The Tightest Panty Girdle I Ever Worn

Without being so bad, better than no law has been approved

Timing of vote on the law of Sustainable Economy, in

Economics Committee of Congress EFE / Chema Moya

The truth is that until now I had stayed away from discussion of the so-called law Sinde, ie of the first final provision (p. 95-99) of bill Sustainable Economy. More than anything because I had not sufficiently documented and reported. But I was struck by the unanimity that I found against the law in my blogosphere / tuitesfera reference. And the overall virulence of the views. By default, I distrust these phenomena stampede. And I finished reading the famous provision.

The issue is simple. Amending copyright law to create a Commission on Intellectual Property , one of whose functions is safeguarding intellectual property rights against its violation by the services responsible for the information society . For this may take measures to interrupt the supply of a service company to remove any information or content that violate intellectual property by a for-profit provider, directly or indirectly, or who intended to cause financial damage. The implementation of these resolutions, as they may affect the rights and freedoms guaranteed in Article 20 of the Constitution, require prior judicial authorization , according to the procedure laid down in Article 122 bis of Law Regulatory Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction .

In this line, correspond to the Courts Central Administrative Litigation authorize, by order, execution of the resolutions adopted by the Second Section of the Commission on Intellectual Property to interrupt the provision of information services or to withdraw content that violate intellectual property .

The procedure is as follows. as Agreed by the Commission, request the competent court approval for its implementation. The four-day non-extendable following the notification of the decision by the Commission and highlighting the record, the Court shall convene the legal representative of the Administration, the Public Prosecutor and the holders of the rights and freedoms of the person concerned or their designees to represent to a hearing in which, in a contradictory manner, hear all persons and resolved by the order authorizing or denying enforcement of the measure .

Is it for both the anger that has mounted? Not so much if we talk about the law itself, but some of its implications and, above all, of the drift that such initiatives might take in the future. Basically the arguments against the measures can be taken to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights in the digital environment, ie the free download and non-consensual content subject to copyright, is that to secure these, it is necessary to violate other more important and affect many more people. Basically we are talking about mentioned rights and freedoms guaranteed in Article 20 of the Constitution and net neutrality. But is not the case.

Another thing is the speed of the procedure: time limit of four days . Given the very slow operation of the administration of justice in Spain, give such priority to these cases compared to many others who, from my point of view, are of far greater importance, is an intolerable privilege granted to management companies and copyright content industries to the detriment of other citizens.

And then there is the famous argument that no doors can be put to sea. That is, that these measures will not serve anything. Ignacio School explains in his post efforts useless. With this I completely agree. As I also agree that the content industries, in this scenario, are supported on models business obsolete sooner or later will have to change. But it will fall from the cherry. And meanwhile, we have a problem and we run a risk.

The problem is all the time and effort that we're losing and we will continue to lose in these battles. All. But mostly the government and especially the judiciary. And the risk is that companies with rights management and content industries, perceiving the futility of this law, press for further action that these other, violate our rights and net neutrality. Somehow, we are opening the spigot.

Whereupon felicitémosnos because the law has been approved and keep ourselves alert to not approved in the future.