On January 12 I wrote a post about the famous and the media " Bill Sustainable Economy in which he argued that from a purely legal perspective, the project was an aberration, inconsistent and had gone to shoehorn an absurd first additional provision in an equally absurd and hollow Sustainable Economy Act, trying to solve the problem of intellectual property against piracy on the Internet.
Although the current legislation is quite adequate instruments to defend the interests of creators ( injunctive relief and injunction) and some specialized courts because of the subject (and Commercial Courts of First Instance), the draft, using strategies of a genuine legal Haker, intended to modify an organic law, three ordinary laws and certain other provisions but, to achieve its objective as stated Ms. Sinde was close in the order of 200 websites that contain links to illegal downloads.
This created a partial commission claimed to be competent to safeguard intellectual property rights and what is more serious, we derived the procedure to the Central Courts of Administrative Litigation, thus increasing the range of intellectual property to other fundamental rights of citizens. And last but not least, these central courts within four days would be resolved, after hearing the representative of the Administration, the Public Prosecutor and the rightholders concerned. But curiously, the alleged offenders were not summoned to the hearing prior to claiming what they deem appropriate to defend their rights. That is, it sought to impose sanctions without even giving the right of defense for violators.
this nonsense blueprint forgot to close 200 websites, the legal instruments intended to be disproportionate, and would say more, unconstitutional. Forget also that if the aim is to defend truth intellectual property, this ridiculous procedure and these disproportionate legal changes would not prevent those websites change their names, were cloned and appear in other domains. The network will mutate and this absurd law would be meaningless. For this trip did not need so many bags.
In short, he understood that this bill could not have much travel and logically should not exceed parliamentary procedures. Would remain in a preliminary vacuum. Against a target of the Government that this bill see the light, were the positions of lawyers, and Internet media, with different arguments, showing their clear opposition to it.
Although the current legislation is quite adequate instruments to defend the interests of creators ( injunctive relief and injunction) and some specialized courts because of the subject (and Commercial Courts of First Instance), the draft, using strategies of a genuine legal Haker, intended to modify an organic law, three ordinary laws and certain other provisions but, to achieve its objective as stated Ms. Sinde was close in the order of 200 websites that contain links to illegal downloads.
This created a partial commission claimed to be competent to safeguard intellectual property rights and what is more serious, we derived the procedure to the Central Courts of Administrative Litigation, thus increasing the range of intellectual property to other fundamental rights of citizens. And last but not least, these central courts within four days would be resolved, after hearing the representative of the Administration, the Public Prosecutor and the rightholders concerned. But curiously, the alleged offenders were not summoned to the hearing prior to claiming what they deem appropriate to defend their rights. That is, it sought to impose sanctions without even giving the right of defense for violators.
this nonsense blueprint forgot to close 200 websites, the legal instruments intended to be disproportionate, and would say more, unconstitutional. Forget also that if the aim is to defend truth intellectual property, this ridiculous procedure and these disproportionate legal changes would not prevent those websites change their names, were cloned and appear in other domains. The network will mutate and this absurd law would be meaningless. For this trip did not need so many bags.
In short, he understood that this bill could not have much travel and logically should not exceed parliamentary procedures. Would remain in a preliminary vacuum. Against a target of the Government that this bill see the light, were the positions of lawyers, and Internet media, with different arguments, showing their clear opposition to it.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives rejected the law Sinde and turned it into an empty standard. The willingness to close websites met opposition from all parliamentary groups except the group logically PSOE. In my opinion this rejection demonstrates the lack of government strategy that stubbornly keep this additional provision (called Sinde Act) under the Sustainable Economy.
I am therefore pleased that the parliamentary spectrum sanity has prevailed, and this aberrant bill has been turned into a dead letter. As lawyers, I imagine the Internet will be celebrating this rejection.
0 comments:
Post a Comment