Brand Feed Back 
Throughout these years on the net, I've been reading and reporting on free culture, copyright, copyleft, downloads and other related topics. From nowhere, I have been forging their own opinion, I understand many things, left many wrong attitudes and prejudices and petty frauds discovered and
much journalistic and public ignorance about subject.
Here is a small collection of what my readings have taught me, so I've learned and so I return to the net / blogosphere.
I - Copyright vs. Copyright: It is NOT the same. I read a lot of times they had to protect copyright, the author must remain owner of his work and other atrocities of this kind. Yes, I repeat: atrocities, no one wants to abolish copyright or take authorship and / or enjoyment of a work's author.
short and memory,
copyright of a work of authorship determined and what are the rights associated with the authorship of the work concerned. It is important to understand that copyright can not even sell or transfer or seize or lose. When someone says "I sold the rights ...", it is referring to has given money in exchange for operating rights
of his work, not copyright it. The law regulates in 15 years (if memory serves me) the maximum duration for which an author can assign rights (with or without exclusivity) of his work to others, sign him to sign with a label, publisher, ... Then have to re-negotiate these rights of use to him, at least in theory.
Among those rights of exploitation is the copyright (the right of reproduction) that is material to sell several copies (cd, book, dvd ,...) of the same work. Another right of exploitation is such a public screening paid - directly or indirectly (advertising, sponsorship ...) - or not.
When advocates of free culture, no calls for the removal of copyright (it would be absurd) but the free movement of cultural works ie the copyleft
. In principle nonprofit
although each is free to limit or deny the use of their work.
II - Copy, share, Music ... is legal. Whatever he says the $ GA €, the news or even the ministry of culture. for the law, defined by law. Something so obvious but necessary to remember the light of the caliber of the authorities involved in the big lie of piracy.
- The Article 270 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (a) makes it essential for profit for there crime:
be punished with imprisonment for six months to two years and a fine of 12 to 24 months who, for profit and the detriment of third reproduces, plagiarizes, distributes or publicly communicates, in whole or in part, a literary, artistic or scientific work or its transformation, artistic performance fixed in any medium or communicated by any means, without the authorization of holders of relevant intellectual property rights or their assignees.
- When did we become civil law, we encounter the Article 31.2 of the Consolidated Copyright Act (b) introducing the right to private copying :
not need permission author of reproduction in any medium, already disclosed works when carried out by a natural person for private use from works that have accessed the copy obtained legally and is not subject to collective use or profit, subject to fair compensation under the Article 25, which should take into account whether such works are applied to the measures referred to in Article 161. Excluded from the provisions of this section, the electronic database, pursuant to Article 99th), computer programs.
Regarding the latter, I must point out that this is a revision of the Organic Act passed by the votes of the PP on 08 July , 2006 (available 23/2006), ie one and a half ago. This law included compensation to the digital canon.
But back to what really interests us, we see that 31.2 can lead to various interpretations (for private use, accessed legally, collective use ...) especially those who fancy having a different .
There, you have the law and interpretations of law made by whom it belongs: the judiciary, from the legal department and police. The conclusion therefore is that neither criminal nor civil. We have been fooling
long when we're not really pirates, or thieves, or criminals.
Putting together the points I and
II, is a sight that no one has the intention to dispossess the authors their rights but rather the opposite: to protect users against those who want to take away their right to private copying.
no mistake: the right to private copying is not, as expected, the result of a political will to facilitate the dissemination of culture. It is rather the result of a technological reality that says it is impossible to avoid and further pursue the free flow of information online. Always within the parameters of course, fixing the parameters above 31.2 for example denying the right to distribute works without releasing or 270.1 to criminalize the commercial use of the work of others: do not confuse copyleft with plagiarism and top blanket.
Free culture is freedom of movement for their own enjoyment of works already published, without taking away any reason for its author the right to publish or not and reservations - if you want - in exclusive commercial use of their creations.
Now is when they get some and say that if everyone can get free work of an artist, they have no possible commercial use. And that's why it's canon.
III-The fee as a measure to compensate the authors of the alleged losses that triggers the right to private copying + 's joke: the canon must be supported by the manufacturers, not buyers. As a good reader of newspapers that respect, I will begin by the end :-): the reasoning followed by the $ GA € and the like is: who is benefiting in much of the right to copy private well users, is the digital storage industry (manufacturers of CDs, DVDs, memory cards ...) as these media are used largely to record music files I movies. Consequently, the industry must participate in the maintenance of its cash cow that is culture.
Conclusion:
say that the canon has to be taken by manufacturers pass on to buyers without .
addition to this theory is completely absurd because we all know that any cost impact on the PVP and never has been an industry reduce its profit margin without (= capitalism), it must be clear that although a day these these entrepreneurs are dropped all together and head rose up with birds in the head, immediately cogiesen your mobile phone to call the respective business addresses of their companies to exclude from PVP digital canon could not. They could for 2 reasons:
- First by paragraph 17 of Article 25 of the aforementioned TRLPI it forces you to break down in the amount of the tax bill:
In order to control the payment of compensation, the debtors mentioned in paragraph a of paragraph 12 shall state separately on their invoices the amount of that remuneration, which shall pass on to their customers and retain for payment in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 15. - Secondly, because of giving the fee to customers immediately sink your business because the canon is in some cases more than the RRP of the product itself as seen in the ticket purchasing
a box of 25 DVDs that cost € 7.75 ... plus 15 € of canon.
The conclusion is that we all have to pay a levy on digital storage materials we buy to compensate the authors of the alleged losses that triggers the right to private copying.
And that regardless of the use that we're going to give this material. I have read many times that amounts to pay a fine to buy the car on the ground that we'll probably go to break the highway code to make use of it or
other things related to the presumption of guilt . I do not support this kind of metaphor for private copying assimilated to a crime (breaking the Highway Code, guilt) we have shown in section II is not the case.
No metaphors are needed to understand that it is not acceptable to be charged - especially the amounts mentioned in the paragraph above - can not be demonstrated by use of a product.
But that is not even necessary to discuss what is just or unjust but necessary "or" there is now a better solution "to understand that the fee does not make sense. It is no use discussing the methodology to be applied if the goal to achieve is already in itself wrong:
1 - Why have to receive compensation when a business model (selling culture hardware) expires? It was ever thus? Wikipedia Obviously it was not always so. What's more, it never did. Have you heard of a way to compensate the vendors because gas bottles coal gas? manufacturers, editors or sellers of encyclopedias in the wake of the carnage that is to them the success of Wikipedia
?
Correct answer: No because Wikipedia does not copy the contents of others but it is his own creation. While in the case of authors, which is accessed their work.
Vale. I have to sharpen my argument: So subsidize the newspapers for news of interest tend to be reproduced as is in a lot of blogs and mailing lists which an alarming drop in sales?
No. Because this sector, in view of changes resulting from the Internet, has adapted to new technologies and even offer - to promote for export in social networks - free your news on their websites.
expired thousands of jobs before this yaa no one thought to establish a canon for them to live
silly soup. But I hope you've noticed that the office which I really mean is not the artist but the intermediary or label, the artists will never disappear because they are the only essential in this business.
This reminds me a text that I read recently but I am unable to find again. Was saying that years ago when they invented the disk, it said it was an invention that meant the death of artists and music in general because nobody would pay to artists if acting for a miserable price you could listen as many times as you want in your home. What a coincidence!
2 - Does the Internet really is (= as we - and they - they want to believe) counterproductive to the economic interests artists? In the end, the disc became an opportunity for musicians and the concert went from being his livelihood to play a simple paper system to promote their albums. Now they are about to return to its roots. Because like it or not want, however much they resist based DRM canon or whatever, music, movies and books will soon be circling the net for free.
He said such a
William Edwards Deming: "
Nobody forces you to change, change if desired. After all ... survival is not mandatory. "
But is that not only have to change but also is not all that complicated: just stop seeing the Internet as an enemy and penetrate a little to discover opportunities.
could cite the recent case of Radiohead, the sales figures of David Bravo's "Back this book" or multiple artists - like that Koala is now signing for canon - that have come only through Internet. And then are impregnated to sell records and organize concerts. Do not be fooled: the music never has been so good as now. Increase sales of digital music (iTunes, Amazon ...) without compensating the drop in sales of older formats, but getting the digital and technological resources have managed to divide the costs of recording X: any artist can now published in the network rather than a correct model of their work. Many more artists
out, the cake is much more sharing. To exist because before we had to find a producer: 15 people deciding what could or could not hear the remaining 50 million. Now public in 15 seconds on Jamendo
. Of course, Internet is not a miracle: if you have talent, you still might not have it. And another thing: it is easy but not simple. Which is not what Curran and not promoted nor notes. As in any profession with lots of competition.
And then, if everything is so beautiful, why protest? The first real question is: Who is protesting? Intermediaries. The labels are those that see their business is expiring and
artists begin to go it was redirecting its business concerts rather than give them 90% of the profits from their albums. They are also concerned the super artists
can not buy as many Mercedes as before because they have spent to sell 2 million records to just 1 million.
And last but not least is the $ GA € sucking living
pasta weddings, christenings and concerts and is clearly beneficial it continues this way the thing was going to end the scam
.
Xavi said recently that the purpose of this organization was to help artists. I do not know if that statement was deluded or interested. But I have not seen any course of adaptability or support the use of new technologies organized by the $ GA €, have not lifted a finger to help them adapt to the digital world but have been limited to mobilize others to defend their own business. The conclusion is that if I were a novice or pop artist, my interests entrusted by David Byrne
or
Enrique Dans than the $ GA €. Without a doubt.
So do not ask authors who work for free. They are asked to avoid getting manipulated by management bodies and / or intermediaries and artists with their fans, readers and viewers - the only actors needed - join a great opportunity and cultural festival that is the Internet.
THE - HAPPY ;-) - END
PD This post is dedicated to those who, without knowing or charge me ;-), I have instructed (another of the dangers of the Internet): David Bravo
(technical and legal aspects), Enrique Dans
(the new economic model), Ricardo Galli
(philosophy of freedom).
I'll update the list as do memory.
no doubt already noticed the purchase of the Recoletos and Unidad Editorial, the new media group led by Peter J. Ramírez (this always has a tape in his backpack Mondragón orchestra bathed in boric acid). 
