I am frankly disappointed. Abc.es publishes an article about the debate to which I was invited by ABC yesterday that lasted a pair of hours and, not only I do not see only one of my affirmations in him, the fact is that only they quote me to mention things to which I was opposed, and not even all of them. Reading it it is commented several times matters in which we all were agreeing (the central role of the author in the industry or the fault of the telecos) with to those that for nothing I administer communion and that, in a case was not even mentioned and in other we were average in agreement. This is, the representatives of the entities of management were agreeing and I not. I dress that I do not meet for anything represented, I have not left another remedy to try to be reconstructed based on my notes and my memory as it was the debate.
A few days ago Inés Martín of ABC called me to invite me to a debate on the polemic on the Ley-Sinde (the additional disposition got in the draft of law of sustainable economy that grants to a new section of the commission of intellectual property the power to close webs for copyright violation). In the debate there was going to be a representative of the Coalition of the entities of management, a lawyer of his part, it is me who would be, and they were asking me for references of a lawyer of “our part”. After spending for the names that you can imagine, that they all are out of Madrid, and that any could come, in the end I proposed to them to invite to Pigeon Simplicity. Although it does not coincide 100 % with our positions, he does not buy those of another part either and has been very critical with the project in many aspects. He was foreseeing so a light disadvantage, but, innocent person who is one, I thought that it might overcome with energy and conviction and with the impartiality of the half host.
I came to the debate the first one and little by little I realized that the thing was not exactly as was waiting for it. It turns out that to the debate there were coming pleaded José Antonio Suárez and General Secretary of EGEDA, Joan Navarro, the director of the Coalition and Alex de la Iglesia. In a few moments even it seemed that Pigeon would not join. The debate was already staying descompensado. Three tanned speakers on the one hand (I have already coincided with debates with all of them) against me and it helps it Pigeon to give me (that in the end fortunately was enough). To initiate the action a person in charge of ABC framed it in (I cite by memory) “the traditional respect of this house for all the properties, including the intellectual property”, although also it tinted that “there were certain changes as a consequence of Internet that possibly new expositions were becoming necessary”.
Inés opened the debate asking what the measurements proposed by the government seemed to us. Suárez started by answering alleging that the government is late of 8 years in taking measures on this matter, which finally are doing it, which we are one of the countries with major piracy indexes, that we are in the black list of USA … Pigeon and I we jump to answer that there are no independent studies that demonstrate that, that the only studies on this matter are those that they prepare also that then facilitate them to the USA so that it puts the first ones of the list to us. Suárez’s answer went to this of note: he quoted McCarthy and his phrase “a communist in the department of the state is either a communist of more“ next to add “only one discharge either it is too many discharges”. This way, you discharge in general, without tinting. At least it remains clear who are his inspiration sources.
Alex de la Iglesia continued with the habitual ditty of many work places that are getting lost in his sector, of such critical situations, of the urgency of acting against this … that Joan Navarro continued with that the piracy was a shameful theft …
Pigeon Simplicity put on the table the juridical botched job that represents the law (he has written in his blog, but more on his conclusions at a later stage that on the debate in itself). Textually he said that in Spain one legislates “to fools and to madwomen” and that it for trying to do rapidly in the end it is not effective and they will have to initiate again of zero. Navarrese was saying that the measurements (that not to know beforehand was affirming) were of cirujia of precision (I said to the flight that precision surgery is not done with a mechanical saw) and that they had been studied to the millimeter by many attorneys general. Suárez was arguing that better to harm but to do something and Of the Church was agreeing that it was important already to do something, although it was not thin. It put the example of a friend who wanted to make movies but well and it had never done a movie. I answered that this criterion to do movies could be well, but for other things not. That it was sure that he did not like this criterion to guide the performance of a surgeon, and that to legislate on matters as delicate as this was something similar. And that in this case it is not possible to act helter-skelter to defend the interests of few ones and with it to harm the rights of the citizens and the economic interests of the companies of the new environment.
He had me to think to me and I said that the fundamental of this project is that it transfers authorities that in our arranging are clearly of the judicial power to the executive and with it he helps to erode moreover such a basic powers division for the democracy. I told that we have two questions on the table. One is as the copyright must be regulated in a new context, which is a debate that it is necessary to have with time, with publicity and with participation of all the implied parts. And another debate different and more urgent that is on the measurements that they try to be implanted on this question.
From here on Alex de la Iglesia was coming untied with metaphors and phrases – holders at a very high demagogy level: that if it seemed that the intellectual property was not just as rest of property (that will be because it it is not), that if it was respected more to the agriculture than to the culture, that if the discharges are like a moon landing in a jewelry shop with a Hummer … In addition to this, three speakers of another part were straining for taking control of one behind other so that he was not having chance of being answering and to dismantling his affirmations. I do not have the cronómetraje of the debate, but I doubt seriously that my intervention time was coming to 20 %. Joined to that, he was suffering constant interruptions whenever it was connecting three followed words, especially on the part of Alex de la Iglesia. So it was so in a moment of the debate I had to get up and say that this way he did not keep on debating.
Inés Martín asked us further on if there was some area in which we could agree. I said that yes, that I personally believed in the moral rights of the author (which his responsibility is recognized and is mentioned, that is not pirated) and also in the right to prevent others from making a profit with the diffusion of his works. Now, I clarified, this cannot try to be reached without all the judicial guarantees and also and this is very important, without criminalizing the linkage. I told that the linkage is fudamental for the web as we know it. I mentioned to how there was Internet earlier, in Gopher times, Telnet and the others. Yes, and Mosaic was saying Suárez. No, Mosaic was already web and linkage (obviously it had not understood it but it had heard flutes). Navarrese jumped opportunist that then we all were in agreement and that one was not speaking any more. But it is not like that. On the one hand because what it sets in the draft it seems like an egg to a chestnut to this that we were saying. Secondly because what the Coalition understands for “that someone makes a profit with the works diffusion of third” and for “without criminalizing the linkage” it is much but that very different of what entiendemos we. This way one made it see Pigeon Simplicity.
The debate ended with the representatives of another part to the unison affirming that it was not going away against the users (the classic thing) and that what it was spending was that the public was much misinformed and that it was necessary to educate him. Imagináos since it was sounding of ridiculous that proper Inés Martín answered him that the people were not misinformed, that on the contrary, that this topic had caused a protest level in Internet not seen previously. The final addition was the already classic one “it is necessary to continue the money” of Alex de la Iglesia and the accusation also of three representatives of the entities of management of which the big culprits are the telecommunications operators.
I take a rather bitter sensation of my participation in the debate. I feel it for Inés Martín, because I do not believe that it was his intention. Although if it is true that I noticed in other persons of present ABC a level of reverence to others three participants certainly significantly. For the next time I realize very well that I will take my own tape recorder and that according to what way I will refuse to help if the compositions are not absolutely balanced.
Tags: public debate