What Does L-arginine Do For You

artists

Page 45 of the newspaper - global ;-) - El Pais, Wednesday, December 19 (Tuesday):

IN DEFENSE OF LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF CREATORS
IN DEFENSE OF PRIVATE COPYING

The House of Representatives decided on Thursday December 20, survival of the compensatory remuneration for private copying, one of the rights IP core. Faced with the prospect of an end, that would be a disaster for English culture and content industries, creators and cultural producers who signed this manifesto want to show the deputies, political parties and public opinion as follows:

1. The elimination of the proposed private copying by the Senate would, de facto, the usurpation of the legitimate right enshrined in virtually all European legislation would place our country in the caboose of the Intellectual Property protection and endanger the English industry that generates content necessary for the development and cultural identity of our society.
   

2. Compensation for private copying, so-called digital canon, not a tax or a measure archaic or indiscriminately, but the most progressive of intellectual property rights, which puts in the hands of citizens the opportunity Legal and enjoy, in the field home, our thousands of intellectual property and creations without prior authorization.
   

3. End private copying would mean the acceptance by our leadership positions in a technology industry for months engaged in trampling through a campaign of defamation and untruths, the legitimate intellectual property rights.
   

4. The implementation and development of Information Society in Spain can not be, under any circumstances, the sacrifice and the work of creators and content industries, and the destruction of a sector, the culture, which makes a decisive contribution to GDP and national employment.
   

ask the House of Representatives not to vote in favor of eliminating compensation for private copying for the English creators and do not use our rights as an electoral weapon, since at stake is the cultural, education and science in our country. Express in one way or the other is declared the vote for or against the culture.

This manifesto was "signed" by Creators (among which, for reasons both different and obvious, The Lunnis and The Koala ) Writers, Publishers (probably the last 2 putting their beards to soak ) Organizations and associations, and I quote, " thousands of authors, artists, performers, writers, publishers, over 200 producers and other cultural workers . "

We will analyze the manifesto, just over 20,000 € the cost of a full page ad in El Pais , the authors have obviously put all his powers of persuasion and argumentation battery:

The title, "In defense of private copying, surprise:
First, Are you in danger of private copying? Of course not, because, as mentioned by themselves, the survival rate is misnamed (sic) canon digital. Nowhere time (except in the distant future if the position of the PP is going to second ) will vote on ending the private copying itself. The confusion continues over paragraphs: 1 and 3 defend the private copy while the 2 and the conclusion care about "the compensation for private copying = canon.

To clarify what really worries them - as if we did not know but it is so easy to prove worth the effort - the third point is extremely revealing: "Stop private copying would mean the acceptance by our leadership positions (...) technology industry." On the contrary, the technology industry which loves refer private copying as a source of income for vendors continents (bandwidth, storage ...) and the content (P2P) for advertising they generate. This industry is rather opposed to the canon but it is never nor will it be to private copying.
On the first point, saying that " The elimination of private copying put (...) our country in the caboose of the protection of Intellectual Property "is an aberration and that nobody understands why not let copying can be an obstacle to intellectual property. You might be referring back to the obstacle is in "no charge for it."
QED: take us for fools to try to make us believe they are our friends, who defend our right to share culture (non-profit private copy =) when in fact manifest only to collect so (= silly soup).

Once clarified the true intentions of the signatories, is to check the validity of his argument. I know it completely discredits earlier but poor things - qualifying to take in the figurative sense - like not express themselves correctly (there are few writers among the signers). Let's see in detail the merits of their arguments:

The overall tone of the argument is about cataclysmic warning: prove it terms as " survival" and "catastrophe English culture" in the introduction. Then, things relaxed a bit and advised that only "counterfeit legitimate right", " danger", again "(...) the trampling legitimate rights. "Although it is understood if we understand what is at stake is nothing more and nothing less than" (the) GDP and (the) national employment "and" cultural development, education and science in our country. "The bottom line is suspended as any kind of donation to Uganda and Darfur, and I make a transfer to SGAE, lest they apply The Definitive Solution Galler :-D.

The arguments in itself would not be analyzed because, given the above, sufficient to apply this successful and demonstrated the simple law of Talleyrand: " Everything is exaggerated negligible "(because to be significant not need to be exaggerated). But today I bully:-D and I've been so long without posting anything that I have to make an effort for the 4 cats who subscribe to this blog (except me, 2 friends and I fear that the 4 th as Googlebot). Point by point:

1. short, says that would be one of the only royalty-free in Europe which, for lack this source of income, English cultural identity in jeopardy.
   

   Lies error is large and obvious for us to believe that the canon is the only way to promote artistic creation. False. The canon, by indiscriminate is a wrong way to subsidize the English culture. It is easy to see that America does not charge a fee and American cultural identity is so over $ calories as their burgers. And no, I say that the American method, which unknown to me, is right or my turn to find a fair, I pay my taxes and vote (even but another topic), do not charge a millionaire every month to find solutions. It is too easy to always attack the pockets of citizens.

2. They believe that the canon is not a tax but a right (!!), liberals to be more precise, which allows private copying.
   
   started playing with the words as if it is really not a tax, it is also clear that this is a charge imposed on the manufacturers that they passed on to 100% (or 99, or 101) to customers. As for the veiled threat, repeated by the government , that without legal p2p no fee, I'm glad to finally recognize that downloading music, movies and other copyrighted material on the network "in the field domestic "and" without prior authorization "is perfectly legal. Recently said the opposite "lie?
   Moreover, private copying, or, put another way, sharing culture is a right for himself not return something. A business model of selling multiple copies of the same this expired does not mean that someone has to be compensated for it. Difficult to understand at first reading but as real as life itself, just ask the journalists themselves who have seen car sales makes Internet. Intended to give anyone a fee to the Grupo Prisa, Unidad Editorial Mediapro or? And the Kiosquero? The answer is given Deming: " Nobody forces you to change, change if desired. After all ... survival is not mandatory. "
   

3. Nothing to say, an ad hominem fledged. You know, fascists of Google bombing.

4. also I'm afraid there is little to add because we have a "repeat" of the fallacy 1: Spain royalty-free breaks. Perhaps to emphasize that that the development of the Internet is based on sharing copyrighted files is as true as remembering that the development of the Information Society includes the amplification of cultural variety: culture (but not always pots SGAE ) owes as much or more to the Internet and Internet culture. Otherwise, we would not be fully consistent with so many internet users who publish happily with copyleft. And in matters of consistency, not quite right SGAE (GOTO section 2, paragraph 1).

Regarding the conclusion of the show, this is the style called Aznar "with me or against Spain" applied to culture. Although this time it seems that Rajoy has chosen not to be "a English well " but initial confusion suggest pure electioneering, but that's something.

This is, gentlemen of the SGAE, the analysis of a poor ignorant citizen your advertising page yesterday of 20,000 € in the newspaper. And if a poor ignorant citizen to remove it so easily, imagine how insulted I do not want to be felt all over and much wiser than I and, above all, these artists which have appointed the final and depend on you to eat but not share your techniques mafia. You have not lifted a finger to help them adapt to the digital world: you have limited to mobilize them to defend your business. Not yours. So much so that you will change the English proverb going to want to kill flies with cannon to feed vague claim cannon shots.