Nobody cares about incidental linking to infringing material. What they care about are streaming sites and file locker sites. SurfTheChannel is a good example, it was an index of links to pretty much any tv show or movie hosted on sites like the former Mega network etc:
"At the site's peak in mid-2009 it generated up to £50,000 ($78,500) per month in advertising revenue, and was more popular than Facebook"
Nobody cares about incidental linking to infringing material. What they care about are streaming sites and file locker sites.
File locker sites are not targeted. They're outside Spain anyway. The target are clearly the forums where people posts links to file lockers.
Do you think nobody cares about incidental linking? Just wait and see. What will happen when this law starts being applied? Obvious first move for these forums owners will be putting the sites out or spanish jurisdiction. People will also start to use other less specific forums to post links.
This measure will be useless, but legal monstrosities like "indirect profit" and other vague provisions will still poison the legal system.
So the site was more popular then Facebook, and therefore, we must take it down to protect the business interests of the RIAA and MPAA? Where are all those "vote with your dollar" people now? It sounds to me like people voted.
If they made lots of money, good: they offered a service the public wanted. As far as that basic model goes they added value into the economy.
Anyone who wants to claim there is something actually materially bad there needs to provide evidence that some harm was done to the economy -- show that the public lost-out. That would be really quite interesting, because economic research seems to have had difficulty doing that so far.
"At the site's peak in mid-2009 it generated up to £50,000 ($78,500) per month in advertising revenue, and was more popular than Facebook"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfthechannel