4 ms·

Fellow Soulseeker here. The compensation copyright tax ended in 2011: Cancellation of the fee On March 24, 2011, the National Court annulled the order that re

Fellow Soulseeker here. The compensation copyright tax ended in 2011: 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 On December 31, 2011 the canon was definitively repealed by the newly constituted new Congress of Deputies, being replaced by a new payment this time by the State whose procedure is about to be developed.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%C3%B1a)#Anulaci%C3%B3n_del_canon https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_por_copia_privada_(Espa%... I join the clapping, sorry for the nitpick!

pachico 7y ago
Nothing to feel sorry about! I don't know how I could have missed that but I'm so lucky it ended! Having said this, I still find myself entitled to search for copies of cultural material I like :) Still, too lazy/don't have the time to do it.
- dylan604 7y ago
  > I still find myself entitled I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for at least being honest about it.
  - 1_player 7y ago
    Is it being entitled wanting to be entertained by a piece of art or media? That is its very purpose.
    - dylan604 7y ago
      Having wants is not being entitled. Thinking that one deserves and should have everything one wants is being entitled. 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.
      - coribuci 7y ago
        > Having wants is not being entitled. Thinking that one deserves and should have everything one wants is being entitled. 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.
      - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
        > The purpose of art or media is whatever the creator wants it to be. 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.
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        We're talking about music from the 40s. The various copyright extensions are part of the problem.
      - DennisP 7y ago
        The purpose of copyright, according to the Constitution which gives the government the right to grant it, is to promote the public domain. It's not doing that very effectively now that copyright remains in effect 70 years past the death of the artist.

pachico 7y ago

Nothing to feel sorry about! I don't know how I could have missed that but I'm so lucky it ended! Having said this, I still find myself entitled to search for copies of cultural material I like :) Still, too lazy/don't have the time to do it.

dylan604 7y ago
> I still find myself entitled I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for at least being honest about it.
- 1_player 7y ago
  Is it being entitled wanting to be entertained by a piece of art or media? That is its very purpose.
  - dylan604 7y ago
    Having wants is not being entitled. Thinking that one deserves and should have everything one wants is being entitled. 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.
    - coribuci 7y ago
      > Having wants is not being entitled. Thinking that one deserves and should have everything one wants is being entitled. 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.
    - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
      > The purpose of art or media is whatever the creator wants it to be. 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.
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      We're talking about music from the 40s. The various copyright extensions are part of the problem.
    - DennisP 7y ago
      The purpose of copyright, according to the Constitution which gives the government the right to grant it, is to promote the public domain. It's not doing that very effectively now that copyright remains in effect 70 years past the death of the artist.