Yes, I created my account today to comment this story. I doubt it's questionable and I did it respectfully, not anonymously and in a polite manner.
You talk about focus, but actually citing a single sentence out of the context just increase ambiguity. That's why I reported a very short summary of the key points of the law, considering that most of Slashdot's readers don't speak and read Italian.
About the rest, I already explained my point of view.
Mr Orzetto, I know the text of the law and if you feel the need to insult me instead of discussing, you're not obtaining much, at least from me.
First of all you're discussing as if this is already law, and it's not the case. Moreover, you comment one single line of the law. Let me think it's a bit superficial, at least, and give me a reasonable explanation of why Mr Levi should lie on the most important newspaper when he's already widely under attack.
In the full text of the law there are explicit references only to subject operating in the editorial field commercially, excluding resellers (art 6). Article 8 of the law defines what it's considered "editorial field" as (point 2) "The definition of the relevant markets which constitutes the editorial sector is done by the Authority of guarantee of Communications according to the the Antitrust authority". At point 3 they clarify that "Editorial markets usually have national dimensions, but for regional and interregional cases, the authority can define their regional extension differently". Article 9 is about fighting dominant positions. Articles 10 and 11 discuss the publicity shares, to grant commercial transparency. Article 12 grants equal importance to the distribution of all daily and periodic editorial products. Article 13 defines fees for who violates the law. Article 14 discusses about books prices policy. Article 15 defined the field of operation of the Authority. Articles 16 to 26 discuss about incentives given to editorial operators and facilitations provided to them. Article 27 encourages the distribution of newspapers in schools. Articles 28 to 32 discusses the competencies in the application of the law and the financial support to it.
If I perfectly agree the law is not clear enough in stating that bloggers and personal sites maintainer are not interested, it's a bit difficult to define these decisions as a way to close our mouths.
What sure is that it was misinterpreted, probably on purpose just to get some attention.
I agree it has to be clear that blogs and personal sites are not involved, but it's also clear that they're not "professional editorial services and operators". There's really not much to play around these words.
Read my answer above. The law doesn't affect blogs and personal sites at all. It justs asks for registrations of professional editorial operators who work on the we, exactly as it happened for others non-online editorial operators (newspapers, magazines,...) since ever.
The statement about blogs is not true, and the source of the information is questionable.
As you can read on this article of Corriere della Sera, http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_ottobre_23/levi_legge_editoria_no_bavaglio_ai_blog.shtml (sorry, it's in Italian), where Mr Levi has been interviewed, the law you're discussing about refers to the editorial market, which means newspaper, magazines, books. As a consequence it only affects professional operators who produce them. Personal sites and blogs are excluded from these categories. The law only wants to extend to Internet newspapers the existing rules for the editorial market.
Regards
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I created my account today to comment this story. I doubt it's questionable and I did it respectfully, not anonymously and in a polite manner.
You talk about focus, but actually citing a single sentence out of the context just increase ambiguity. That's why I reported a very short summary of the key points of the law, considering that most of Slashdot's readers don't speak and read Italian.
About the rest, I already explained my point of view.
Regards
Mr Orzetto,
I know the text of the law and if you feel the need to insult me instead of discussing, you're not obtaining much, at least from me.
First of all you're discussing as if this is already law, and it's not the case. Moreover, you comment one single line of the law. Let me think it's a bit superficial, at least, and give me a reasonable explanation of why Mr Levi should lie on the most important newspaper when he's already widely under attack.
In the full text of the law there are explicit references only to subject operating in the editorial field commercially, excluding resellers (art 6). Article 8 of the law defines what it's considered "editorial field" as (point 2) "The definition of the relevant markets which constitutes the editorial sector is done by the Authority of guarantee of Communications according to the the Antitrust authority". At point 3 they clarify that "Editorial markets usually have national dimensions, but for regional and interregional cases, the authority can define their regional extension differently". Article 9 is about fighting dominant positions. Articles 10 and 11 discuss the publicity shares, to grant commercial transparency. Article 12 grants equal importance to the distribution of all daily and periodic editorial products. Article 13 defines fees for who violates the law. Article 14 discusses about books prices policy. Article 15 defined the field of operation of the Authority. Articles 16 to 26 discuss about incentives given to editorial operators and facilitations provided to them. Article 27 encourages the distribution of newspapers in schools. Articles 28 to 32 discusses the competencies in the application of the law and the financial support to it.
If I perfectly agree the law is not clear enough in stating that bloggers and personal sites maintainer are not interested, it's a bit difficult to define these decisions as a way to close our mouths.
What sure is that it was misinterpreted, probably on purpose just to get some attention.
I agree it has to be clear that blogs and personal sites are not involved, but it's also clear that they're not "professional editorial services and operators". There's really not much to play around these words.
Read my answer above. The law doesn't affect blogs and personal sites at all. It justs asks for registrations of professional editorial operators who work on the we, exactly as it happened for others non-online editorial operators (newspapers, magazines, ...) since ever.
The statement about blogs is not true, and the source of the information is questionable. As you can read on this article of Corriere della Sera, http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_ottobre_23/levi_legge_editoria_no_bavaglio_ai_blog.shtml (sorry, it's in Italian), where Mr Levi has been interviewed, the law you're discussing about refers to the editorial market, which means newspaper, magazines, books. As a consequence it only affects professional operators who produce them. Personal sites and blogs are excluded from these categories. The law only wants to extend to Internet newspapers the existing rules for the editorial market. Regards