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.