On January 10th the report was published "New Renaissance" European Committee of Wise Men (a group of high-level reflection) on the digitization of European cultural heritage. This document has been submitted by the Committee, Neelie Kroes, European Commission Vice President responsible for the Digital Agenda, and Androulla Vassiliou, Commissioner for Culture Educacióny.
Among the measures envisaged in the report, aimed at developing the European Digital Agenda stresses the need to put online the collections of all lI museums, archives and libraries in Europe. The document also emphasizes the benefits of facilitating access to culture and knowledge, which also could have economic benefits if these digital works are licensed properly and with lí appropriate limits. In this regard, the report also proposes solutions adapted to the digital age, to put on-line works subject to copyright.
However, I think the most important of the report, stressing that there should be some limits to intellectual property, often in the hands of multinational companies, in order to preservear fundamental rights of citizens.
Among the conclusions and recommendations of this report, we find the following, which one way or another, they were referred the claims of English civil society, which rejects the law Biden Sinde and advocates a new Intellectual Property Law fairer for everyone:
Member States should significantly increase its funding of digitization to create jobs and promote growth in the future . The funds necessary to build one hundred miles of road would provide for the digiization of 16% of all books in the libraries of the EU or the digitization of all audio content kept in the cultural institutions of the EU Member States.
To ensure the preservation of collections in digital format, a second copy of this cultural material should be filed in "Europeana" . In addition, you must create a system whereby the cultural material must now be deposited in several countries it is only once .
These measures recommended by European experts, are consistent with the provisions of the layoutAdditional ng sixteenth of our Act to Promote the Information Society (LISI) , unfortunately, despite being one of the few good things about this law face civil society, is something that is not being honored as desirable.
b) works subject to copyright, but are no longer distributed commercially, they have to go online . The primary function of those entitled to digitize these works and exploit them. But if they do not, cultural institutions should have the opportunity to digidigitize the material and make it public, so should remunerate rights holders.
This measure is perhaps one of the most important of all, seeking to prevent the plundering of course is done by companies who hold the rights to exploit, when concerns alone economic, or commercial, these cultural works, scientific or technical information are not available legally. Applying the tools of intellectual property without oriented approach to the protection of human rights, many of these works cultural, scientific, or technical, let & aacute; No longer available, mutilating the cast cultural, scientific and technical societies and no one can do anything about it. It is essential that all cultural works, scientific, or technical, are legally available for everyone to go away and never desirable situation that legal availability and complete.
This imbalance between the rights is very harmful and usually occurs when one puts in a contrived intellectual property rights aimed at protecting businesses, benefits and investments, the human right to life, access to culture, medicine, thefood, or benefit from technical and scientific progress of humanity.
should be noted that these commercial rights often take precedence over even the human right of authors to the protection of economic interests and moral outcome of their production, scientific, articles ; acoustic or literary. Authors who fail to earn income for their work, following the decision out of business by companies that hold exploitation rights, which often do unilaterally and sometimes irrevocable by the same .
should not be a political scientist at renombre to realize that this is unacceptable in a modern constitutional state and very negative impact on basic human rights around the world, including the authors. Also, keep in mind that this anomalous situation would heavily favored in Spain , if not to take any action that would ensure these human rights, be given and rejectable rejected Biden-Sinde law.
If there is a legal and affordable supply of a work culture, science and technical and applied a standard so restrictive and arbitrary as the Biden-Sinde law, regardless of human rights involved, the quand it is actually doing is restricting fundamental human rights. Something that also is only to protect a debatable economic interests of a labeled as obsolete industry and . Industry, which is committed to distributing the works by expensive and obsolete hardware for which we hardly sold players and their high costs of distribution productionand, forcing them to withdraw the market works time to time and at a pace faster and faster. It should be noted that this also damages the economic interestsnomic and moral of the authors, who see their works vanish from the face of the Earth, but may not do anything about it.
I must say, these companies are clamoring for their "rights" of intellectual property, have no problem when not taking into account some of the human rights of the authors.
is clear that our copyright law is obsolete. We must also take into account, which was developed mostly to the average of the lobbies, like the dangerous law-Sinde Biden . It is a law that does not CONSIDERATIONSion as we have discussed on the European Digital Agenda, the successful implementation of compensation for private copying , what the UN says intellectual property , the existence of the Internet, free licenses, or new forms of Distribution and marketing of cultural, scientific or technical. It is a law that needs urgent and profound reform, as above, favors decontrol and abuse .
One of the first countries to legislate something like hhas been Brazil because of this, it has one of the intellectual property laws and rights-of-art world, both for authors and for the rest of the Brazilian civil society. This rule , as recommended by European scholars, establishing a compulsory licensing regime for works that are out of the market over some time and no obligation to register the works as it recognizes the rights of authors from the moment of creating them.
c) EU rules on orphan works (those whose right holders can not identifyficarse) should be adopted as soon as possible . The report indicates eight fundamental conditions for any solution to be adopted by different countries .
This is another of the claims in the English civil society. If you do not know who it is who owns the rights of a given work and join some intellectual property instruments as narrow as we have now and some want to further tighten the law-Sinde Biden, what that we really, is that you can not access the artistic, literary or scientific work legally, What is also very vulnerable andserious, fundamental human rights provided by the UN, the various regional human rights instruments and the various national constitutions .
d) cooperation should be promoted between public and private sector . This cooperation should be transparent, non-exclusive and equitable to all parties and result in cross-border access to digitized material for everyone. The preferential use of digitized material given to private sector participants should not last more than seven years . CHTM LXC
Again, another limit to the exploitation of the work by companies that are not adequately covered under English law of intellectual property at this time. Although part of the cultural material in the public domain and can be scanned and exploited by companies, it is unknown when you revert back the cultural material in the public domain, somewhat paradoxically, if we consider that These works initially left the public domain.
Imagine that Company X gives permission to scan files and exploit NODE economa this scan. If not set time limits to such exploitation, we're getting really, is to subtract the cultural material in the public domain. Although it may seem somewhat remote spot and, the truth is that something similar happens with cultural works that have been funded wholly or in part with public money. It is clear that these works should have a system of commercial and public domain reversal, very different from the works that have been financed on a purely private and thus should unambiguously reflect any q Intellectual Property Lawue lovers.
As you can see, all this is collected in one way or another, in the claims being made by the civil society regarding the amendment of current law Intellectual Property and the withdrawal of the Biden-Sinde law. Failure to consider these claims in the English civil society, as we see, are the most legitimate and supportable in law and targets will create a much larger imbalances that now existing and adversely affect the fundamental rights of everyone, including those of the authors. CHT
MLXC
is clear that in some things and as the Elders say we called in Europe, far from giving more rights to intellectual property companies, you have to do really and urgently, is to limit some rights they now have these companies and are severely hampering or even preventing, free access to culture, medicine or food, by citizens around the world, in violation and a human rights basic.
As the UN says, not to be confused, as seems to make Biden-Sinde law, intellectual property rights (usually in the hands of companies), with human rights including those of the authors, who are infinitely more important that ensuring economic benefit of multinational companies, which should stick to the rules of free market. The Committee of Wise Men called for the EU, with its recommendations has been the reason a English civil society, which calls for some intellectual property laws more modern and fair for everyone. Posts
have to amend the Law on Intellectual Property in a few months what is the reason for not doing things right from the start and listening to everyone, instead of throwing the street environment and with something as absurd as harmful to thehuman rights as law-Sinde Biden?. Really, taking into account such things as important for society, not what they expect English politicians to heed what they are claiming, so insistently and powerful arguments, Spain Village ol, which should represent and protect their interests.
Fernando Acero Martín. Verbatim copying, translation and distribution of this article is permitted in Entire Any digital medium, this notice is preserved Provided. " Quotatiion is allowed. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment