What the law currently regards the procurement of drugs if the minister Health was the owner of a pharmaceutical company?
prevail "rights of individuals to access the care they need, or rather the minister would ensure the interests of the industry that plans to retire after his political career at the expense of trampling human rights?
scary to think what happens if a private company pulling the strings, which has long been happening in countries like the United States, where the pharmaceutical industry pays much of the political campaigns and was one of the reasons for disqualification Hillary Clinton in the White House race, which will cut off their wings and support as health began to speak free.
Now I wonder
What is the impact that the minister of culture comes from the world of English cinema, and many of the support received at the time this government are among the figures of the falsely called English culture? it is now time to pay.
begin to live the consequences of letting the government handle private interests, and specifically that it Ángeles González-Sinde, which from its privileged position to try to benefit those who welcome you with leave open arms as his armchair.
I find it very funny that all those who have long been talking about the evils of private enterprise and how culture should prevail and freedom over the evil goings-on base metal, are the first ones to cry on the sky as soon as they touch the wallet.
A part of that heinous double standards, what I find most amusing is his apparent efforts to take us for fools every time they go on television, saying they are ruining when singers, actors and directors in this country earn more pasta in a year than they can raise a doctor, an engineer or a teacher all her life, and that in a moment of crisis where people walk it is going very badly to succeed is to talk about the selfish interests of a group of millionaires who are subsidizing the workers above.
So when I saw the demonstration the other day with a group of singers calling to save the music, attention to calico: Rosario, Chenoa, Antonio Carmona ... and four hanged or not who they were, I have not given credit, but what hurt me most was seeing Loquillo talking about how bad it is copied from others, when he owes everything to the issues that made up the great Sabino Méndez.
Another of the things that surprised me is to continue using the hackneyed argument that the music dies. Luis Eduardo Aute recently declared that the music has five years left at most and then disappear.
Why? Why do record companies no longer exist? please, the music will never disappear, they may disappear commercial music, but would not make music or concert would cease to exist, nor do I think people's guitars explode by spontaneous combustion.
And while this disadvantaged group (all were viewed with serious problems of starvation) was manifested by mileruistas of this country ... sorry the interests of people who will charge 20 euros per concert, our minister was removed from the sleeve a new point of law of sustainable economy that is making the Internet and the blogosphere throw fire.
This point of the new law includes the ability to close a website that does not respect intellectual property, without judicial intervention by. Close the sites would be at the discretion of a committee of the ministry of culture.
What is that in the future? first thing your blog can be closed if the Sinde or any of his cronies do not like what you have.
Arguments not they would not have to close half the internet if they wanted. For example this blog, could be closed by placing catch movies without permission. Even in the Borges quote that I included in an article which infringes the intellectual property rights, as the law allows the right to quote only when you have an educational purpose.
does not take very bad idea to realize that this law are creating the foundation for achieving what SGAE and his servants have not been carried out by legal means, are trying to break laws that limit Internet as seems to them without having to go through the cumbersome legal and constitutional process, which certainly never gave them the right even have been supported by the ministry.
difficult times ahead as purely economic interests continue managing the ministry of culture, whose main goal should be just that, promoting the free distribution of culture, and even more difficult times for freedom of expression.
So as a blogger I adhere to the manifesto of fundamental rights on the Internet, hoping that the Internet community can close ranks and stand up to such an aberration more characteristic of totalitarian regimes which unfortunately is attributable not only to our government or to a particular political orientation.
Given the inclusion in the Draft Law on modifications Sustainable Economy legislation affecting the free exercise of freedom of expression, information and the right of access to culture through the Internet, journalists, bloggers, users, professionals and Internet developers express our firm opposition to the project, and declare that:
1. Copyright can not be above the fundamental rights of citizens , including the right to privacy, security, presumption of innocence, to effective judicial protection and freedom of expression.
2. The suspension of fundamental rights is and must remain the exclusive competence of the judiciary . Not a close without trial. This blueprint, contrary to the provisions of Article 20.5 of the Constitution, put in the hands of a non-judicial body under the Ministry of Culture, the power to prevent English citizens access to any website.
3. The new legislation will create legal uncertainty around the English technology sector, damaging one of the few areas of development and future of our economy, hindering the creation of enterprises by introducing barriers to competition and slowing its international expansion.
4. The new proposed legislation threatens to hinder new creators and cultural creation. The Internet and successive technologies have democratized the creation and release of contents of any kind, no longer come predominantly from the traditional cultural industries, but from many different sources.
5. The authors, like all workers are entitled to live out of their creative ideas, business models and activities associated with their creations. Trying to hold legislative changes to an outdated industry that can adapt to this new environment is neither fair nor realistic. If your business model is based on the control of the copies of the works and the Internet is not possible without violating fundamental rights, should find another model.
6. We believe that cultural industries need to survive modern alternatives, effective, credible and affordable to suit new social practices, rather than limitations so disproportionate as to be ineffective in that they are pursuing.
7. The Internet should be freely and without interference from groups that seek to perpetuate outdated business models and make it impossible for human knowledge remains free.
8. We demand that the law guarantees the neutrality of the network in Spain, to any pressure that may occur as a framework for developing a sustainable economy for the future.
9. We propose a real law reform IP-oriented end: return to the society of knowledge, promote the public domain and limit abuses of management entities.
10. In a democracy, laws and amendments should be adopted after due debate and consultation with all parties involved. It is unacceptable that legislative changes are made that affect fundamental rights in a non-organic law and deals with other matters.
0 comments:
Post a Comment