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?
0 comments:
Post a Comment