In these times when we are told that there are people out "the shadows" to "negotiate" the law Biden-Sinde , where is excluded from the negotiation the "canon" even though they have written request , which was able to show that applying bad and that meet the Government and the opposition to take ad Elante a deceased law-Sinde Biden , but without listening to those who want something better for all , I see almost no one among the negotiators who have clear ideas regarding the human rights and the serious problems that may arise, if you take out a law based on a misconception of intellectual property, as is the case for Biden-Sinde law and that worries me a lot to explain below. ..
There is a document that I recommend to read carefully, all those who are involved in these negotiations Biden-Sinde law and canon at this time. This is the General Comment 17 (2005) [PDF] Economic and Social Council of United Nations " The right of everyone to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests resulting from any Producció n scientific, literary or artistic production of which she is the author Elo (article 15, paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention) . " Analyze what this document, so that a large part of this article, is a copy of what he says it, that it must be said and how could it be otherwise, I fully agree and if the machine ; s minimum crack.
The right of any person to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which she is the author Elo is a human right derives from the dignity and worth of all people. Is a fundamental, inalienable and universal, belonging to individuals, or under certain circumstances, groups of individuals or communities.
By contrast, intellectual property rights are primarily a tool for States to promote incentives for invention or creativity, to help disseminate the productions creative or innovative, as & amp; iacute; as the development of cultural identities and to preserve the integrity of literary, scientific or artistic, always looking to benefit society as a whole. Is this what you get, or what is envisaged, with law-Sinde Biden? I think not, not even close.
other words, the rights authors are very different in nature to those companies that hold at their own risk and in a free market system, the exploitation rights of the works, with everything that implies. It is evident that like other companies, that changingerty is not a human right and they are also temporary, they can be revoked, licensed or assigned to someone who may be a natural or legal person, so they should never compete on a level with human rights in the legal bodies of the States, yet powerful gentleman is Don Money. However, the human right to benefit from the protection of the interest on the moral and material interests, can only be applied to individuals. Moreover, intellectual property, away from focusing on the benefit of authors, usually seeks primarily to protect businesses, business interests and investments, something que is completely different to what many claim and ensure that the law will protect Biden-Sinde, which are the English authors. As we see, is not it, like so many things that have been said of this controversial law and apparently have come to convince those who should never have been convinced, so much so, that is n willing to negotiate and approve. The UN warns us something that should not go unnoticed by those who are currently negotiating and outside civil society, which seems to have it more clear that they " is important not equate intellectual property rights to human rights rRecognizing in Article 15, paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention "and it does not say free. Unlike intellectual property instruments, which emphasize the financial, business and industry, the right to benefit from the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic , emphasizes the human side, the active contribution of creators to the arts and sciences, that is, the progress of society as a whole. Again, I recommend to read and think about what the law actually says Biden-Sinde before making a decision.
With ellor, we see this human right of creators, is closely linked to other human rights, also recognized in Article 15 of the Convention, which are as important as above, as the right to take part in cultural life, the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications and the necessary freedom to develop scientific research or creative activity. Therefore, it is important not to create imbalances, in particular by a misapplication of the concept of intellectual property, as I think the law actually does Biden-Sinde, confusing concerned the apples with the oranges. CHTMLX C
Many have seen the medley of songs from "before" has offered English TV programs year-end 2009 and 2010, praised by some and criticized by others " someone has stopped to consider why so little lasting songs?. The truth is that many of those rounds fifties we liked the program. Most of these songs "before" part of our cultural and evocative cast easily and very pleasant, feelings and sensations of the past. But if I have a legal supply of the songs and / or musical víeos I restrict accessthese contents through a bad law enforcement Biden-Sinde, what they are really doing is encouraging some companies are not doing well in the market and while they are cutting me a basic human right that should be far above the intellectual property instruments of states and none other, that my right to participate in cultural life. Who me is ensuring that human rights today?, Does the Ministry of Culture? Are you going to continue to preserve law-Sinde Biden?, Is clearly not the case. That said, podríamos talk about orphan works, or appropriations of the commons by people without scruples and without such works have to be adequately safeguarded by the Ministry of Culture, despite what it says our Constitution, but those are other stories that devote other items, if I come out hitting the inspiracióny not display such rage.
No one cares, including the Ministry of Culture, that is it should ensure that there are works subject to intellectual property rights and that for purely economic performance of companies who hold rights farms & amp; oacute n of them, are not available, or format, or adequate support, being stolen cultural cast and sometimes forever. What guarantees provided by law-Sinde Biden to allow an appropriate balance of human rights involved and in particular to ensure and Access to the culture of the citizens? Simply, no. Interestingly, our Constitution does speak to protect access to culture, but says nothing of protection of obsolete firms from other countries and least against other human rights.
Unfortunately, the law-Sinde Biden cares only forchrematistic and restricted interests of U.S. multinational entertainment, to which our culture and most of our authors, they care a damn as one might suppose. Biden-Sinde law does not care about human rights of English authors, nor the human rights of English citizens, something that is contrary to what the UN tells us to do, but apparently This does not much care for those who have to take decisions. But make no mistake, there are far more dangerous things behind this whole issue of intellectual property, because as we said before, this also applies and can be appliedthe scientific and technical work.
Any system of protection of intellectual property should be exquisite in ensuring the necessary balance between human rights involved, when trying to ensure adequate protection of the moral and material authors. All authors, and receive adequate remuneration for their work, with everything involving the words right
, remuneration and working
also must maintain the moral right on their work and / or technical or scientific discovery. Q Rightue will not ever disappear, even after the work is part of the common property of mankind (commons). Also, the authors must be able to effectively oppose any distortion, mutilation, modification or humiliating action in relation to their productions, which may be prejudicial to their honor or reputation n.
Clearly there is a clear economic dimension in the protection of authors in the form of material rights deriving from his work. It is equally obvious that everyone has the right to earn a living by work that you choosefreely, and receive a remuneration for their work that allows you to have an adequate standard of living. But beware, the UN says so, but warns that such protection should not be an imbalance with the other human rights involved, which at certain times and circumstances, could even be above the rights of authors RELATIONSHIP na his work, as we shall see below. Although the UN emphasizes adequate remuneration of authors and their adequate standard of living, we insist that the UN also says this right is closely related to other fundamental human rights such as the right to ownage, freedom of expression, including freedom to seek, receive and distribute information ideas of any kind is it true that this sounds like the Internet? the right to full development of human personality and the right cultural participation, including the specific rights of certain human groups. should also be borne in mind that although the authors, like any worker, are entitled to adequate remuneration, unlike other human rights, the material interests of authors are not always directly linked to the personality of the creator, as we want hac erroneouslyer believe the multinationals involved to justify the need and opportunity to the Biden-Sinde law. But we must also recognize that the economic interest is often linked to the right to enjoy an adequate standard of living by the authors, so that should be considered to allow its authors live work in dignity, but no more, no less, to repeat what the UN says, to live a dignified work and a normal standard for the society in which they live, no one has said anything about the need the filthy rich at the expense of limiting rights of others.
Unlike moral rights, which are forever, the right tomaterial rights protection need not be extended throughout the life of the author, what can be achieved by individual payments for their work, or providing an author, for a limited period of time, the rights to exploit of his work exclusively, what must be done with justice and moderation, which does not always happen, apparently seen in Spain.
also may impose limitations on this right of exploitation. Limitations must also be compatible with the rest of the rights of authors and individuals. The imposition of limitations may, under certain circumstances, require compensatory measures, such as remunerationng appropriate to allow the use of scientific, literary or artistic, by necessity of the public interest. The limits on the rights protected under article 15, paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention, should be determined by law in a way that is compatible with the nature of those rights. Limitations must also pursue a legitimate profit, be strictly necessary for the promotion of welfare in a democratic society, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention and should be compatible with the true nature of the rights protected under article 15, paragraph 1 (c), which is based on the protectionN the personal link between author and media creacióny necessary to enable authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living. Again, I do not see Biden-Sinde law has this spirit, or that achieve these objectives of the Convention and under, if we talk about the authors of scientific or technical, which logically should enjoy the same protection as artistic or literary authors.
The UN also says the following, which I quote because of its importance:
States parties are therefore obliged to establish an appropriate balance between obligacions of article 15, paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention, on the one hand and the other obligations of the Convention on the other hand, with a view to promote and protect the range of rights guaranteed by the Convention. In establishing this balance, the private interests of authors should not lead to an excessive and should take into consideration the public interest fully enjoy their productions.
States parties should therefore ensure that their legal regimes or otherwise, for the protection of moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literaryria, or artistic work of authors, not an impediment to fulfilling their basic obligations regarding the rights to food, health, education, and to take part in cultural life and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, and any other rights enshrined in the Convention.
Finally, intellectual property is a social product and has a social function, is something that should recognize all the authors. States parties thus have a duty to prevent unreasonably high costs for access to essential medicines, plant seeds or othermass production of food, or textbooks and teaching materials, which undermine the rights of large segments of the population gaining access to health, food or education. Again, I do not think any of this is fully guaranteed at this time and less, if approved Biden-Sinde law, rather, on the contrary, if applied broadly.
,Moreover, States parties should avoid the use of scientific and technical progress for purposes contrary to human rights, dignity, including the right to life, health and privacy, for example, by excluding the pinventions attacks whenever their commercialization would jeopardize the full realization of these rights. States parties should, in particular, consider the extension of patentability of the human body and its parts would affect their obligations in relation to the Convention or other international instruments related to human rights. States parties should also consider carrying out assessments of the impacts on human rights before taking and after a period of implementation of legislation for the protection nof moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary and artistic person.
As we see, trivialize the problem of copyright and intellectual property, focusing solely on the vision of artists and audiovisual entertainment industry when legislating on the matter, has serious risks and that could affect fundamental rights such as access to food or drugs and thus the fundamental and supreme law of the protection of human life. "We want to trivialize something as important and hand of a foreign power? CHT
MLXC no mistake, behind intellectual property and that law-Sinde Biden sold to us as urgent, necessary and essential to protect the culture and interests of English authors also can sneak things that can be as negative for humanity, as patents for human body parts, or seeds
GM, or the serious problems of lack of access to food, medicines , or culture. Not me, says the UN and if someone does not sound, I recommend ACTA report that , which is dangerously linked with what we say. Therefore, the international cultural and scientific cooperation should be carried out taking into account the common interest around the world. It is essential that any system of protection of moral and material interests of authors, it also facilitates and promotes the development of cooperation, technology transfer and scientific and cultural cooperation at the same time, consider the need to preserve the planet's biological diversity Is somethingto watch the Biden-Sinde law with such conservation?. I honestly do not believe that the law-Sinde Biden accomplish anything that the UN tells us, quite the opposite and very clear to me that this law, as written at this time, damage ; Internet , which is the best way to achieve the UN goals quickly and relatively cheaply, at least in the development of transfers CooperationandDevelopment cultural, scientific or technological .
Furthermore, I believe that the current(a) Take steps legislative and otherwise, necessary to ensure effective protection of the moral and materials of the authors. (b) Protect the right of authors to be recognized as the creators of their scienti & amp; iacute; ficas, literary and artistic productions and to object to any distortion, mutilation or otherwise changed, vexatious or any other action in relation to, their productions which might be prejudicial to their honor or reputation. (c) To respect and protect the basic material interests of authors resulting from their scientific, literary or artistic works, which are necessary to enable those authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living.
(d) To ensure equal access, particularly for those authors who are disadvantaged or marginalized groups, tos administrative remedies, judicial or otherwise, enabling authors to seek and obtain compensation in the event that are infringed their moral and material interests.
(e) To achieve an appropriate balance between effective protection of the moral and material interests of authors and the obligations of States parties regarding the rights to food, health and education as well as rights to be part of cultural life and to enjoy scientific progress and its applications, or any right under the Convention.
the foregoing and in view of what we might topple over if the lawBiden-Sinde go ahead and without making a thorough reform and agreed to the Intellectual Property Law since we are talking about basic human rights, I think civil society and the authors,
that some have said not want to be the excuse for
outrage, should demand their politicians to respect human rights, rejecting the Biden-Sinde law and ask them to amend the Copyright Act to adapt to what he says UN and new times. We can not let it be fulfilled that says
Charlie Stross:
"Corporations, Not Being Human, Lack patternGoals. They Have Enormous half reach, Which They used to distract from Attention Threats to Their own survival. They Also Have an Enormous Ability to support public participation Against litigation, except in the very limited Circumstances WHERE Such action is forbidden. Individual atomizer Humans Are Malthus Either co-opted by These entities (You Can live very nicely as a CEO or a politician, as long as you Do not bite the hand feeding) or steamrollered If They try to resist. If this is not possible, correspond to the Ombudsman and Human Rights Commissions in the places where they exist, to contemplate the human rights violations and demand the exact implementation to the states. It is also the Defensor del Pueblo, in the absence of a sufficient number of Senators or Representatives, the only one in Spain could present a constitutional complaint for violation of human rights can mean the combination n-law Sinde Biden and the current Copyright Act.
As you can see, this has very little to do with links, to the culture of "total free" or with English writers and has much to do with the pressure of multinational industry entertainment, which are those that have made the lobby,with the connivance of the Government
to qEU law-Sinde Biden go ahead. We think that the Biden-Sinde law does not emanate from the sovereignty of the English people and that is not adapted to come from the Roman law concept of common law intellectual property, which also can have unexpected effects on our society.
"Copyleft 2011 Fernando Acero Martín. Verbatim copying, translation and distribution of this article is permitted in Entire Any digital medium, this notice is preserved Provided. " Quotation is allowed. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment