Judgement on the provincial court case SGAE = Thieves

My lawyers tell me that we have just lost their appeal to the Provincial Court of Madrid against first-instance ruling condemning me for insulting the SGAE in the comments of my blog.

Background (if you know what this is, I can jump)
In 2004 I published a post titled "SGAE = Thieves" in which he had had in place a Google Bombing against SGAE with the words of the title. This campaign was successful and soon page SGAE stood as the first result on Google search of "thieves." Some time after Google changed its algorithm to avoid this kind of campaign. And then post that I wrote happened to be the first result of that search in Google.

That reason shortly after SGAE send me a burofax demanding the withdrawal of the post. I put in the hands of my lawyers and they got in touch with the SGAE to try to reach a reasonable solution slightly modifying the post and removing only those comments clearly offensive. SGAE's response was an alternative wording of the post (which I have still saved somewhere) which changed the post so the headline was something like "La SGAE victim of a slanderous campaign in the network." Obviously I said no.

A few months later came the demand . We went to trial and lost at first instance. The Court further said that there were no injuries in the post, but in the comments left by readers and that I was a sort of "necessary collaborator" for such injuries. I removed the comments and appealed the sentence. Now, almost three years after the trial, four of seven demand and the publication of the post, I also lost the appeal.

Topics
The arguments given in this statement are basically two:

1. Maintain the standard of the trial judge that I am a "necessary collaborator" (figure that, incidentally, does not exist in civil law only in the prison).
2. Argues that although the text of the post is not offensive and what qualifies as "information" in it I urge you to pour just opinions and these exceeding "the limits of a complaint to derive expressions that violate their honor and dignity."

For our part, my arguments are:

1. In successive sentences are not sufficient grounds to comments are offensive and why
2. Not even come to assess whether or not there is actual knowledge (which is usually the Gordian knot in such cases). Directly indicates that the LSSI does not preclude enforcement of other laws and therefore the broker is as responsible as the author (even against the perpetrators because there has been no claim, nor even an attempt to ascertain his identity)

Next Steps
Let's take this case to the Supreme. I think the right is me and I think it is very important, not only for me or my blog, but for the freedom of information, expression and criticism on the Internet.

Potential impact
With this statement, and other similar cases, are setting the conditions of operation of Internet publications in Spain. If this interpretation holds any owner of any website is responsible for any comments made by any user. No matter if you knew or not. No matter whether it has subsequently withdrawn or not. Whatever. It is a liability. If the blog is yours, the responsibility is yours.

What does this lead? A SGAE that it has gone well your hand, it was not remove that post or collect 9,000 euros (irrelevant to them.) Was to generate fear. Was to get to two or three sentences, the rest is self-censorship of websites .

If for any claim of any entity criticized (SGAE either or any company) I will be responsible for what any commentator say, for many it will be worth the risk and, in practice or remove comments directly or the moderate previously published only 10% consider ultra, or, finally, withdraw any comment and any post to the first protest of any affected.

Farewell to the participatory web. Welcome to the web fearful and controlled by the legal departments of large corporations.

More info | Full text of the Judgement , Legal opinion of my attorneys , Other posts on this topic in Wandering , Laia Resale in El Pais , Paulo Romero in El Mundo