Spanish Minister for (in) Culture, Mozart and Copyright


It’s really amazing to see the quantity of stupidity, arrogance inherent to power can produce in the world. Well, considering that we are all with a fresh memory from the Bush’s era, nothing is absurd anymore and even “leftists” brag their wisdom to the world as if we were all followers, ignorant followers of the leadership.

Last week, the Minister of (in) Culture of Spain, responsible to guard, protect and improve more than 1,000 years of human kind culture stored in the country (to say the least) has declared publicly to the RTVE (State Radio and Broadcasting Corporation) according to the report of the prominent newspaper EL PAIS that Mozart “has lived in financial misery because he didn’t receive copyright’s royalties” and if he had had them, he and his family would have had a better life”. Ms. González-Sinde’s (in) culture is notorious in Spain and wherever she has stepped in to spread her wisdom”. Nevertheless, she has at her disposal advisers to avoid her gaffes.

Mozart wasn’t ever poor. That we all (except her, maybe) know. But yet, he was the precursor of copyright infringement. The article of the respectful and cultivated journalist and commentator Enric González helps us to bring the real facts to light.

Mozart poor home

Mozart's poor birth home

The obsession to defend copyright and repression at any rate the (in) culture Minister has made her oversee the fact that Mozart “pirated” Miserere Dei, Deus from Gregorio Allegri.

In short, the situation was that music piece was only interpreted inside the Vatican and the music’s scores remained property of the Pope and with only two copies more: one in the hands of the King of Portugal and the other with a Franciscan Priest (musician). Sadly enough, a nasty, non-law-abiding 14 year old kid named Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart visited the Vatican in 1770 and listened to the oeuvre d’art. His brains functioned with 64 bits processing capacity and back home, he wrote the music scores. A few days later, he returned to the Vatican, listened once again and made the necessary corrections.

Mozart Illegal Downloader

Mozart Nasty Kid

That was copyright infringement Ms. Minister of (in) Culture of Spain. What would you do with that nasty kid if you had the power to do anything at all? Jail him? Order lobotomy? What a great benefit to humanity you would have caused preserving the right, the divine right to preserve that work only for Your Holiness’s ears!!!! Shame on you! Jail the Spanish kids, censor, and cut the country back to the times of dial-up connections as you also already defended. You are the culture; you are the progress of sciences and knowledge for humanity.

“Do what I say but do not do what I do”. That seems to be the conclusion to end up with once we learn that she, her assistants or whoever in the Ministry has copied almost word by word her own biography from from Wikipedia without mentioning it (neither the authors of the wiki). Again: shame on you! And again, do the country a favour: step down!

Certainly there are brilliant kids out there who you call criminals and many of them will make and be part of history, while you will remain a mediocre screenwriter and if lucky something like Antonio Salieri (the envious bloodsucker from “Amadeus”, the film, not reality, pay attention to that once more!!!): but yet portrayed as a vicious, poisonous person defending the industry not the artists.

Online Content Production: the law of silence


While pushing forward the endeavour of gathering information from all sources to follow the series of articles relating to State provided subsidies, I have tumbled against a wall made out of tough steel and concrete: silence. If was my purpose to question policy makers, directors of audiovisual institutions, institutes of cinematography as well as filmmakers, directors, producers, distributors, actors, etc .etc.

The task would not be easy to start; I suspected that already, but with rare exceptions I was rebuffed as if I were a thief or at least a poisonous threat to the status quo of their jobs and life earnings. Without going further naming names, Cultural Authorities of different European States and Latin American countries, after reading (or not) this small blog, simply denied flatly to give any sort of interview by email, phone or whatever means offered. The position is that the law is the law and questioning these laws is unlawful. Waving the flag of the law as if those had no relation whatsoever to the reality and fairness to the people. I have to remind these ladies and gentlemen that once upon a time, slavery was also lawful and it was unlawful to question it. Would anyone dare to do it now?

Few producers came forward (some of them bravely offering to make their names and positions public) but yet, the absolutely majority simply would not discuss the issues of digital distribution, subsidies for online production and the new reality of content production for the Internet (broadband) era. No interest for pretty obvious reasons.

But why all the fear and self imposed law of silence? What evil can be brought upon humanity to talk about what is already reality, a given fact?

In order to clarify the situation, to open a call for all the interested parts to answer questions the society itself is posing and the public authorities and the others refusing to answer, I’ve decided to make public the questions I sent to them. Four simple questions that remain without answers:

1) Considering that the numbers of online viewers of audiovisual contents multiply, at least, ten times the number of movie theatres audiences in each and every country, is it fair to have the State (which should represent the interests of the people) subsidise film productions with a non-negotiable condition that the films shall be presented and released in movie theatres?

2) Why do you insist to impose criteria that are not up-to-date with the public’s interests ignoring their own culture consumption habits?

3) While audiovisual works available for free to all users are ignored by the public authorities and denied subsidies while audiovisual works intended for theatre or TV releases which constitute under all lights the construction of private propriety (copyright and commercial exploitation) with public funds- continues to be hailed by the state cultural authorities as the only valid option. Don’t you plan to revaluate this unfair situation and leverage to the real world situation of the cultural consumers of your respective countries introducing a fair system of public subsidies?

4) The public has the right to decide when, how and which cultural product wish to use. And in fact, they have done it already. Don’t you consider that the public funds spent in cultural production must reflect the public demand? And given that situation, leverage the social players in fairness, namely the creators/authors/producers of online content?

It is absolutely comprehensible that people will ignore reality as far as they see it possible in order to keep their own status and privileges. My question is: until when will possible to remain in denial?

  • Calendar

    • November 2019
      M T W T F S S
      « Dec    
       123
      45678910
      11121314151617
      18192021222324
      252627282930  
  • Search