The Italian Authority for Communications and copyright: the meeting between the President of the Association of American film producer (MPAA). Pisano and the President of AGCOM, Calabrò and “doubts” about the U.S. government source.
In the Italian’s Authority for Communications consultation on the subject of copyright, which saw the presentation of more than 50 documents in response to public consultation, the news agency reports of flying a note to the Communications Authority to the effect that there would be was a meeting in recent days between the President of the Communications Authority Calabrò and president of the American film producer (MPAA), Bob Pisano.
The same note makes reference to expressions of appreciation by the American administration of the legislation on inhibition of Italian citizens in the process of introduction by AGCOM.
The note is taken up by various press organs that seem to “bind” the U.S. government sources at the same president of the MPAA said he was awakened as the feeling that the measures of inhibition are appreciated AGCOM “even” by the U.S..
But at least the same note appears unique because it is not easy to understand what the source of direct or indirect importance of institutions that have expressed appreciation.
What are these sources? In the person of whom? From where come? And in what way the statements of these sources?.
While the “U.S. government sources” who remain anonymous, however, are not identified and not identified so as not to identify as many “foreign ministry sources” have reported that these statements, the same note after accurately identifies the caller of these President Calabrò days of AGCOM in the person of Bob Pisano, the President of the MPAA, or as stated above, the Association of producers, as evidenced also by the same note, gathers the seven major, or course, the multinationals involved in the repression of any form of a suspected breach of copyright, generating balanced judge to doubt that the measures of repression and inhibition is instead the same Motion Pictures of America, or an association of owners of copyright.
In the note that was issued by the Authority, which is engaged in a decision-making process in which the same need to take a role of impartiality with respect to the dispute does not, however, and no reference to different positions antithetical to those of holders of copyright does not give any account of the concerns of a constitutional nature also expressed in Parliament, nor give any account of meeting (which does appear not to have been) made by the Chairman of the Authority or by the same components of ‘ Authorities with the groups or entities who have taken positions to protect the rights of freedom of individuals in the digital environment.
It seems that at this point, the decision-making process which must lead to the Authority for the Communications Authority to issue a decision on copyright and computer networks it seeks not to reconcile all the right requirements, has begun auspiciously.
Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito
Studio Legale Roma Sarzana & Associati