How Long Can I Leave Opalescence In For

alternative proposal to the Law Sinde

First this proposal is not perfect, sure failures and areas for improvement, but one I could draw in my spare time not many.

Second, regulation is essential for development and without it the proposal does not make sense, so there are aspects that depend on it, but the foundation would go through here.

The main problem that I see him, being honest, is the issue of accountability for those who advertise, I pointed out as an option and with reservations Alex de la Iglesia, but I think it would be just as interesting to the same (and possibly safer) without it .

prospered
If the proposal (by which I mean to be assumed by a partic and presented as an amendment in the Senate) would have been time to question it, reject it, etc.

In summary, improvements or interesting points that have the proposal in my view:

- Neither the government nor the public administration can close websites, only be done by a Magistrate Judge. This is consistent with the views expressed by political leaders, but this does not mean that the proposed measure is not equally effective.

- Maintain creation of the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission, creating a streamlined process for reporting and causing actual knowledge faster and better than they would for instance with the procedure Notification of the DMCA.

- Reduces time ostensibly to be responsible for the web decided to maintain or remove the content.

- No attacking / penalizes users, but only to intermediaries that provide links to works and performances protegidas.Esto also expressed a commitment by policy makers.

- do not alter the neutrality of the consideration of the link.

- It is not necessary to amend the Organic Law of Judicial Power (still) not provoke a review of administrative action prior to the decision Section II. Also this is the shortening of the time, it avoids the 4 days (they were not going to be able to comply).

And this is the text, relevant legal chicha, which I gave to Alex de la Iglesia a personal capacity, with the hope that helps.

I hope your analysis, criticism and comments on legal tone, of course.

Second final provision. Amendment of Law 34/2002 of 11 July, of Services of the Information Society, Royal Legislative Decree 1 / 1996 of 12 April, approving the revised text of the Act Intellectual Property Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Administrative Jurisdiction for the protection of intellectual property in the area of \u200b\u200binformation society and electronic commerce.

One is amending Article 16, paragraph 1, of Law 34/2002 of 11 July, Services of the Information Society, with the following wording:

1. "The service providers of brokerage house consisting of data provided by the recipient of this service will not be responsible for the information stored at the request of the recipient, provided that:

a. Not have actual knowledge that the activity or stored information that is unlawful or harms property or rights of any party liable for compensation, or b.

If they do, their best efforts to remove or make it impossible to access them. "

" means that the service provider has actual knowledge referred to in paragraph a) when a competent court has declared wrongfulness of the data, ordered their withdrawal, refused access to them, or else declared the existence or possible injury to the rights of others, and the lender knew the relevant decision, without prejudice to the procedures for detection and removal of content providers that applied under voluntary agreements and other means of effective knowledge that may be established. "

" means the provider acts expeditiously to title but not limited to, when you remove the data or preclude their access within the time allowed by the competent authority. "

Two. Amending Article 17, paragraph 1, of Law 34/2002 of 11 July, Services of the Information Society, to read as follows

1. "Providers services of information society that provide links to other content or include in their own directories or search tools content are not responsible for the information that direct recipients of services provided:

a. Not have actual knowledge that the activity or information to which they refer or recommend is unlawful or harms property or rights of any party liable for compensation, or b.

If they do, their best efforts to remove or disable the link. "

" means that the service provider has the actual knowledge referred to in paragraph when a competent body has declared the illegality of the data, ordered their withdrawal, refused access to them, or else declared the existence or possible injury to the rights of others, and provider knew the relevant decision, without prejudice to the procedures for detection and removal of content providers that applied under voluntary agreements and other means of effective knowledge that may be established.

means the provider to act diligently, without limitation but not limited to, when to remove or disable the link within the time allowed by the competent authority. " Three

. Is added to Article 17 bis of Law 34/2002 of 11 July, Services of the Information Society, to read as follows

Article 17a. Liability of providers of services involving the recruitment of online advertising space.

1. Service providers of information society involving the recruitment of online advertising space and sponsorship of services of the information society, as well as tenants and subtenants of those spaces are not responsible for the content present or to link a web site provided that:

1.No have actual knowledge that the activity or the information displayed next to your ad is unlawful or harms property or rights of a third party liable for damages, or

2.Si they do, their best efforts to put out of business advertising or sponsorship.

means that the service provider, the tenant and subtenants have the actual knowledge referred to in paragraph a) when a competent court has declared the illegality of the data, requested their withdrawal, refused access to them, or else declared the existence or possible injury to the rights of others, and lender, lessor or sublessor, know the relevant decision, without prejudice to the procedures of detection and removal content providers apply under voluntary agreements and other means of effective knowledge that may be established.

means that the lender, lessor or sublessor, acting with due diligence but not limited title when it ceases to act within the time allowed by the competent authority.

2. The exemption from liability provided for in paragraph 1 will not operate on the assumption that the lender, lessor or sublessor acting under the direction, authority or control of the provider to facilitate the location of content.

Four. It introduces a fifth additional provision in the revised text of the Copyright Act, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1 / 1996 of 12 April, with the following wording:

"The Ministry of Culture, in the field of its powers, ensure the protection of intellectual property rights with his vulnerability using electronic means or services of the Information Society under the terms of Law 34/2002 of July 11, Services Information Society and Electronic Commerce. "

Five. It amends Article 138 of the text of the Copyright Act, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1 / 1996 of April 12 with the following wording:

The owner of the rights recognized in this Law, without prejudice to other actions that correspond may seek the cessation of the infringer's unlawful activity and demand compensation for material and moral damages caused, under the terms provided for in Articles 139 and 140.

can also encourage the publication or dissemination in whole or in part, the judicial or arbitral decision in the media at the expense of the offender.

addition, the holder of the rights recognized in this Law may initiate the action described in the preceding paragraph, and demand compensation for damages, against those who, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know, induce, facilitate, cooperate or contribute in any way to the infringement of rights caused by any third party.

You can also request in advance the adoption of precautionary measures for immediate protection as provided in Article 141.

cessation both specific measures referred to in Article 139.1.h as precautionary measures provided for in Article 141.6 may also be obtained, when appropriate, against intermediaries whose services are used to infringe third party rights intellectual property recognized in this law, although the acts of these intermediaries are not in themselves constitute a violation, without prejudice to the provisions of Law 34/2002 of 11 July, on services information society and electronic commerce. Such measures must be objective, proportionate and non discriminatory. Six

. Amending Article 158 of the text of the Copyright Act, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1 / 1996 of April 12 with the following wording:

"Article 158. Committee on Intellectual Property.

1. is created in the Ministry of Culture's Commission on Intellectual Property, as a body at national level, to exercise the functions of mediation and arbitration and to safeguard intellectual property rights assigned to this law.

2. The Commission will work through two sections.

Section One shall act as mediation and arbitration assigned by this law.

Section II shall, within the scope of the powers of the Ministry of Culture, for the protection of intellectual property rights against its employees electronically or services of the information society in the terms provided in the Act 34/2002, of July 11, Services Information Society and Electronic Commerce.

3. Section One is for the financial year of mediation and arbitration in accordance with the following rules:

1. º In his mediation:

a) to collaborate in the negotiations by the parties prior to the event that no succeeded in concluding a contract for the authorization of cable retransmission of a broadcast, for lack of agreement between the holders of intellectual property rights and cable distribution companies.

b) to submit appropriate proposals to the parties.

is assumed that all the parties accept a proposal referred to in paragraph above, if none of them expresses its opposition within three months. In this case, the decision of the Commission shall have the effects specified in Law 60/2003 of 23 December, Arbitration, and may be reviewed before the civil courts.

The proposal and any opposition thereto shall notify the parties in accordance with Articles 58 and 59 of Law 30/1992 of 26 November on the Legal Regime of Public Administrations and Common Administrative Procedure

The mediation procedure and the composition of the Commission for mediation, shall be determined regulations, be entitled, in any case, a part of it, in each case which involved two representatives of the management entities of intellectual property rights under negotiation and two of the cable distribution companies.

2. º The Commission shall be the function of arbitration

a) Giving the settlement, by the parties, conflicts, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of the preceding article, may occur between administration entities and associations of users of its repertoire or between them and the broadcasters. Submitting the parties to the Commission will be voluntary and shall be expressly written.

b) to set an amount in lieu of general tariffs, for the purposes stated in paragraph 2 of the previous article, at the request of an association of users or a broadcasting organization, provided that they are subjected, for its part , to the jurisdiction of the Commission with the aim specified in paragraph a of this section.

3. º Regulations shall be determined for the exercise of its arbitration function, procedure and composition of the Commission, be entitled, in any case, a part of it, in each case in involved, two representatives of the administration entities and two of the association of users or the broadcasting organization.

The decision of the Commission shall be binding and enforceable on the parties.

matters specified in this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any action that may be brought before the competent court. However, the approach to the dispute submitted to arbitration before the Commission decision to prevent judges and courts know it, until the decision has been issued and provided that the party invoking it by exception.

4. Corresponds to Section II, acting in accordance with the principles of objectivity and proportionality, the exercise of the function of assessment and reporting of possible damage to intellectual property rights of those in charge of services of information society.

Section II will be considered for this purpose as the competent body to declare the existence of a possible infringement of the intellectual property rights of others and in which the use or services essential part of the information society.

Section II will analyze the complaints made by rights holders, requirements check standing and ability, ascertain the injury or potential injury and will refer to responsible for services of information society concerned, being that from the time notified for the purposes specified in the legislation that regulates their activity.

The provisions of this paragraph is without prejudice to any civil, criminal and contentious-administrative, if any, are appropriate.

Regulations shall determine the composition and functioning of the Section and the procedure for exercising the functions assigned to it. The procedure is always initiated at the request of the owner of property rights considered violated intellectual or the person who has entrusted the exercise will be based on the principles of speed, proportionality and other provided in Law 30/1992 of 26 November on the Legal Regime of Public Administration and Administrative Procedures Common

Seven. Amendment of paragraph 5 of the Fourth Additional Provision of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, the following terms:

"5. The administrative actions taken by the English Agency Data Protection, the National Energy Market Commission Telecommunication Economic and Social Council, Institute "Cervantes", Nuclear Safety Council and University Council, Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission, directly, in one instance, by the Division of Administrative Litigation of the National Court .

Masterbation Games For Friends

who sent me to my ... Impunity

This post is an explanation of what happened in útltimos days and today in particular, I have nothing to hide and it is true that some things must be known.

did not mean it I was doing was secret indefinitely, but things have their time and thought the time could be different, but well put circumstances it does not matter which account I was busy and that's it ... That is, naive of me, I tell this story after the passage of the law by the Senate and knowing the result, approve something or not.

The reason for not doing public has more to do with my own insecurity and the fact that we now see a "lawyer provinces" to fix a problem that has probably been studied by professionals. I thought that if I did show it publicly before those who really have the means to value should not journey, for one reason or another, that's the only reason.

First I prefer not out the evil "Sinde Act" is a legal aberration and here are my opinions expressed over more than a year to spend time explaining to those who have wanted to hear / read.

My opinion about the text was presented to Congress and remained the same as I stated at the meeting of the Academy and I discussed here at the end of it, that my sense of what would happen is that you would agree yes or yes to make the text come out.

Faced with this dilemma, I had two options, accept the offer to hear what we had to propose that made Alex of the Church and propose something better (although not perfect, and possibly improved) or shut up and hold the position of outright rejection and expected to pass a law with great danger to the internet that we know and I enjoy.

Christmas Past, and I see me Alex de la Iglesia did not, I sent a message saying that I felt able to propose an alternative in case they go ahead with the purpose of approving Act as it was.

is, was I, not commend anyone that decided the path of possibilities and try to improve where possible the text, within my limitations.

mail overtook him in an aspect that I thought could be improved, but without sending a final text, simply with the idea in the head and before you start to lose time at greater depths.

He answered in their willingness to receive what he could contribute and give the appropriate procedure if you found interesting.

As the proposal is legal and thinking to explain it better and understand it, on Thursday January 20 I traveled to Madrid to present to him personally, without anyone else. I offered in a printed document with my signature below. Hence no attribution representation may be indicated by a proposal signed with my name only.

from the explanations that I showed (using a chart that quickly became the day to make it clearer and placed here so developed and planned to wear tomorrow to explain it) I think it is compelling improvements to my opinion, is my proposal on what existed.

Back to La Rioja me Alex de la Iglesia said that the people who have shown the document I gave them very interesting and it looks great and well under the circumstances may can get somewhere.

this morning, thinking about the complexity of the legal and concerned that the text appeared on the Internet and can be launched opinions about it without knowing in depth the mechanics decided to talk to three people you consider your first impression may be important to understand that the proposal properly. not true that Alex told me to speak with them (I think I have done to try to cover my responsibilities but things are as they are and accept my mistakes).

My intention was not to convince anyone, and I said so expressly Julio Alonso (the only one that had the possibility of contact) but to explain the mechanism and that everyone seemed to decide whether good or bad, but making sure they got all the information. I personally, and with appropriate explanations, and can immediately resolve their doubts whether the text finally appeared either in print, online or even naive of me, in the Senate, would make them easier to understand the mechanisms a legal proposal, I assume, is its complexity.

For that reason I asked Julie if she wanted to participate, informing those who would be present, kindly offered to talk to Enrique Dans and Ignacio School for accepting my proposal and convey participate.

the afternoon call Enrique Dans, who tells me that he was informed in July and agreed to go, and I explain what I want and the situation I described above, asking for discretion as a condition for the meeting because I made her personal capacity and in all of this I did not want overexposure not being a representative of anyone but my own opinions, and ahead of the content of the proposal, but not too deep, just count on your presence at the meeting . Something I had been confirmed by the mouths of Julio Alonso and Henry himself. Ignacio School have not spoken but what I said was that he was agree to attend.

By late afternoon Julio Alonso calls me and tells me I have spoken to three and that they will not go, that when you leave the text as valued as they see fit.

After a while, I called again in July and informed me that a reporter asked about a text by the Internet agreed with industry that is circulating as an alternative to the original proposal. Just to inform me that that is what is moving in the press. Thanking you notice, we said goodbye and begin to ponder the post all at once, but had a commitment and thinking to do tomorrow to go out and enjoy total quiet Laurel Street ...

Until the phone call informing me of the post by Enrique Dans. Grateful to Henry had warned me what I wanted to publish, at least, knowing that his intention was to give explanations to consider, being able to explain my position early and directly, and not do it a bit on the counter . But as I said Henry had to post something immediately. I understand that writing it will cost less to call me on my cell phone ...

And that's what happened, or at least what I have lived ...

All I can say in my defense is that I have acted as best I could and I know, with the best intentions to contribute something, but apparently seen, whom I sent to my ...!!!!

I apologize to those who feel offended or upset.

And of course, appreciate the comments on the proposal is legal and point out the flaws in the next post.

[bonus track] In all the meetings I've been wasting my time and my money, nor have I received anything or expect anything. (Well at the Academy I drank a Nestea in the vestibule)

Then I wanted to use the scheme to explain the mechanics,. 110122

PresentaciónLES

Out Door Lighting Alarm

DoS attacks or questions about the effectiveness of law reform

is good that a company shall be equipped with articulated standards and mechanisms to punish those who by their actions cause damage to property or rights of third parties provided that the punishment meets a series of human principles that has cost us many centuries, and efforts to achieve.

laws also should be useful and should be applicable, as in the case of no good for nothing in reality are like a sad effort discredits both those who make the laws as to the latter and ultimately resents the credibility of citizens in the system.

As I was saying, we are witnessing the embryo of the first major online demonstrations against the policy objectives set in Spain, particularly against so-called Law Sinde, but also worldwide against companies bowed to the wishes of States united in their crusade against Wikileaks.

In this connection it is recalled the entry into force on 23 December Penal Code which devotes one of his articles to describe offense conduct that can be identified as a DoS attack, Article 264:

1. Who by any means without permission and erase seriously, would damage, deterioration, alteration, deletion, or did inaccessible data, software or electronic documents outside, where the result produced is serious, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to two years.

2. He who by any means, without the authorization and seriously obstruct or interrupt the operation of a foreign computer system, inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering, suppressing or rendering inaccessible computer data produced when the result is serious, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to three years.

One element of the type, and that is determining the severity of the outcome will occur. This gravity is a criterion to be a result of the interpretation that judges or courts do, but input will cause fear for the uncertainty of knowing when Setara to a crime or not.

But the problem comes in identifying the perpetrator of the crime, committed the crime because the Internet will have the problem of identifying the responsible after a specific IP address from which the attack takes place.

is a recurring theme in this blog is about the content of Law 25/2007 on Data Retention and conditions to identify the person to whom the telecommunications service provider has assigned a specific IP.

Says

LCD, Article 1:

1. This Act is to regulate the obligation of operators to retain data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services or of public communications networks, and the duty of transfer of such data authorized agents if they are required by the relevant judicial authorization purposes detection, investigation and prosecution of serious crimes referred to in Penal Code or special penal laws.
2. This Act shall apply to traffic data and location of natural and legal persons related data necessary to identify the subscriber or registered user.

That is, any transfer of data to identify a particular subscriber to the IP that is assigned only be made to the appropriate judicial authority, but only for serious crimes. And what are the serious offenses?

According

the Criminal Code, Article 13 , serious crimes are those punishable by a severe sentence. And severe penalties, Article 33.2

are severe penalties:

1. The imprisonment exceeding five years.

So who carries out a DoS attack can not be identified by the court through the IP address from which the attack comes since the law does not authorize the ISP assigns data because the penalty for the offense of computer damage is a maximum of 3 years.

Therefore for able to identify the responsible parties should obtain their identification by other means and it would still be the problem of linking the IP address to the specific person responsible for the attack.

back at this point to start playing what I was saying and decided to ask who legislate behavior, since it makes little sense to include an offense that in most cases will result in failure finding the perpetrator.

For anyone who suffers an attack will be frustrating to know that your issue may not reach the bottom and did not find the person responsible, which will undermine their confidence in the system, and the attacker will feel strong at the impunity with which they can develop their actions, which ultimately does not improve coexistence. Besides that impunity will result in the medium term, an overreaction by the other party that require toughness and other measures which, for the internet, restrict the rights of all.

It is important that whoever legislates do with the whole legal system in the head and not just punitive impulses agenda set by the media, causing public discontent and ineffective laws and institutions constantly undermined.

How Does Braun Self Cleaning Work

digital canon is it really necessary? Notes

Building the publication of the Court of Justice of the European (ECJ) has again raised the issue of digital royalty collection and management by entities.

First I must reiterate that the ruling of the ECJ means neither the illegality of the fee, or any problem on paper, things have been done with respect to current legislation and logical criteria.

This is so mainly for two reasons:

1. The ECJ ruling responds to a question from a English judge referred to a period of time that had not enacted the reform of intellectual property law for 2006 . What the question was not whether the text LPI's post-2006 was consistent with the Directive, but if the Directive did apply and on what terms before that date.
2. The ruling states that can not be charged to compensation for legal persons (the canon) for acts that they are not allowed. The fee offsets only for private copying that do as individuals and legal persons can not make private copies, it would be illegal, they have to pay anything.

If we see the current law is easy to realize how appropriate the same to what the ECJ said:

Article 25 "1. Reproduction carried out exclusively for private use , [...], fair compensation incurred [...] only intended to compensate the rights of intellectual property ceased to receive by reason of the said reproduction. This right will be waived for authors and artists and performers. "

Article 31" 2. not need permission of the author reproduction in any medium, works already published when carried out by a natural person for private use from works that have accessed the copy obtained legally and is not subject of collective use or profit without Subject to fair compensation provided for in Article 25 , which should take into account whether such works are applied to measures referred to in Article 161 . "

As I said at the time, what plants within the ruling of the ECJ that in our current law.

So where does the hype of a change in the digital canon following sentence?

Well mostly comes that we are in time to review digital canon, the law sets a two year period (Article 25.6.1) and plays to maximize the views, even if this means that legal atrocities. (Actually the review time was reduced by the ministerial decree set the annual review according to data from July 2008 to June 2009)

The fundamental problem is that the ministerial decree ensured the collection of between 110 and 115 million per year (Article 3 of the Order PRE/1743/2008) and to calculate the money, paid for the equipment, supports and devices sold in Spain, apparently had total sales across the country without distinguishing between computers sold to individuals or legal persons.

I would like to analyze the memory for approval ministerial order and the reasons for making that calculation is in clear contravention of the statute, but that would be another matter and could lead to many responsibilities.

words, the problem there is with the canon is that it has been calculating in contravention of legal criteria and therefore higher numbers thrown around, but improper. And there is a legal commitment by the administration of collecting societies charge a certain amount, because now we have to fix it and make money from anywhere.

The problem of putting the part for the whole, the withdrawal charge for their management or their rates may present aspects better is that we face a major problem, there is no charge private copying and not copy private prosecution opens to users.

therefore understand that the proposals in this regard should be measured with caution and moderation, but no way to tell us we must accept the ruling of the ECJ requires the amendment of the law, the only thing that has made such a statement is to evidence to those who made the calculation of the charge of fraudulently handling data that did not respond to the legal mandate.