1. Copyright should not be placed above citizens’ fundamental rights to privacy, security, presumption of innocence, effective judicial protection and freedom of expression.
2. Suspension of fundamental rights is and must remain an exclusive competence of judges. This blueprint, contrary to the provisions of Article 20.5 of the Spanish Constitution, places in the hands of the executive the power to keep Spanish citizens from accessing certain websites.
3. The proposed laws would create legal uncertainty across Spanish IT companies, damaging one of the few areas of development and future of our economy, hindering the creation of startups, introducing barriers to competition and slowing down its international projection.
4. The proposed laws threaten creativity and hinder cultural development. The Internet and new technologies have democratized the creation and publication of all types of content, which no longer depends on an old small industry but on multiple and different sources.
5. Authors, like all workers, are entitled to live out of their creative ideas, business models and activities linked to their creations. Trying to hold an obsolete industry with legislative changes is neither fair nor realistic. If their business model was based on controlling copies of any creation and this is not possible any more on the Internet, they should look for a new business model.
6. We believe that cultural industries need modern, effective, credible and affordable alternatives to survive. They also need to adapt to new social practices.
7. The Internet should be free and not have any interference from groups that seek to perpetuate obsolete business models and stop the free flow of human knowledge.
8. We ask the Government to guarantee net neutrality in Spain, as it will act as a framework in which a sustainable economy may develop.
9. We propose a real reform of intellectual property rights in order to ensure a society of knowledge, promote the public domain and limit abuses from copyright organizations.
10. In a democracy, laws and their amendments should only be adopted after a timely public debate and consultation with all involved parties. Legislative changes affecting fundamental rights can only be made in a Constitutional law.

A humble tribute in my window. Never forget.

Tiananmen Square 1989-2009

Even when last year the number of abortions was extremely high (140,000), the current law is clear: abortion is an exception. It will change with the new law, it will convert abortion in a right.

Spanish govern justify in an experts committe. But in fact their committee was made up mainly with members of groups in favor of abortion and abortists clinics businessmen. There was not a real social discussion, and, of course, there was not a real scientific debate.

In positive, read Samuel’s history. Photo copyright by Michael Clancy (fair use, I think).

And it happens since decades. But you look to your brilliant bathroom with marble bathtub and high-tech japanese WC. And you think it’s all right.

Global crisis NOW? Let’s be serious, please.

Now I’m enjoying with Spanish sportmen in Beijing. But I can’t forget the Olympic Games where time for peace. And  there is not peace without justice. I hope Olympic Games help a bit to China to open to democracy, even when the goverment became more oppressorto show a nice face to the world, even when the people that decided Beijin seven years ago had another intere$$$t$$$.

Ther is no peace too when one player in the Games invades the territory of another player, causing hundreds of injured and killed. Russia justified with a possible Georgian attack against civilians, but it’s difficult to prove this when some journalist died trying to show the reality to the rest of the world.

“Google was founded by two students in a garage 20 years ago”
In TVG’s Telexornal (news at the public Galician television), about the Prince of Asturias Award to Google.

Freedom for Tibet!

Today I read an interview to Macario Fernández-Alonso, the actual president of Port of La Coruña. And I got angry. The newspaper entitled it “experts say the next wave of the same height will take 40 years to return”. It is an usual misconception about return period that would dissapear going to the Wikipedia

But I made angry too because the journalist doesn’t know how to refer to the people that studies the waves in the sea. He referred them as “experts” or “meteorological experts”, and he/she used nowhere in the article the right name: C-I-V-I-L–E-N-G-I-N-E-E-R.

News like this proves my theory Hitler was bad but he’s dead, but the mass that supported him was worse, but it is alive.

Via Solidaridad.net