In view of recent reports on the hearings before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Congress in the technology industry representatives, consumers, experts in Internet and data protection, calling for the end of the "digital canon" and limiting the role of management entities copyright, and the proliferation of commentaries and Web surveys that ask, for example, whether to eliminate the "tax levy" or whether it should be taxed "only original and not hardware, must clarify in the interest of citizens, this is some confusion in the approach of what the "digital canon" or fair compensation for private copying, and calls this includes Article 25 of the Copyright Act.
still need time to clear the user's need to make copies for private use. Until then, users will continue to make private copies of content purchased for playback on devices whose use is more comfortable (by size, technical features, etc.) but have no way to hold them and play them if not through a copy (basically hardware limitations).
foreign labor is not free: the artist's creative effort and the work of those who put this building at our disposal are to receive their just compensation, which results in compensation for the work acquired by means other than those set by the author (in most cases the sale of original copies.) On the other hand, works under open content licensing and / or free also require compensation, if not economic, it's outreach work under his name and other requirements.
However, this compensation must be properly defined and taking into account the strict purpose for which it was conceived the figure, its essence. The system of fair compensation for private copying, widespread in Europe, exist in Spain since 1987, the problem arises from the current wording of Article 25 of the Copyright Act and the ministerial order that developed in June 2008 and now extended (PRE/1743/2008 Order of 18 June). His current regulation undermines the concept that seeks to protect, the compensation to the author for their creative effort and the incentive creation, to become a kind of "permit private copying," and imposes unjustified inflated prices and certain devices, for example, printer 70 or more copies per minute, which provides compensation of 227 , 00 euros per unit. Such devices are not acquired to make a simple private copying.
state and users have to wait until the "end of the copy" in order to set an appropriate intellectual property law for all citizens (not just "good for one"). Already exist in our legal instruments to optimally protect property rights intellectual in our legal system, is absolutely unjustified and unconstitutional to create a law or amend existing ones to support a private right above the majority, as would the first final provision of the Law of Sustainable Economy, approved it in current wording of the draft. Maria Teresa Nevado
(Article published by Aude Information Security, http://www.audea.com/ )
0 comments:
Post a Comment