What Are Some Good Hobbies To Do?

RABBIT SHIRT, OX AND GOAT

These pictures belong to Tai Hsi creations Min and are a rabbit, ox and a goat.

http://papiromania.blogspot.com/

Cooler Master Aquagate Alc-u01

following websites Tips for Judgement "alasbarricadas"

The Supreme Court confirmed the sentence on the charge of the website "alasbarricadas.org" (pdf)

already expressed at the time that he disagreed with the initial statement of the case "Alasbarricadas" (pdf) Ramoncín instances followed by comments, and an image, that were at the foot of a comment in a forum.

The main reason for my opposition is that I think does not apply to websites that do not engage in economic activity Law 34/2002 on Information Society . S why igo maintaining that the ruling against "alasbarricadas" applying a law that excludes these pages of your scope is a mistake.

Although this approach has so far not been the subject of judicial controversy, on the contrary, in this case has taken on the subjection of the sites that have no advertising or income of any kind to the LSSICE (something I understand has been accepted even by the self-defense because there is no reference in prior judicial decisions), I think it is necessary to provide a series of tips for responsible sites and bloggers in the light of this verdict and the sentences in cases "putasgae" and "quejasonline."

responsible in this case who appeared as administrator "alasbarricadas.org" because it did not comply with due diligence in the removal of the contents, and could not do so precisely because they had not updated the contact and not showed that the mail was an effective means of contact.

This ruling of the Court recalls the doctrine of the Constitution (Constitutional Court decision 82/2000 of 27 March, 145/2000 of 29 May and 6 / 2003 of 20 January) that acts on produce full communication effects when frustration is due solely to the express or tacit will of the addressee, or passivity, indifference, neglect, error or incompetence of the person to whom it is intended.

That is, if the LSSICE allows be relieved from liability for injuries to third parties rights cause, but whenever actual knowledge, which may occur by various means, and diligent the withdrawal , but can not be considered diligent who does not comply with the means to contact that signals the law, since in this way is placed in a position to never have actual knowledge.

also notes that the Case law should be interpreted in light of social circumstances, and in a medium like the internet, pretending to wait for a clear case of infringement of the right to honor (which is not has even been questioned by the defense) has a prior ruling would leave helpless the victim.

In view of the above we can draw the following c onclusions practices for bloggers and web managers if they will not be held liable for comments or actions of third parties involved in your site:

1 - Have enabled a communication channel that can prove it works and receive notifications. The email will admit, given what the Supreme Court has said in this case, but must demonstrate in the eventual trial requests to the same are received and answered. This is something that the district court noted that it was not established by the defendants.

2 - Meets obligation to update contact details , according to Article 10 LSSICE l. Personally I would include the whois data if you have your own domain, since the ruling also makes some reference to it.

3 - If you receive a notification, either in email or burofax, Send her away and answers at least initially with a "look into your complaint or grievance," thus attempt to show that messages .

4 - But not all obligations to the blogger or webmaster, the claim must specify all aspects to be analyzed to see whether the rights of others are injured, saying the comments are considered prejudicial and the reasons for it, so that required to make a proper trial and decide whether to withdraw or not. The claim not meet these requirements can not be required after effectiveness. Obviously it would also be good to request a proof of performance or ownership of property or right claimed.

5 - When you receive a request analyze whether prejudices the rights of a third . A lack of consultation with a lawyer, always advisable, Go by the criterion of whether you like it you or your family if they saw the comment directed at you. There injury honor too obvious as to be protect them. In the "alasbarricadas" for example, nor the defense questioned Site, among other things, that an image with the severed head of the plaintiff was not prejudicial to their honor. Common Sense .

6 - If you think that the comment content or violates the rights of third remove it and just tell whom you requested. If you feel that your order is not necessary consult it before with a specialist, but not give an answer without meditate very well or be well advised .

7 - If the traffic volume is small and you can review the comments and contents once a week does not matter because you yourself withdraw the contents that are clearly harmful, without waiting for any request. If the volume is very large and you have no means of control because it acts as you will require.

8 - Not all applications will basis or meaning, not act like an automaton , people and companies who do not want to speak badly of them, their products or services, but that does not justifies the need to remove the comment , whenever respectful or accurate.

is important to note that this ruling for who really represents a problem for sites that do not engage in economic activity makes them extensible since the arrangements for providers of information society, but for the rest of sites is not something broken one, but the confirmation previous resolutions on this matter and consistent with decisions at European level in the interpretation of the Directive.

[Bonus track] In light of this statement what if a rights holder submits a burofax link to a website asking for the removal of a link to a site and if not removed? "This sentence demonstrates that the Act does not make sense Sinde?

What Does Cervical Mucus Look When Your Pregnant

Talk Compensation for private copying (canon) FER

Pongo

available to anyone who is interested in the content of the presentation used in the Talk given at the Federation of Employers of La Rioja on the canon on February 23, 2011 . The talk was broadcast by streaming, and will update when the video is on the web RES. (Video available )

Presentation on digital canon FER

Chlamydia Infecting Others

The case for non-lawyers Alberto Contador

Some preliminary details:

1 - I love cycling as spectator and practical (less often than desired)

2 - I have a very clear opinion against doping and cheating, even before the crime was self-doping I thought that this is a scam , and therefore should have previous criminal convictions against cheaters.

3 - One of the lawyers of Alberto Contador is Andy Ramos, partner and friend, but nevertheless in this case we had quite a few discrepancies, most based on my disappointment with the professional cyclists after so many cases, in the knowledge that all information in the file. That logically (by that professional secrecy) still unknown, having had access to only those documents that are public today.

That said, I must say that to a viewer outside the legal procedure for any sanctions must be fulfilled under the rule of law, the doping case of Alberto Contador is very simple.

He detected a substance in your body which is prohibited by the anti-doping rules in any quantity, however slight, and that the human body does not produce naturally, so commits an offense.

So far the reasoning is impeccable. No substance, it is not is allowed, so there should be punishment.

precisely because it is so simple reasoning, I have not been adequately understood the decision, what's driving the criticism about it, even to make sure that the file record is a direct consequence of political pressures.

not know, evidently, such an extreme but if you look, basically, the decision of the Royal English Cycling Federation (pdf) is apparent that this is not forced or failure twist the interpretation of the rule to find a particular result.

resolution to file the case to Alberto Contador not deny the essential fact of the presence of a prohibited substance in his body , which otherwise would be absurd, since it is scientifically proven that clenbuterol was in his urine, nor refuses the presence of that substance in your body violate doping rules (History of Made second):

"As a result of various anti-doping controls are carried out to participants in this test, on July 21, 2010 , the corridor was subjected doping control at the behest of ICU in the city of Pau (France), at the end of the sixteenth stage of the Tour de France 2010, specifically at 19.35 hours, obtaining two urine samples were stored in separate containers identified as follows: A-B-2512045 and 2512045. These samples were taken for analysis to the laboratory accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-German Sports University Cologne Laboratory for Doping Analysis, Institute of Biochemistry in Cologne (Am Sportpark Mungersdorf 6 DE - 50933 Koln Germany).

So the analysis by the laboratory, as stated in the report of the analytical S2010003810-1 dated August 19, 2010, r Evel an adverse outcome to demonstrate the presence of Clenbuterol , a substance that is included in paragraph S1.2 "Other Anabolic Agents" of "List of Prohibited Substances and Methods of the World Anti-Doping Agency", effective January 1, 2010 and incorporated in the Anti-Doping Rules (RAD) of UCI by express provision of Article 29. "

What makes the decision, how could it be otherwise, is to apply the law in its entirety, in this case the Anti Doping Regulations of the Union International Cycling (the RAD), and of course look at all the articles and provisions thereof applicable to the case, without forgetting any of them.

After this detection was put into operation the appropriate action, notifying the broker the result, and finally telling the RFEC the application to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In this application, dated November 8, the UCI said the possible causes that could have justified the result and this essential point in articulating the defenses of the rider:

i. - Taking supplements contaminated with clenbuterol. Ii .-
food intake contaminated with clenbuterol.
iii .- Transfusion of blood products containing clenbuterol. Iv .-
microdose of Clenbuterol intake.
v. - .........

That is, for the UCI, the possible causes of the results would be sought in one of those sources. Needless to say how unfortunate reference to ellipsis, since it is limited in this way the possibilities of defense, and you have to argue or try to prove impossible for unknown issues.

On the basis of the other four possibilities is on the cyclist's lawyers have articulated the defense, with some peculiarities to be seen.

First we have to explain that to the general rule that an athlete is responsible for everything that goes into your body, and would justify the penalty, there are extenuating circumstances and exceptions, such as Article 296 of the Anti-Doping Rules (RAD ), whereby the period of suspension (the suspension) will be removed if the corridor to be established that he committed no fault or negligence, shall fully test the entry form of the substance in your body.

" If a broker accredited to your individual event he did not commit any fault or negligence, the period of suspension that decide to implement will be removed . When a prohibited substance, its metabolites or markers were detected in a sample of a broker as stated in Article 21.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance), the broker must also prove how the banned substance entered in your body, to make it lifted the suspension period . In case of application of this Article and the lifting of the suspension period applies, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be taken into account as such for determining the period of suspension to be applied in the case of multiple violations under Articles 306 to 312 ".

Therefore, the first thing is to determine how the substance entered the body.

And at this point also that article 296 must be complied with Article 22 RAD, which noted that when the burden of proof is on the corridor, the standard of proof must be a balance of possibilities.

" When Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof on the holder of a license accused of committing a doping rule violation in order to rebut a presumption or establish certain facts or circumstances, and standard l of proof must be a balance of possibilities, except sections 295 and 305, in which the licensee must satisfy a higher burden of proof. "

That is, there is undoubted proof required beyond criticism (which it is required to implement other articles of RAD), but it must analyze the circumstances and in consideration of the possibilities, determine that it was more likely to have happened, according to the evidence on the record. This is essential, especially in an area in which the burden of proof is reversed. In any other disciplinary proceedings, who must demonstrate It accuses the infringement, but in sports law is not so (giving to question many things about meeting the most elementary principles of right ...).

To determine the balance of the corridor options provided technical and scientific reports, as contained in the resolution, with the main aim of analyzing which of the possibilities allowed by the UCI and WADA might happen in the case.

Thus, it provided the following technical reports:

• Technical Report on the Clenbuterol, issued by the professor, Don Julio Cortijo Gimeno, dated 25 November 2010 whose conclusions:

In the case of Don Alberto Contador, not drug plateau originates in the blood, occurs only a single maximum of Clenbuterol, not correspond in any case, the multiple doses of Clenbuterol and even repeat or lower than the therapeutic dose (microdose) . It is also possible to determine the time of intake of the substance, since the July 20 yielded a negative result in a doping test and the next day showed that most of clenbuterol (50 pg / ml), the intake was indisputably between 20 and 21 July 2010.
- In view of the data, we can say that the amount of drug reached in the blood of Don Alberto Contador, has been negligible and in any case have had Clenbuterol anabolic effect, or increase athletic performance.
- The amount to eat at Don Alberto Contador, is outside the range of pharmaceuticals available in the pharmaceutical (drugs), so we indicate that intake of Clenbuterol by Don Alberto Contador, has been so accidental and unintended (being the most likely course of the ingestion of contaminated food), without having a therapeutic purpose or anabolic.

• Report Dr. Douwe de Boer, dated October 14, 2010:

"The athlete Hematologic passport Alberto Contador, sample other than the normal biological variation, some variants of interest for which There are several explanations, but found no evidence of self-blood transfusions. "

• Expert opinion issued by Professor Don Giuseppe Banfi, in relation to the biological passport and hematological data of the corridor during the season 2009-2010, November 10, 2010:

"The evaluation and interpretation of hematologic profile of the athlete Alberto Contador, during the seasons 2009-2010, to suggest that changes in the hematological values \u200b\u200bare physiological and are the characteristic trend of professional cyclists throughout the competition season . There were no indications of stimulation of the blood or bone marrow manipulation . "

• reports issued by Dr. Tomas Martin Jimenez called "Evaluation of Pharmacokinetics of Clenbuterol traces observed in urine samples Alberto Contador" the first of those contributed doc.6-is-on "autologous blood contaminated with clenbuterol, dated November 24, 2010:

" The thesis of Clenbuterol pollution due to accidental presence in bags monkey blood for transfusion in an athlete who had been treated with the drug months ago, is not compatible with the existing scientific data on human pharmacokinetics of clenbuterol. Therefore, we conclude that this thesis is highly unlikely and is not, therefore, scientifically defensible. "

• The second report focuses on "micro-doses of Clenbuterol

"the thesis of deliberate use of micro-doses to obtain therapeutic or beneficial effects on athletic performance is not consistent with the pharmacokinetic data and existing famacodinámicos clenbuterol in humans. Therefore, we conclude that this thesis is not defensible from a scientific standpoint. "

• And third, studies on food contamination:

" The argument put forward by the cyclist Alberto Contador, with regard to the positive for Clenbuterol during the last Tour de France, is consistent with the existing pharmacokinetic data on Clenbuterol in cattle and humans. The consumption of two steaks, according to the sequence described by the rider, resulting in concentrations of clenbuterol in urine within 24 hours well above 50 pg / ml, time of withdrawal were zero and about 50 pg / ml if withdrawal time was 3-4 days. This time of withdrawal could be 5-7, days to individuals with longer half-life or a daily urine volume of less than 1.5 L. Although it is expected that a farmer applies the withdrawal period required to pass the inspections, we have seen historically that this is not always so. Although the EU is generally considered an area of \u200b\u200blow incidence of illegal use of clenbuterol in cattle, due to its use for fattening is prohibited since they are carried out spot checks in slaughterhouses and other facilities, it is necessary to assess the actual level of detection of current sampling system in order to estimate the individual maximum likelihood of food contamination by Clenbuterol. "

the part of the UCI and WADA, despite requests made no reports were provided in either direction, this is important, as the Disciplinary Committee should be judged on the basis of evidence which has .

light of the studies, reports and other evidence has shown Contador had used a steak on the dates of positive ( "we said that the broker has failed to demonstrate that 20 and July 21, 2010 ate meat from a butcher bought English [...] ") its biological passport does not show abnormal changes and that the other options allowed by the UCI (micro-transfusions, nutritional supplement and micro-dose), and ran scientifically impossible (they say the scientific reports on file), so that, following Article 22 RAD legally be taken by the thesis of certain food contamination.

But there is still another hurdle derived exactly from the same article as above, and is that the broker did not act negligently.

However, the resolution states that can not negligence credited as the rider trusted health authorities, buying a product in a legal establishment open to the public.

Keep in mind that, according to data from the European Union, in Europe around the year 2008 were sacrificed and subjected to control for the detection of the substance 286,748 animals, with only one result positive. It is true that statistically we can say that is a substance that is not used, but the sample is small for a conclusive result, it points to another of the reports mentioned in the resolution:

Doña Cecilia Rodriguez Bueno (Head of Department Prevention and Control of Doping and PhD in Chemistry) and Mrs Coral Gumiel Fernández (Head of Division in the Department of Prevention and Control of Doping and BA in Chemistry) view on the documents provided that:
While the documents by different experts can become expert evidence could be of interest to insist in the small sampling of the analysis of cattle, which means it can not be conclusive of the assessment provided.

And for negligence, this is a concept related to the care that a person should maintain in performing a task, it would obviously be absurd to require a notary stored corridor is an example of everything that consumes when he agreed to it in a legal and regulated market, such as that of a business open to the public in Spain.

As you can see everyone who reviewed the resolution (there are 35 folios) is found to counter the defense has met the requirements for establishing adequacy a balance of probabilities on a cause, among those admitted to UCI and WADA, favorable to their interests and demonstrate the absence of negligence on the intake of the product.

Everyone can think what they want about what he did or not Alberto Contador on July 21, but what is indisputable is that the National Committee for Sports Discipline Competition and the RFEC has complied in this procedure with the legal requirements that the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations imposed.

Accountant If the defense has been demonstrated that the most likely source of the clenbuterol was contaminated meat, and their conduct, the cyclist was not to blame or negligence, the record in good legal logic had to be, as indeed has been archived.

Thick Mucus After Hsg

The white vote and the "do not vote" Practical issues

Following the adoption of the law has emerged Sinde a process underway deployed around the idea "do not vote " and whose "ideology" is summarized in the following:

"Your decision is important. we will not vote for any particular party, nor blank vote or you abstain, but you run reports to see that there are alternatives against the law Sinde across the ideological spectrum. We ask to defend freedom in the network with your vote, by not supporting those who by their actions have been clearly deserving of a punishment vote. "

However, the result of the situation is easy to think of not voting, a position I personally do not agree, because enough has been fought in this country to perform that act as for now ignore it. This option is perfectly legitimate because we let others decide for us.

Just as you can think of no vote in any vote so is white.

If this is your choice, equally respectable, I need to know what is the white vote and who benefits, in order to analyze and decide in conscience.

According to the Organic Law 5 / 1985 General Electoral Regime , blank votes are (Articles 96.5 ):

" blank vote is considered, but valid The envelope contains no ballot and also in the Senate elections, ballots containing no indication for either candidate. "

And these blank ballots counted as valid votes (Article 108.4 )

4. Within the period specified in the preceding paragraph without causing complaints or protests, or resolved them by the Central Electoral Board, the Electoral competent authorities shall, within the next day, the proclamation of elected whose effects are counted as valid votes obtained by each candidate more white votes "

The importance of the vote to be valid is that in the possibility that a minority option to access the seats or councils have a minimum threshold. words, a candidate must have a minimum percentage of total Feedback if you want to enter the distribution of elected representatives.

Thus, for For municipal elections, this minimum threshold is set at 5% ( Article 180) of the valid votes and for the general election in 3% . (Article 163.1.a )

This means that if we have a city in which they have collected 10,000 votes, for a party access to the allocation of council must have at least 300 votes.

If those 10,000 1,000 votes are blank ballots, votes that will need to be 300, but with fewer votes for all candidates is more difficult to reach that number, leaving in this case beyond representation.

Therefore, if you're interested in the initiative "will not votes" and think not to vote for none of those present, be aware that your vote can be benefiting blank without trying, to those who do not want to benefit.

The Best Stereo Receiver

on the implementation of the Law Sinde

After final approval in Congress of Sustainable Economy Act, which incorporates what is known as Sinde Act, there are a series of questions about its possible effects.

• "When you start to apply the law? Is there a calendar of deadlines?

terms of timing for full functionality and applicability, we must take into account is missing its publication in the Official Gazette, the passage of the "vacatio legis" is established (usually 20 days), the adoption of the amendment Organic Law of Judicial Power that empowers judges and still in the Senate, and the adoption of the Rules of Section II, the appointment of its members and the provision of staff and budget.

is, in total I estimate that no less than 3 months to start having some practical effect of law. Therefore there is something today for tomorrow.

• How important is the profit of the web? Are there websites that can not be brought to the SS?

Web pages that are non-profits in their business, not an economic activity can not be regarded as providers of information society to the effects of L 34/2002 on y Services Information Society (LSSI), therefore fall outside the scope of the Act Sinde, and can only providers.

New

Article 158.4 of the IPA indicate that:

"The second section may adopt the means to interrupt a s ervice of the information society that violates intellectual property rights or to remove content that violates the these rights if the provider , directly or indirectly, acting profit or has caused or is likely to cause property damage. "

If a blog or website is advertising a service provider and therefore may be required, acting as profit "O" (and the conjunction this is essential) the potential to cause material injury.

So any site that receives some funding resulting from their activity is subject to this amendment.

So the only sites that would remain outside blogs and websites are free and without advertising.

• How will it affect the web of links?

reference links to the websites of , as has been stated repeatedly, we can distinguish between two types of sites.

1 - Those sites that have been tried at some point and have been acquitted by the courts and those that are in the midst of legal proceedings:

The first will be absolutely protected, except that the officials responsible for Section II want to commit a crime of trespass, since the judges have already determined that their conduct does not violate the intellectual property, one aspect that can be analyzed by the SS.

The latter shall enjoy the prejudicialidad against the administrative procedure, so neither will be brought to the SS.

2 - Those webs of links that have not undergone any judicial process .

In principle these are the affected, according to public statements by politicians, by the application of the rule. Effectively run the risk that the SS to initiate a case against them and order the closure or removal of content.

While

be seen whether the judge is limited to considering only those aspects that the standard allows (the allocation of fundamental rights of Article 20 EC) to approve the measure and also addresses the merits of the question which is a real possibility, but it depends on the judge.

These sites, if any, may be at the administrative closing and having to resort to the High Court for a review of the administrative act. After that process, probably, the court decides that the act is void and ordered the lifting of the measures taken.

• Does it matter that the web server is in Spain or abroad?

The scope of the LSSI provides that the same shall apply:

1 - those who are established in Spain. (Article 2 LSSICE )

2 - to those established in a state European Union and European Economic Area where they concern intellectual property (Article 3 LSSICE )

3 - and those in third countries where their services are directed specifically to the English market and also without prejudice that may interrupt the service providers of intermediation services (ISPs such as Telefonica) ( Articles 4 and 11.2 LSSICE )

Therefore, wherever you are the server if SS decides to withdraw the content or stop a service, you can .

In my opinion it is better to be in Spain and to appear in the proceedings to challenge it and obtain a favorable resolution services carried out. If the provider does not appear at the procedure that will also see limited their possibilities for defense.

• Can be brought before the Constitutional Court the law?

Yes, but the procedure is quite limited.

There are two mechanisms in the Constitution that a law be declared unconstitutional, on one hand the question of unconstitutionality and second, the constitutional complaint.

Appeal of unconstitutionality ( Article 162.1 of the Constitution ):

"To bring the constitutional challenge, the Prime Minister, the Ombudsman, fifty Deputies, fifty Senators, the Executive body of the Autonomous Communities and, where appropriate, the Assemblies of the same. "

incontitucionalidad Question ( Article 163 of the Constitution ):

When a court considers, in a process that a rule with the force of law applicable to the case, whose validity depends on the fault can be contrary the constitution, bring the matter before the Constitutional Court in the cases, as with the effects established by law, in no event shall suspension.

Therefore only such persons and in such cases may arise. Initiatives are not valid or private citizens led by associations.

Although in this case the most viable is that in the first procedure that comes raises the question of unconstitutionality before the judge to resolve.

Icbc Motorcycle License

Fashion and right to self-image. Inditex and the bloggers

In a highly competitive market of fashion, with thousands of brands competing for their position products with limited delivery times and a great need to provide differentiating features is normal that some opt for the easy way out and seek inspiration from elements who consult or visit frequently.

This applies for example to the fashion magazines of the early twentieth century, very difficult to find and some of them fairly priced.

But the case of bloggers commented on the wonderful blog Delia Rodriguez "Trending Topics" has highlighted a problem, not so much related to intellectual property of the clothing designs, but the use of the image people in the clothing designs .

Apparently one of the suppliers of Inditex brand "Stradivarius" for his designs used the image of several bloggers (obviously the company will have a contract where the supplier is responsible to have the necessary rights and permissions for the marketing of clothing, so it will be appropriate for relapse who blame) well known.

In fact, the brand has already initiated action to remove clothing from its stores and, apparently, has tried to contact the appropriate asking bloggers to apologize.

But

really, no use or reason to demand the withdrawal or if compensation according to law if a English blogger would not be affected?

In a case like we said we could find two different aspects , first derivatives of the right to honor and self-image and another for the related intellectual property on the photographs which form the basis for subsequent designs.

From the point of view of the right to honor, their regulation is in the Organic Law 1 / 1982 and protects against unlawful interference, these being defined in the law itself, in Article 7.

unlawful interference between the honor is:

Six. The use of the name, voice or image of a person for advertising, commercial or similar nature.

This provision is key to the exploitation of image rights in many professions, because without a license can not be any use. However, there are some exceptions to be assessed, and capturing the image of a person not be a trespass if:

His capture, playback or publication by any means in the case of persons exercising a public office or profession for notoriety or public projection and the image is captured during a public or places open to the public.

The use of the caricature of these people, according to social use.

The graphical information about an event or occurrence age when the image of a particular person appears as merely incidental.

The latter assumption is not applicable to this case, but the other two do provide a first approximation.

As seen in both is the requirement that the person is a public office or exercising a profession for notoriety or public outreach. We could discuss this for the bloggers, if people are actually looking like that publicly, although I do not reach for it in this case, because otherwise there would practically limit.

not think it possible, despite being almost caricaturestos drawings, claiming the exception of caricature, and that goes beyond social use. The case of cartoons would be the magazine El Jueves, for example, but in this case does is give you an artistic look to the design, was consequently use Social cartoons.

The first hypothesis thinks in connection with freedom of expression and information with other aspects such as exploitation of the image on products and services, so I see not applicable.

Therefore, in this case, in my opinion, would be a trespass in honor of the person viewing the image reproduced on a shirt or a piece of clothing sold.

Regarding intellectual property, the issue also poses problems.

Consider that we would with just a photograph, in most cases, so that his regime is laid down in Article 128 of the LPI:

who takes a photograph or other reproduction produced by a process analogous to that one, when neither one or the other having the character of works in the book I enjoys the exclusive right to authorize reproduction, distribution and public communication in the same terms accorded by this Act to the authors of photographic works.

And here we find the issue of whether what the manufacturer is playing or is it a new work based on the picture. This is relevant because in the latter case one could speak of the right to change article 21 LPI:

1. The transformation of a work includes a translation, adaptation and any other changes in the way that results in a different work. Since

considered as a new work created from the amendment of another owner of the rights to the mere picture, in this case the blogger or who took the photo, would not have this right and its intellectual property would be injured, leaving only the route of the lesion of the right to honor.

Having ordered the withdrawal

, all that remains is a game theorist, but as the old legal aphorism "Exusatio non petita accusatio manifestations" and if they decide to apologize and remove the clothes ...

Remington Model 870 Modular Combat System

Free Knowledge Conference and Law Symposium at the University of Santiago (2008) confirms Cyprus

Over time you go to collect many documents prepared for various seminars and conferences to invite you and myself sometimes lose track of them. I hope to be drawing to place here and that whoever may be using your content and not lost.

This document is presented in the First Conference on Knowledge Free and law organized by the University of Santiago de Compostela with the title "The free licenses in the English legal system." Keep in mind that it was in 2008 and therefore there are aspects that are outdated.

also on the web is the audio of the conference .

Licenses For A Free Knowledge

Shark Evoline Bluetooth

limits of the Law on Data Retention

usual in this blog that mentions the Data Retention Act, a law that is the result of European Directive and most controversial point is the limitation of data that can be transferred to the authorities, which authorities and what assumptions.

English law is clear, at least in my opinion though this view is not shared by some judges and prosecutors, such as Judge Eloy Velasco in his book on Internet crimes .

But in my opinion there is no doubt that only judges and courts may require the delivery of data identifying an IP address and telecom operators can only provide these when it comes to the pursuit of felonies.

Well, the law in Cyprus should transpose the Directive provided that the identifying details of telephone numbers IP addresses, etc.. could be delivered not just previous injunction but also the police and relevant authorities for investigation.

Now its Supreme Court had declared that his "Law of Conservation of Information" is not set to its Constitution so that such predictions can not be taken into account.

Apparently, the Court held that certain provisions of the law that allows access to telecommunications data were not introduced in order to harmonize with the European Directive, but go beyond this and its contents were potentially infringe rights to privacy and confidentiality of communications.

Now the police are concerned about the impact of the decision in cases in which it agreed to telecommunications data protected by a law declared unconstitutional and therefore could invalidate a lot of evidence obtained.

In Spain there are many procedures, both administrative and judicial, which require the identification of telecommunications to locate the responsible and send requests for it, even if there is no qualifying title (not to come from the court or not serious crimes), but few companies refuse to not meet a requirement, for example, the English Agency for Data Protection. However, such data collection could lead to the invalidity of any sanction or resolution.

More info: Cyprus Mail
Case in Supreme Court web: (pdf in Cyprus)

Traditonalurduphrases

BSA management entity trying to be

interesting failures are happening in the Court of Justice of the EU on matters related to new technologies and intellectual property.

In this case it is a very interesting software protection and the rights of compulsory collective management as well as the nature of work protected by intellectual property user interface of a Judgement resolved in the case 393/09 of 22 December 2010

The initial question is raised by the attempt by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) in 2001 constituted as rights management entity, we go on a software SGAE, the Czech Republic.

BSA pretended collect royalties on those aspects of compulsory collective management, such as public communication of a user interface when viewing a computer into a TV show or movie, for example.

I understand that the issue raised by the BSA in the Czech Republic as an attempt to prove this and, if successful, expand to other European Union countries as a new management entity. (Fear me if you got it ...)

The different instances of the Czech Ministry of Culture rejected calls successive BSA

claiming that "the law on copyright protects only the object code and the source code of a computer program, but not in any way the outcome of the program show the computer screen, since the graphical user interface is protected only against unfair competition, on one hand. Furthermore, said the collective management of computer programs was certainly possible in theory, but that compulsory collective management was not taken into account, however, that voluntary collective management was not helpful. " For

these reasons, consider the BSA as management entity had no reason to be.

The association appealed, and the competent court submitted two questions to the ECJ on the matter, namely

1. Must Article 1, paragraph 2, of Directive [91/250] in the sense that, for the purpose of protection of copyright in a computer program as a work protected by copyright under this Directive, is considered within the definition of "any form of expression of a computer program" graphical user interface of a computer program or part of this?
2. If the answer to the first question can be regarded as television broadcasting, which allows the public perception of the graphical user interface of a computer program or part of this, unable to actively use this program, constitute a communication the public of a work or part of this, protected by copyright within the meaning of Article 3, paragraph 1, of Directive [2001/29]

The Directive 91/50 is rmonización establishing the legal protection of computer programs and the said Article 1.2 states:

"The protection under this Directive shall apply to any form of expression of a computer program. The ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive. "

The problem, therefore, to establish whether the reference to" any form "reaches a software protection and the expression through the interface to remember only allow user interaction with the code, but impossible to reproduce the code, but only one element of this to relate to the user.

"It appears that this interface is not a form of expression of a computer program within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 2, of Directive 91/250, and therefore can not enjoy specific protection by copyright computer programs under the directive. "

words, the software interface is not protected as computer programs, but continues to the ECJ, the fact remains that eligibility of its author's original creation, and therefore would find protection and a larger work in terms of the Directive 2001/29 , a feature which should be appreciated by the judge who referred the question to the Tribunal.

Therefore, and in relation to the second question, it is clear that:

"a television broadcasting work is in principle a public communication that the author has the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit. "

Then, by relating it to the fact that an interface can be a work, it would seem that the ECJ supports communication to the public through television interface a computer program is a public communication. However, the ECJ can not be regarded as holding this event because:

Viewers receive this communication GUI only passively, unable to intervene. They can not use that interface function, which is to allow interaction between the computer program and the user. Since television broadcasting by the graphical user interface is not available to the public so that people can access up to the essential element that characterizes the interface, namely the user interaction, no communication to Public graphical user interface within the meaning of Article 3, paragraph 1 of Directive 2001/29.

Closing this way, in my opinion, the possibility that I think ultimately pursued by the BSA to justify its existence as a management entity.

Although apparently the bug may seem counterintuitive (if you can consider the interface as a protected work would make sense that public communication is considered the exhibition, in the strict terms of the law) I think the decision is correct in its terms and its aims, but obviously need to know what criteria Czech court asked the questions.

Black Bamboo Toilet Seat

Can vBulletin closing in Spain?

Even knowing all the secrets that led to the kidnapping of web addresses and rojadirecta.org rojadirecta.com and its junction with U.S. law (and hoping for accurate analysis such as that offered insurance Jorge Bells ), today I read the companion article Alejandro Touriño on the status of this matter and has assaulted me a question, is it possible abduction of a domain in Spain although the web activity, or its directors, do not be criminal according to the English courts?

Specifically Alejandro says:

"This is because American law, unlike the English, provides, among other enforcement measures on intellectual property, the closure of web sites containing Links to content protected by copyright . "

First, it is undeniable that links to websites, sites that their servers do not store the works, or simply provide the vision concerning the place from which issues the original signal a sports broadcasting, as in this case, not infringe intellectual property rights being responsible if such a violation, if any, people that put that content online.

Therefore, not exist a direct path to accountability to the service provider of the information society for links to work to third place on the Internet. To derive this responsibility, understood in an economic sense first essential requirement would comply with the provisions of the Article 17 of the Law of Services of the Information Society and therefore a competent organ injury detected a third party's right and make it known to the provider, in this case the web of links.

But secondly, and here my disagreement with the statement of Alexander, the English intellectual property law does provide for measures that may involve a service interruption of the information society.

In this sense it is necessary to note the contents of Article 138 , third paragraph, of the IPA as amended in the reform of 2006:

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

And the measures that referred to in Article 139.1.h are

The suspension of the services provided by third-party intermediaries to avail themselves of them to infringe intellectual property rights , without prejudice to the Law 34/2002 of 11 July, services of information society and trade mail.

is, to suspend a service of the Information Society is not necessary that web links that would be the intermediary, in activity infringe the intellectual property of anyone, (as has been reiterated judges and will continue to) just to supply a third of those services for that violation, the judge may take as a suspension of services.

In a case such as that discussed the fact is that, apparently , sporting events are broadcast in streaming by third parties without the appropriate rights for this , and what those third parties who infringe the intellectual property rights . On that such conduct is a violation of intellectual property rights are either judicial or doctrinal disagreement.

therefore gives the first condition to enable it ordered the interruption of service is that a third party unconnected to the web infringes intellectual property rights using for this purpose, to relay, the activity of a service provider of the information society.

thus be possible that this request was brought before a judge and the adoption of the suspension service, as the law allows. Obviously kidnapping may seem disproportionate domain but that will be based on judicial discretion according to the facts that the parties may cite in their writings and timely hearings.

it should be noted that the measure can be directed against any of the services brokers socidad information that is both the host and who has managed the domain, so that in principle the site would block possible from different pathways.

Another important thing, and probably explain the underuse of this approach is that the application Article 138 does not enable rights holders to seek compensation or compensation for the violation of their rights and that such conduct can not be attributed to the administrators of the site, simply limit the extent to suspension of service.