Bill Barr Excises 'Attorney' From His Title As He Leads Our Nation's Police Soldiers Into The War At Home

from the looking-for-a-fist-to-put-his-face-in dept

It seems the only reason Attorney General Bill Barr opens his mouth is to apply more tongue-polish to the nearest policeman's boot.

Echoing the pro-law enforcement rhetoric of his boss, Barr has expounded frequently on the rule of law, even as the administration he serves does everything it can to subvert it. It's not really a high-wire act. No one expects anything less from Bill Barr. And certainly no one expects anything more from him either.

Barr has gone on the warpath against encryption, something that seemingly only stymies the Federal Bureau of Going Darkness and a few very confused law enforcement officials. He's also gone on the warpath against the public in general, demoting them to servants of public employees, rather than recognizing it's actually the other way around.

He has decided to amplify the divisiveness that already plagues police departments and the constituents they're supposed to serve. He has done this by elevating cops to freedom fighters -- soldiers in the war-torn country we call the US of A. As is befitting a public industry that has already decided to clad itself in camo and deliver warrants in repurposed military vehicles, Barr summons up heroic imagery that presents everyday cops as protectors of rights and freedoms, even though law enforcement officers rarely respect rights on their way to depriving people of their freedom.

Last year, Barr turned the United States into Iraq during a speech to a gathering of police union reps:

[W]hen police officers leave their precincts every morning, there are no crowds on the highway cheering you. And when you come home at the end of the day after a job well done, there are no ticker tape parades.

One reason for this is that law enforcement is fighting a different type of war. We are fighting an unrelenting, never-ending fight against criminal predators in our society. While there are battles won and lost each day, there is never a final resolution – a final victory is never in sight.

It takes a very special kind of courage to wage this kind of fight – a special kind of commitment; a special kind of self-sacrifice.

He may be right about the last part, but he's wrong about everything else. You can't serve a community well when you view its residents as enemy combatants and your police force as a conquering army. And, unlike the soldiers Barr idealizes them as, cops are far less likely to sacrifice themselves when the option to "sacrifice" a civilian is still on the table. Real soldiers aren't nearly as self-absorbed. But our nation's cops are and it has been drilled into their heads that every person presents a threat and their only obligation is to make it home alive.

Barr followed that up with another hyping of the War at Home during his speech at a law enforcement awards ceremony:

“I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers,” Barr told the crowd. “And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves―and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”

Barr believes police officers do not need to earn respect. He believes it's owed to them. And if it isn't given, the police will abdicate their obligations to the public. This is a man who apparently would rather see citizens killed or injured than see cops go without their unearned respect.

The Attorney General's outlook remains unchanged in 2020. In his speech to a law enforcement "wellness" symposium, the AG once again pretended to be leading an army, rather than a group of narrowly-tasked public servants.

There were times in the past when we did not show enough respect for men and women who served in our armed forces. I remember those times, particularly during and after the Vietnam War. Today, thankfully, veterans and members of the military receive the respect they deserve for their sacrifice and heroism in defense of our nation.  

We should be showing our police officers the same gratitude we show our soldiers. Soldiers protect our people by fighting our enemies abroad, while the police protect our people by guarding them here at home. Foreign wars usually come to an end, but the battle that law enforcement fights never comes to an end. There is never a final victory, it is constant. That takes a special kind of courage and a special kind of sacrifice.  

While policing is demanding, it is also uniquely rewarding. It is one of our country’s highest callings, and we are blessed that there are men and women of character willing to serve selflessly so that their fellow citizens can live securely. We owe our officers the support and services they need to work their way through problems.

Everytown, USA is once again Vietnam. Except we can't bring our boys back because they're already here. If we can't give these heroes a ticker tape parade every time they punch out then that's on us. We don't deserve them, says Barr, not if we don't pay them the respect they're "owed."

What a crock of shit. What an asinine assertion. At least soldiers in foreign wars are tasked with winning hearts and minds as well as battles. Law enforcement can't even be bothered to do that. They've done all they can to place themselves away and above those they serve for years. And just when it seemed like the public had had enough, an AG is sworn in who thinks this chasm the police have dug is more worthy of protection than the citizens who stand on the other side of it.

Filed Under: doj, law enforcement, respect, william barr

Judge Tears Into Cops For Beating A Man Who Dared To Question Their Words And Actions

from the [starts-whipping-up-'disgusting-blue-line'-flags] dept

It doesn't happen often enough, but it is so very refreshing to watch a bunch of assholes get torn new assholes. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

A man who was violently "arrested" (read: beaten) by several Allentown (PA) police officers was cleared of all charges last November by a jury. The judge had plenty of harsh words for the officers who participated in this brutal farce. John Perez tried voicing his opinion to some cops who were apparently using a bunch of foul language while "investigating" (read: standing around) reports of an armed man in the neighborhood.

The cops didn't like Perez's questions and decided to punish him for his inquiries. A video that went viral showed the violent response from the Allentown cops, who first pushed Perez to the ground before deciding he needed to be punched into submission. Perez ended up being charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. He was found not guilty after a jury trial and that's when Judge Maria L. Dantos decided the involved officers needed to be told some things they'd probably never been told before.

The full transcript [PDF] has been released and it's a hell of a read. Dantos briefly recaps her career as a former prosecutor, working hand-in-hand with the DA's office and the PD to carry out raids, search warrants, and investigations. Then she comes to the point: what happened here was inexcusable and shameful and she makes sure the officers know it.

I was very proud of my years of service. I tried to provide to my community. I do protect and serve. But then you come in here with this case and proudly display to this community how you talk to people.

There were at least nine Allentown Police officers there that night. That is likely 90 percent of the evening's platoon. That is a lot for a 200 man department. You came into that scene like angry, hostile bullies from your first contact with those citizens, and especially officer Battoni.

Dantos lights into the DA's office as well for choosing to pursue these charges, despite the actions of the officers captured on video that night. She points out beating someone for talking to cops does nothing to help community relations and bringing charges against a person who was beaten by cops makes that divide even larger. She quotes one officer's own testimony, where he stated "no crime" had been committed at the point he decided to shove John Perez to the ground.

Instead of being community leaders, the cops chose to be thugs with badges and power. And the DA's decision to pursue this particular case highlighted everything that is wrong with that office and the police officers involved in the arrest.

I have seen murder cases, shootings, robberies, burglaries, pled to all manner of offers. In this case nothing? You chose to, instead, put on display police officers calling people pussies, bitches, threatening to shoot a dog, forming your disgusting blue line of four officers who turned their backs and said they saw nothing.

You perjured yourselves. You escalated a situation without cause. Cops smirking on the stand at this jury, laughing at the defense attorney, high-fiving in the hallway after testimony as if there were something, anything, to be proud of here.

What cop thinks this is something that should go unpunished, if not actually celebrated? Far too many, it seems.

You, officer Lebron, shoved Mr. Perez because you were mad, period. And then you got up on the stand and told that jury that you were just trying to make some space. That is not what happened.

[...]

Nine officers, most of the night shift, pulling cars from other areas of the city because you lost it. That's what happened. You lost it. Over nothing. Because someone was talking to you in a manner you didn't like? No crime. You serve them.

Judge Dantos closes this reaming by pointing out this isn't her problem to fix. She can only do so much. But those that need to mend relationships with the community apparently have no willingness to do so. All she can do is point out where the blame lays and who should be holding their own officers accountable so this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

Choices were made. I warned the Commonwealth and yet you displayed this conduct for the world to see. It's shameful. I'd really like to be a healer. I would really like to unite this community between law enforcement and the citizens. But the blame for this lays with you and it is for you to fix.

Will this be the flashpoint for reform? It seems doubtful. The DA took a case stemming from a very dubious deployment of force all the way to a jury and came out with a loss and a judicial dressing down. The Allentown PD has a history of excessive force deployment which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements. But that money hasn't bought them a better police force. While it's good to hear a judge has finally had it with bad cops, it's up to the PD to fix the problem. And it won't because it clearly hasn't done it yet, despite having ample reason to do so.

Filed Under: allentown, judge, maria dantos, police, police violence, respect

Attorney General To Law Enforcement Critics: Good Luck Getting A Cop When You Need One

from the pulling-the-veil-off-the-threats dept

Attorney General Barr to America: Fuck you, you ungrateful bastards. You're on your own.

Attorney General Bill Barr suggested in a speech Tuesday night that continued police protection for certain “communities” in the United States could ultimately depend on those communities showing more “respect and support” for law enforcement.

More specifically, vis-a-vis the general public being invited to go fuck itself:

“I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers,” Barr told the crowd. “And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves―and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”

There are a few ways to read the AG's comments. We're welcome to any one of them because neither the AG nor the DOJ has offered any clarifying comments on Barr's comments, which read like a veiled threat to communities that don't show the proper amount of respect.

The very most charitable way to read this statement by Barr still does no favors to cops. Elliot Hannon of Slate suggests it might link back to comments Bill Barr has made about America's least popular war.

A more benign interpretation of Barr’s comments is: If police are vilified, it is harder to get people to do police work, which, in turn, could make it difficult―or even impossible―to perform the vital functions of law enforcement anywhere. Hence, communities could end up with inadequate policing services. Barr’s reference during his speech―and in previous remarks―to how soldiers were treated returning home from the Vietnam War suggests this reading. “In the Vietnam era, our country learned a lesson. I remember that our brave troops who served in that conflict weren’t treated very well in many cases when they came home, and sometimes they bore the brunt of people who were opposed to the war,” he said. “The respect and gratitude owed to them was not given. And it took decades for the American people finally to realize that.”

Even if we are to assume this "benign" interpretation is more aligned with Barr's meaning than the less charitable (but possibly more accurate) interpretations we'll soon be delving into, this is Barr equating domestic law enforcement officers with soldiers returning from a war. It's an interpretation that buys into the self-delusion so common to law enforcement today. Rather than recognize they're public servants there to protect and serve the public, they've decided they're soldiers in a war zone surrounded by enemies. This should be an awkward position. Somehow it isn't. The people cops consider enemies are the same ones making sure their paychecks clear.

That's the most charitable reading: that cops are vets of the New Vietnam -- persecuted by the uncomprehending masses who churlishly refuse to be grateful for all the freedom secured by law enforcement blood.

Here are the more awful alternatives, in descending order of awfulness.

Option 1: Barr is suggesting cops will engage in "work slowdown" if they're not properly appreciated for the work they do. As community pressure to improve relations increases, cops will respond by doing less enforcement. If the line between regular cop business and the sort of shit that might result in discipline is no longer afforded the level of ambiguity cops have become accustomed to, they'll walk away from anything that might reflect badly on them should they choose to intervene in the manner they've become accustomed to.

This translation of Barr's remarks makes cops look like criminals of opportunity. (And they make Barr look like a union boss.) When the going gets tough, the self-appointed toughs get slacking. When public opinion and a lack of oversight favors applications of excessive force and routine rights violations, cops are willing to work. When they don't, cops won't.

The worst interpretation of Barr's comments is this: cops are a criminal organization running a protection racket. If citizens aren't willing to cough up enough respect, cops will no longer act as protectors. It's pretty close to the interpretation directly above this. The difference, though, is this: the relationship between cops and the people they're supposed to serve is not one of mutual respect. It's a one way street "guarded" by extortionists.

This may be what Barr is implying. It's not surprising he won't own up to it if it is. These comments were given to law enforcement members gathered to receive service awards. The choir got what it came for: an affirmation of their elevation above the people they serve, no matter which interpretation of Barr's comments you select.

This is dangerous stuff. This isn't just Barr big-upping his fellow cops. This is Barr telling cops they're more equal than the people who employ them. This is Barr saying cops are heroes even when so many are undeserving of this title. This is ugly and it's going to make what's already a problem even worse. Law enforcement officers have spent decades cultivating an "us vs. them" attitude that has nothing to do with cops and robbers, and everything to do with separating themselves further from anyone who could hold them accountable for their actions. Barr has affirmed their "rightness" and he's demonstrated he'll back the blue, no matter how much damage it does to the communities these officers serve.

Filed Under: doj, police, respect, william barr

After Decades Of Demanding China 'Respect' US Patent Law, Senator Rubio Pushes Law That Says US Can Ignore Huawei Enforcing Patents

from the oh-come-on dept

For well over a decade we've discussed the short-sightedness of the US repeatedly demanding that China "respect" US intellectual property, because China has only turned that around on the US, and used Chinese patents as a way to block American competitors from entering the Chinese market. Things seemed to go up a notch recently, after the US government expanded its attempts to block Huawei from the US market, and Huawei suddenly remembered it owned a shit ton of patents and started demanding Verizon pay on the order of a billion dollars or face patent infringement claims.

As we discussed, Huawei was just following the established playbook of using the US's bizarrely stupid obsession with "patents" against the US itself. Hilariously, Huawei's CEO was just recently quoted as insisting that the company would not "weaponize" its patents, at the same time that it was clear that that's exactly what Huawei is doing. Of course, as we've learned over the years, patents are designed to be weaponized and are frequently used as weapons against innovation.

In response to all of this, rather than recognizing that our over emphasis on patents (and our demands that China "respect" those patents) might be a big part of the problem, Senator Marco Rubio, has submitted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would literally block Huawei from enforcing its patents in US courts. In a tweet, Rubio defended this blatantly protectionist move:

I tend to agree that patents are frequently used to stifle competition and innovation and to retaliate against others, but it does seem bizarre and (once again) stupidly short-sighted to single out Huawei and other Chinese companies (what the amendment effectively does), and say they cannot enforce their US patents in US courts. The law specifically says that companies from countries on the (laughably arbitrary) USTR "priority watch list" cannot "bring or maintain an action for infringement of a patent," nor "file a complaint" with the ITC or "otherwise obtain any relief under the laws of the US."

So it doesn't take a genius chess player to figure out what is likely to happen next. After literally decades of US politicians and diplomats screaming about how China needs to "respect our patents," and when it finally starts using our own patent system against us, sees the US government seek to flat out exclude China from making use of the US patent system... how long will it take for China to do effectively the same thing in China to again block US companies from operating and competing there.

How can the US possibly go around telling other countries to "respect our patents," when the second a country like China starts using our patent system, Congress pushes a law that flat out excludes them from doing so. Rubio's amendment is just decorating the facade that is the claim that patents are a system for protecting innovation. They are not. They are a protectionist, monopolistic trade practice designed to benefit some at the expense of others. Now that a disfavored company -- Huawei -- is making use of them, suddenly Congress wants to pull that ability out from under them. This is not about "respecting" patents. It's about who gets the power to decide who can innovate. And apparently China is not allowed.

Filed Under: china, marco rubio, ndaa, patents, respect
Companies: huawei, verizon

If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping

from the you-earn-respect dept

We had two separate stories late last week about copyright issues in the UK, and it occurred to me that a followup relating one to the other might be in order. The first one, from Thursday, was about the UK's plan to try, once again, to push a new "education campaign" to teach people that "copyright is good." We've seen these campaigns pop up over and over again for decades now, and they tend to lead to complete ridicule and outright mockery. And yet, if you talk to film studio and record label execs, they continually claim that one of the most important things they need to do is to teach people to "respect" copyright through education campaigns.

My guess is they say this because an education campaign is something they can actually do, so they can make it look like they're "doing something" no matter how ineffective it will be. And, you can go back centuries and find that no education campaign has ever worked in magically making people respect anti-copying laws.

That brings us to story number two: on Friday, the UK's High Court confirmed that ripping your legally purchased CDs and DVDs to make a digital copy for personal use is no longer legal (something that the government had only "made" officially legal a few months ago). The court even left open the possibility that anyone who relied on the official change in regulations to rip their own CDs might now face punishment for doing so.

This court ruling came about after an organization run by the record labels, UK Music, challenged the legal change.

Combine these two stories, and you have to wonder what the recording industry is thinking. As Matt Schruers noted on Twitter, this latest court ruling can only serve to destroy any credibility that copyright might have held for people:

If one set out to burn up the credibility of #copyright in a single act, saying there could be liability for CD ripping just might be it.

— Matt Schruers (@MSchruers) July 18, 2015

And this is the part that legacy copyright industry extremists still don't get. You don't get respect for copyright through propaganda education campaigns. You get respect through earning it. And that means responding reasonably to things that people do. People want to rip music to make it more convenient to listen to. You should support that. You shouldn't try to make it illegal. You shouldn't sue your biggest fans. You shouldn't go after people for obviously non-commercial use of works. You shouldn't put ridiculous statutory damages on works. You shouldn't tax blank media. You shouldn't pull works down from the internet because a few seconds in the background contain some copyright-covered music. You shouldn't try to pass laws that limit free expression.

And yet, the recording industry does all of that, and then they think that a lousy (and misleading) education campaign will make people "respect" copyright? What are they thinking?

Filed Under: copyright, education, personal copying, respect, ripping, uk

Victoria's Secret Doesn't Want To Be Associated With A Campaign About Respecting Women, Issues Takedown

from the no-respect dept

The EFF has a post up about how Victoria's Secret sent a legal nastygram to an ISP taking down a parody campaign by an anti-rape organization, FORCE, called Pink Loves Consent. The campaign was a parody designed to raise awareness of these issues, by mocking Victoria's Secret's "PINK" line of clothing, that includes underwear that says things like "sure thing" and "unwrap me." The parody campaign replaced those with things like "ask first" and "respect." The page showed what Victoria's Secret could have done to put forth a more positive, more respectful message... and the company's response was to go straight to the hosting company and demand the site be taken down (which it was, though they found a new host who was willing to put it back up). Parody is a key element of free speech -- and issuing a takedown over this seems like a pretty clear attempt to stifle free speech. And, really, it just makes Victoria's Secret look really, really obnoxious. Were its lawyers really so offended by positive messages, rather than pure sexual objectification?

Filed Under: lingerie, parody, respect, speech, threats, trademark, underwear

Solving Potential Plagiarism Through Mutual Respect And Understanding

from the jazz-pickles dept

Back in June, we shared a story in which a comic artist had claimed that another artist had "ripped off" her idea. We even took the time to remind people that multiple comedians can come up with the same joke independently of each other. These situations are nothing new in comedy. In such situations, the person who feels ripped off has a number of choices. They can threaten to sue the other person. They can use social mores to shame the other person. Or they can go a totally different route -- one in which everyone comes out a winner.

Over at the Bizzaro Blog, home to Dan Piraro's Bizzaro Comic, Piraro writes about a recent incident he had over one of his recently published comics.

Here's a bit of a sticky wicket I thought you Jazz Pickles might find interesting. After my pantsless doctor cartoon appeared in papers the other day I got an email from my friend and colleague, Dan Reynolds. Dan is a terrifically talented and successful cartoonist whose work I have always admired. It seems my doctor cartoon is uncomfortably close to a very popular one that he did some years ago.

In most similar situations we report on here, this is the part where the person complaining usually sends a legal threat of some sort. But that is not what happened. What happened was something refreshing and quite out of the norm, at least in these circles. Both artists realized that people can come up with the same joke independently and then brushed the incident off.

Did I steal this cartoon? Of course not and Dan did not accuse me of it. Cartoonists with a large readership and an I.Q. above 75 (me) are not foolish enough to publish a stolen cartoon, especially from someone with an equally large readership (Dan R.).

...

Oh well, these things happen. Dan R. was a gentlemen about it and readily accepted our apology. We're all still friends. :o)

What amazes me here is that two grown adults actually acted like adults. Why can't we have more of these kinds of interactions? Even when the idea was almost identical, both were able to look past that and see the reality of the situation.

In response to the unfortunate incident, Piraro has decided to take a bit more precaution in the future. He has decided to do Google image searches of future ideas, just to make sure that he doesn't step on the toes of anyone else. However, he recognizes that even that plan has a glaring weakness.

Cliff and I work together frequently so we committed to redouble our efforts to Google-Image-search all of our ideas to make sure no one else had gotten there first. The thing is, though, we decided to retro-search this one and could not find it under any of the titles we could think of. “Backwards Doctor Coat Cartoon” was our most obvious choice but Dan’s cartoon didn’t show up in that search. So we still would have been screwed.

So even if he does a search, there are no guarantees that someone else's work would come up which matches his idea. Under these circumstances, how much effort should one allow? I would say that even doing the initial search is probably more than enough. It is more than you are actually required to do. Yet, there are some people out there that seem to think that is not enough -- that a person in Piraro's situation should have just known about that other comic. But as Piraro has shown, it is just not possible to cover all your bases.

All in all, this is a great experience for all the things it can teach us. 1) Acting like adults when a situation arises results in mutually beneficial results. 2) Recognizing that no joke is a unique flower incapable of being copied unintentionally is a wise move. 3) That even the best Google-fu cannot prevent you from unintentionally copying someone else's joke. Sounds like some pretty good lessons to me.

Filed Under: dan piraro, dan reynolds, plagiarism, respect, understanding

Yes Means Yes

from the problems-with-permission-culture dept

Please don’t ask my permission to re-use my work. YOU ALREADY HAVE PERMISSION. Please copy, share, re-use, redistribute, edit, modify, sell, etc.


Asking permission wastes your time, and mine. You might not mind wasting your time. Many people think asking for permission is a “sign of respect.” But what about my time?

Information (including all of my work) is not scarce. Attention (time) is.

Emails get lost in spam filters. They get lost amid the hundreds of other emails in my inbox. I’ve been known to take vacations and actually get away from my computer for a few days – something I should be doing more often. So what happens if you don’t get any response to your permission request? Do you not reuse the work? A work that has been explicitly made Free, in the hope that you will reuse it? Not reusing the work harms the work, and harming a work is disrespectful. Delaying reusing the work likewise harms the work, in smaller increments.

Suppose a “respectful” email asking for permission which has already been explicitly granted doesn’t get caught in a spam filter or lost in some other glitch. Suppose it actualy makes it into my inbox. Now I am obligated to respond – the requester essentially said, “I’m not going to use this work unless you respond.” As “respectful” as this sounds, it places an unfair burden on me. The work, and any use of the work, should not be held hostage pending my checking and responding to email.

It is not “respectful” to make me do more, unnecessary work.

More importantly, asking permission is bad for the work itself. If you refuse to reuse the work unless I send you an email, you are blocking an expression or distribution of the work. How many days or weeks or months are you willing to put it off pending my ability to process email? Or worse, someone thinks it’s “respectful” to require me to sign papers and mail them back. Yes, this happens. I have such paperwork sitting right here, telling me that unless I sign it and mail it back, they won’t use the work they already have explicit permission to use. How is it “respectful” to make me jump through more hoops before they redistribute or remix a work I’ve made explicitly Free?

If you want to show respect, please send me something like this instead:

Dear Nina,

I thought you might like to know I’ve reused _________________  in _________________. Check it out at (insert URL here). Thanks for making the work Free!

Love,
Someone Who Understands Yes means Yes

Ahh, lovely. Thank you!

A complaint I hear often is that nowadays, thanks to the inerwebs, not only do artists “have to give their work away for free” but they also “have to be businessmen.” HA! One goal of freeing my work is to free me of paperwork, contracts, and the role of manager – and what is having to oversee and administrate every re-use but management? In the “Intellectual Property” model, artists either have to do much more negotiating and managing and paperwork, or they have to pay someone else to do it for them. They have to be businessmen, or hire businessmen. And hiring businessmen (agents, lawyers, etc.) still requires much paperwork, negotiating, and contracts.

Some still insist that I’ve “maintained more control” over Sita Sings the Blues. The point is I have maintained no control over it, and that benefits me. The point is I don’t have to be a business(wo)man. The point is that other people, the crowd, distribute the work, and cost me nothing.

As long as they don’t ask for permission.

Filed Under: permission, respect, time

Outgoing Spanish Film Academy Boss Warns Industry It Needs To Respect Customers

from the good-for-him dept

Last month, we covered the controversy in Spain, where the head of the Spanish Film Academy, Alex de la Iglesia, had announced that he was stepping down from that position immediately following the Goya awards (the equivalent of the Oscars) in protest over the decision by politicians to reinstate the controversial new copyright law, that was written to appease the US.

While there was some talk of forcing him to step down before the awards (Spanish Academy members claimed it was improper of him to actually talk to people on Twitter), it appears they let him go through with it, and he gave a speech where he reminded the attendees of the need to respect consumers and not treat them as criminals. Among the attendees was Culture Minister Angeles Gonzalez-Sinde, who isn't just a supporter of the new copyright law, but for whom it's named after. The translated condensed version of his speech is well worth reading.

"The Internet isn't the future; it's the present and the way for hundreds of thousands of people to enjoy movies and culture. The Internet is the salvation of our cinema."

As for treating people like criminals?

"Web surfers don't like to be called that; they're actually people, the public. The public that we have lost because they don't go to the movies anymore because they spend their time sitting in front of a computer screen. Change is needed to come up with a new model for the film business. We have a moral responsibility to the public. We make movies because citizens allow us to make them and we owe them respect and our thank you."

And further on the subject of respecting the fans:

"We must be up to this privilege that society offers us. If we want them to respect us, we must respect them first."

Filed Under: alex de la iglesia, film academy, goya awards, respect, spain