could not sleep last night. So I slept with the computer and started to carefully review the twitter. The so-called Act I was petando Sinde. Since its defeat in Parliament last week, follows being one of the most discussed in the microblogging network. Was unveiled as I read some articles on the subject. Several David Bravo, a Public Berto Romero and another Ramoneda in El Pais. As it was not clear and did not sleep (or had time) I got to browse, read the Bill Sustainable Economy where dissent item appears in the first final disposition.
And that's the first thing that caught my attention. A law that seeks to promote the competitiveness and internationalization of companies, a law calling for transparency and efficiency Public Administration, a law that favors the development of the knowledge economy, a law that deals with the production of primary energy and an attempt to reform the financial market risks becoming the wayside because of an additional provision. Something as important as stuck for something trivial, to the extent that additional provision has finally naming the law, the famous # leysinde. Why PSOE so foolishly gambled with this law that seems so vital to our future? Did they think that the provision would desapecibida? If so, show that they have no idea what is going Internet. First review: mixed apples with oranges and neither do entered the fold.
But there is more. Before considering the merits of the case, one of the principles that should guide the work of the legislature in accordance with the law ezel principle of transparency. He says the project quote: "In applying the principle of transparency, the objectives of regulation and its justification must be clearly defined and consulted with stakeholders." Which, of course, this has not been done or was done in part. Second criticism: not done what the law requires to be done.
Finally, the creation of the Commission on Intellectual Property, "as a body of national scope for the exercise of the functions of mediation and arbitration and to safeguard the intellectual property rights assigned by this law. "Here a note that does not have the range of market regulator, as in the case of the Energy Commission or the National Securities Market Commission values. The paragraph which I think has sparked controversy says
(...) may take steps to stop providing a service of the Information Society or to remove content that infringed intellectual property by a for-profit provider, directly or indirectly , or who intend to cause property damage. The implementation of these resolutions, as may affect rights and freedoms guaranteed in Article 20 of the Constitution, require prior judicial authorization, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 122 bis of the Law Governing Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction.
That is, until now the judges went into the merits of the case, listening to the parties and making the decision. Now is a commission composed of representatives of most management institutions and the administration who can make the decision for judges to corroborate or not, but not going to judge the possible infringement of proprietary rights. The objective is clear: the pages published bonds or similar torrents. The key, profit indirectco: If you are advertising an indirect profit. However, again showing a widespread ignorance of the topic, since most of the applications PeerToPeer can cut out the middleman and can browse the files from the same application, without resorting to websites of blogs. That is, they will not have the expected results, although the law will be adopted with the current articles. Third criticism: they have no fucking idea.
Possibly, this issue requires a unique and public debate, in which each other to present their arguments. Spain is not far from the country more pirate in the world, but it is also true that violate the property rights very easily. Must be put in the spotlight many issues, such as the duration of intellectual property rights (no sense that last longer than a patent), the new market structure the distribution of content, the right of creators to charge for his work and interests of users. In this sense, the creators now want is to keep the status quo prior to the emergence of the Internet. Can anyone imagine the minilabs that 10 years ago filled the shopping areas of Spain to demand a fee for each digital camera for each printer sold and protect their source of income (the development of photographic negatives)? Something like that is what raises the SGAE and other rights management companies. Internet has allowed the global market more transparent (middlemen have been eliminated have been eliminated hardware, consumers can access product units smaller-LP songs instead of full-and has allowed significant reduction in transaction costs). In fact, the creators should see it as an opportunity and not as a threat, where multiple outlets (one for each display connected) and potential customers. The real losers are dealers twentieth century: the shops and traditional distributors. The solution is not to remove content from the network, but provide more quantity and more value in them to collect it.
has always existed and will exist the consumer parasite, but most buyers behave honestly if they are able to do so. I am not an example, but since there is the iTunes Store in Spain and Spotify not download music illegally. Now that there are some initiatives on-demand video store-quality viewing, I consider that my illegal movie downloads will disappear and so will the books and the series as soon as a solvent and offer reasonable prices. Meanwhile, the consumer life will look like it has always done: if the official market can not find what I want, I go to the black market.
The problem is that the more time consumers spend in the black market, the more complicated it becomes to pay for something you can get free, but the handle of this clock are distributors and creators. Will they be able to realize?
0 comments:
Post a Comment