns will work on a technical level or how they'll affect the broader internet. Unfortunately, none of that appears to have been a concern for Spanish lawmakers, so it looks like we'll just have to find out in practice.
Image Credit: rjhuttondfw (Flickr)

There are 10 Comments. Add yours.
Requesting for a peer-review before asking the host to take down copywritten content? Sounds a ton more reasonable than SOPA and more like the laws that are currently in place in the US.. But trackers? That’s silly. They’re as variable as the wind, and don’t host any content.
Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 4:00 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Far more reasonable, but I still don’t like it!
Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 4:13 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The ambassador of the United States of America in Spain himself, Alan Solomont, thoroughly pressed the former cabinet
labourto approve this law, which I suspect was elaborated in conjuction with foreign lobbies as some kind of experiment. The just elected government has been the one to pass it on a new year’s eve, so the media wouldn’t make much of a news of it, and it will be effective in a couple of months. The process itself has been set to work on behalf of the lawyers working for big media corporations for it doesn’t favour agreements but court trials, i.e. if the sites effectively retires some content the case is filed but if it distributes other content from the same owner it’s reopened from the same point the former suspended trial had reached.Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 4:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Inb4 our friend the SOPA troll
Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 4:43 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This law makes much more sense than SOPA. There seems to be a longer and more fair process before they go to the ISPs to change the DNS. They give the site a chance to remove the material before takedown.
The one sticking point for me is the sites “that link to” the infringing material. Obviously I don’t know the legal wording here, but what if someone tweets a rapidshare link to a song/movie? Does that mean twitter gets a notice to remove that user’s tweet? I suppose the judge/commission could make common-sense decisions, but I would think the volume of requests is too large for each one to be looked at in that way…
Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 4:53 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The point is this: the people who decide which things are ‘good’ and which things are ‘bad’ are not judges.
They could simply shut down my site because they don’t like my writings. They’d be allowed to it: this law allows them to do it.
Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 9:27 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
As Nilay put it, “SOPA is a bad solution to a real problem”. This seems better but I don’t know enough about it to trust it or be satisfied with it…
Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As a spaniard, I have informed myself quite a lot about this law. I think the thing which worries spanish internet users the most is not portrayed good enough in this summary, so I will try to explain:
This law does not change what is illegal and what is not illegal – it merely takes away the judges, who aren’t allowed anymore to judge about whether the site infringes copyright or not. It is the commission (which is NOT made of judges, but can and probably will consist of people from the RIAA-equivalent in Spain) the one who decides if the site is illegal or not.
So the “rules of the game”, in which judges have ruled for linking sites for years, haven’t changed – only the referee has been replaced!
And perhaps most surprisingly: this law affects any site which links to copyrighted material in any way: in its current form, any site merely linking to a youtube video with copyright could be taken down.
Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 7:29 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
You have the point. I know my English is not very good, but I think you’ll understand me.
SGAE (Spanish RIAA) tried to manipulate the police, law-makers and judges, also mass media (we all are pirates without heart).In Spain linking is not illegal, and judges admitted it. Then SGAE, simply, fired judges. They are making their own laws and that’s very dangerous.
Posted on Jan 04, 2012 | 9:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
More on that, in Spain there is the right of the Private Copy of anything, so by law we are allowed to copy. And then there is the Canon, a tax on everything that has a memory (HDD, CD/DVD,Printers….), that allows the “spread of culture” a Right if there is no monetary gain.
If you know Spanish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm4QEsme__A (David Bravo, a very famous pro-Piracy lawyer vs SGAE (the RIAA)
English version on a documentary about the right to copy: http://vimeo.com/21623319
Posted on Jan 05, 2012 | 9:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sergi, Rajoy’s government abolished the Canon.
Posted on Jan 06, 2012 | 12:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.