Since it has been known almost all of the meeting of the Academy via twitter, I confirm my impressions in a few brief notes on the train back home. Are mine and, of course, represent nothing more than my vision of development and personal assessments.
The meeting had two distinct parts, a first one has addressed the issue of the Law Sinde and the second has been achieved in the analysis of problems and services that have the audiovisual industry in relation to internet and the insecurity felt by the existence of a free alternative to any service that wants to develop.
As already stated my main concern was to express the deficiencies of the bill known as Act Sinde, what has been done correctly and with specific partner David Bravo, primarily as expressed in a clear, correct the timing in relation to the legal problems of the web of links. David has contributed
judgments handed down in Spain, including those that are pending decision having been reopened by the provincial courts as a way to highlight the real situation from a legal and judicial.
From there it has developed a brief explanation on our part to try to see that the law does not work for web links and introduces a dangerous mechanism of administrative control, which could even order the withdrawal of a video of a boy playing Bohemian Rapshody on Youtube I've shown on the computer that had the effect.
Probably the most confusing part was that related to judicial intervention, as it is a matter for a layman in law is confusing to intervene effectively a judge, if it is not easy to appreciate the difference that the court only considers whether the extent of closure or recall affects fundamental rights, but in no case examines whether the site violates or intellectual property rights. After
odd coming and I think that aspect has also been satisfactorily explained and understood what is wrong with this procedure.
Personally I asked Alex to the Church if he understood the objections and responded that if even he had not reached a conclusion about them.
Time In another word I have asked to clarify that if, for reaching the conclusion that we were right about the law, act in any way or you would get those responsible for processing the rule, to has responded positively with some nuance.
I reminded the problem of time, since the adoption of the law seems to be imminent, in just 20 days) and I got the impression that you understand this problem, although nothing has materialized so far as actions or movements are concerned.
have also been exposed the possibilities available to rights holders, said it might not be necessary to change the law to close the webs of links, it would suffice to articulate the appropriate legal mechanism.
From that moment, and in my opinion exhausted the debate on the Law Sinde (but is back on another occasion anecdotally), the conversation has drifted into aspects related to the industrial situation and possibilities internet. Although I have closely followed the exposure of all parties, the lawyers here have yielded the spotlight to others present, whether they occur interventions David Bravo point both as Jover Josep or mine.
I think there needs to be changed understanding of the treatment given to users and betting that it's time decided by new models in the network, but surely others could better express that part of the meeting.
On behalf of the Academy believe that there is satisfaction that they lost their criticism or prejudice on the grounds of it to this project, but that was it, a prejudice that could have gone a year ago have asked for reactions that were generated. I believe that this prejudice has wasted a year that could have generated enough meetings or discussions for this law was not about to be approved "by the civil or criminal."
not know the moves that can now emerge from the Academy and if these reasons will be positioned against the law in its present form, requesting its amendment or withdrawal, or otherwise be kept apart from the processing of same.
On the bright side the finding that all parties Property Law should be revised and adapted, incorporating and respecting all the options, but that in the appropriate forum, namely the Congress of Deputies and the subcommittee created by effect involving all those affected or intersados \u200b\u200bpossible.
personal conclusion, for a little confusing. Right now I think there is a very strong political commitment to adopt the law that I doubt that the Socialist Party listen to reason and remove immediately promoting a debate that results in a new copyright law before the end of 2011. (I think it would be possible.) Is it good to leave the law as it is? Is it good to change anything? Or it is best not to leave anything?
I think obviously the latter is the best but I'm very pessimistic about that possibility, and any of the other two options do not seem quite good, the first because it is an absurd law, possibly inapplicable and the second because in 20 days is almost impossible to modify it in such a way that leaves little acceptable.
favor of adoption should not be that, if adopted, would lack the regulatory development and enforcement, budget, etc.., Etc., Creating a horizon of a few months it would be better were exploited to start from scratch and in-depth analysis of the problem, but now I have a clear answer about the best of these options.
As already stated my main concern was to express the deficiencies of the bill known as Act Sinde, what has been done correctly and with specific partner David Bravo, primarily as expressed in a clear, correct the timing in relation to the legal problems of the web of links. David has contributed
judgments handed down in Spain, including those that are pending decision having been reopened by the provincial courts as a way to highlight the real situation from a legal and judicial.
From there it has developed a brief explanation on our part to try to see that the law does not work for web links and introduces a dangerous mechanism of administrative control, which could even order the withdrawal of a video of a boy playing Bohemian Rapshody on Youtube I've shown on the computer that had the effect.
Probably the most confusing part was that related to judicial intervention, as it is a matter for a layman in law is confusing to intervene effectively a judge, if it is not easy to appreciate the difference that the court only considers whether the extent of closure or recall affects fundamental rights, but in no case examines whether the site violates or intellectual property rights. After
odd coming and I think that aspect has also been satisfactorily explained and understood what is wrong with this procedure.
Personally I asked Alex to the Church if he understood the objections and responded that if even he had not reached a conclusion about them.
Time In another word I have asked to clarify that if, for reaching the conclusion that we were right about the law, act in any way or you would get those responsible for processing the rule, to has responded positively with some nuance.
I reminded the problem of time, since the adoption of the law seems to be imminent, in just 20 days) and I got the impression that you understand this problem, although nothing has materialized so far as actions or movements are concerned.
have also been exposed the possibilities available to rights holders, said it might not be necessary to change the law to close the webs of links, it would suffice to articulate the appropriate legal mechanism.
From that moment, and in my opinion exhausted the debate on the Law Sinde (but is back on another occasion anecdotally), the conversation has drifted into aspects related to the industrial situation and possibilities internet. Although I have closely followed the exposure of all parties, the lawyers here have yielded the spotlight to others present, whether they occur interventions David Bravo point both as Jover Josep or mine.
I think there needs to be changed understanding of the treatment given to users and betting that it's time decided by new models in the network, but surely others could better express that part of the meeting.
On behalf of the Academy believe that there is satisfaction that they lost their criticism or prejudice on the grounds of it to this project, but that was it, a prejudice that could have gone a year ago have asked for reactions that were generated. I believe that this prejudice has wasted a year that could have generated enough meetings or discussions for this law was not about to be approved "by the civil or criminal."
not know the moves that can now emerge from the Academy and if these reasons will be positioned against the law in its present form, requesting its amendment or withdrawal, or otherwise be kept apart from the processing of same.
On the bright side the finding that all parties Property Law should be revised and adapted, incorporating and respecting all the options, but that in the appropriate forum, namely the Congress of Deputies and the subcommittee created by effect involving all those affected or intersados \u200b\u200bpossible.
personal conclusion, for a little confusing. Right now I think there is a very strong political commitment to adopt the law that I doubt that the Socialist Party listen to reason and remove immediately promoting a debate that results in a new copyright law before the end of 2011. (I think it would be possible.) Is it good to leave the law as it is? Is it good to change anything? Or it is best not to leave anything?
I think obviously the latter is the best but I'm very pessimistic about that possibility, and any of the other two options do not seem quite good, the first because it is an absurd law, possibly inapplicable and the second because in 20 days is almost impossible to modify it in such a way that leaves little acceptable.
favor of adoption should not be that, if adopted, would lack the regulatory development and enforcement, budget, etc.., Etc., Creating a horizon of a few months it would be better were exploited to start from scratch and in-depth analysis of the problem, but now I have a clear answer about the best of these options.
Finally I want to thank the outpouring of support and confidence that I have received and I hope you have understood my performance at all times. Similarly appreciate the comments and criticisms made my performance in this whole affair.
