Woodsbury Outlet By Taxi

DISCRIMINATION: WHY IS TOTALLY REJECTED "AN ACT SINDE.2"

dismal ITSELF AS PRECEDENT dangerous

(Mangle enlarge Justice Administration)

intellectual property, special by either (that is, a lot), it remains a subjective right of some people: the authors of certain intelligence . In force a law, the 34/2002 of 11 July "service information society and electronic commerce" and that there is one called "information society" (legally defined in much stricter terms which suggests that expression) does not alter the nature of intellectual property as legal right. The said Act deals (art. 1) of "information and electronic contracting, regarding the obligations of service providers including acting as intermediaries in the transmission of content over networks telecommunications, commercial communications by electronic means, the information before and after the conclusion of electronic contracts, the conditions for its validity and effectiveness and the penalty system applicable to providers of information society. "What may be the subject of intellectual property are determined information content and electronic communications, but as has been seen, the Law is concerned about services and of service providers, not the content . The same Act provides that it "shall apply to providers of information society in Spain and services provided by them."

So, if someone says that other party is violating its intellectual property rights, deciding whether such a violation and what is the appropriate legal response is something that if it wants the owner of that right, ) rests with the courts and b), in particular, corresponds to the Courts of the branch or civil order of justice.

The first (a) is a consequence of what belongs to Justice as far unanimous views of the civilized world, but also underlie express clearly what the English Constitution (CE) in art. 24 under the 117 (judicial custody rights of legal subjects, those rights which are attributable to such and such people, who are these people and they, and anyone else-have) and which, conversely , says the art. 103.1, from which it is clear that the Administration is to serve with objectivity "general interests . "

The second (b), ie the allocation of private property claims to civil jurisdiction also stems from a general belief in the civilized part of our planet, but, more specifically, is provisions of the Organic Law of Judicial Power (OLJ) and the Civil Procedure Law, Criminal Procedure, the Administrative Jurisdiction and Procedure labor agreement, setting the fields of the areas of civil, criminal, administrative and social- or work of justice. Under these laws (which would take too long to quote and reproduce here, but which are easily accessible, free, online) to the Civil Jurisdiction belongs what is considered her own indisputable legal consensus, residually, as appropriate under the laws expressly to another command or branch of the Court (Art. 9.2. LOPJ) (see in particular, which corresponds to the administrative courts, according to arts. 1, 2 and 3 of Law 29/1998, of July 13 through the following link:

http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/l29-1998.t1.html # c1 )

The primary legal protection of private property is therefore the task of the Justice civil. No Administration. On the occasion of the administrative action in the field of so-called "information society" of the Law 34/2002, Administration can not, if you want to honor the bearing walls of our legal system, constructed in defining the private intellectual property owners and alleged breaches of that legal right, in front of the courts . If it did, how they want to do, would be saying that the definition of this legal right and its infringement is, in each case, some "interest." To say something, I'd be lying. For if for instance, someone plagiarizes a few pages of a book of mine or if it offers any whole, either via internet or copies "bound" to comb , free or paid, to the generality of citizens does not happen nothing of special interest. Who that is only interested in me and the editor of this book of mine.

But, attention!, talked about the interest of the publisher of my book, we are already talking about the protection of rights under a legal business of publishing, no intellectual property rights my book, because I am the sole holder of that right . Publishers, too often, they want the author to grant them their right to intellectual property or "copyright." According to the lyrics of many contracts, so provided, although in the end, it is clear that this provision does not make the editorial author. Personally, I have never accepted these terms: I yield the economic benefits of the editorial operation of my work, but I do not give my intellectual property . No publisher has made me stick to this " nuance." In any case, the book is not pure intellectual property: there is something else involved: certain product materials (paper, cardboard, etc.,), printer activity, publishing and distribution (and maybe leave me something.) The legal protection of rights related to material support of an intellectual product susceptible of private property and located on the property market goes far beyond intellectual property protection .

Something similar happens when works (texts, sounds, pictures associated with sound, etc.) Attributable to someone as the author (copyright owner ) are among the contents of electronic communication , Internet. Politicians do not cheat parliamentarians and the public talking only to protect intellectual property. Because when you want to act on so-called "illegal downloading" Internet content (and not saying that there is illegal and that no act) are not concerned only or mainly of intellectual property rights, but also other rights. And do not say that these other rights and interests can not be and are never legitimate. Recognize that it is capable and deserving of legal protection. At issue now is not all it has to be discussed, but only the ownership and protection mode you want to provide a concrete project law. What is now being discussed - having parked again, and for too long, the issues concerning the notion and reasonable level, today, intellectual property rights, issues that must be given today, some reactions from the classical - is as much or more than the protection of intellectual property, protection of industries or companies exploiting intellectual products, a wide range of products, because the text of a novel is something very different from a full movie or specific sound operatic performances of a play or concert for violin and orchestra, for example.

That said, what we argue about the "Law Sinde.2" is, first, that is a so-called intellectual property protection that breaks unduly basic outlines of the division of roles assigned the different branches of government because something attributed to improper management of it and, secondly, that justice delayed for a clear abuse of power, civil jurisdiction deprives the rightful role and Changing the legal protection civil justice should be dispensed by an insufficient and poorly structured judicial intervention in Administrative Litigation.

When, under the future "Sinde.2 Act, the Administration is to be introduced, preferably decisive justice courts, in matters supposedly subjective rights of ownership, it is undeniable that they are seeking ultaproteger holders (apparent) intellectual property rights and, even more so, to industries and companies exploiting intellectual property works to the detriment of the legal and actual protection of other people.

In other words, the "Law Sinde.2" reveal, if adopted, that the political class wants a very singular about protecting private economic sectors (and not audited in accordance with Art. 128.2 EC), which would be very direct account of the political class through the Administration, rather than depend on what every author wants to do (or not do) for his work, turning to the courts. As, indeed, many authors go, each on our own, defending what is ours (or leaving it be) with the tools that the law provides without the "Law Sinde.2" is obvious that the political class is committed to supporting so throw yourself, overwhelming certain groups of authors . And, of course, who wants to further support certain groups of companies -for-profit, it is clear, no- beneficially engaged to provide certain services (production, editing, distribution) authors.

Cheaters and shameless "arguments" against the Justice and process

A key question is this: if such protection, and fast, they need those authors and those companies, why not design a civil process very fast with almost the same time that the stranger's administrative procedure Act Sinde.2? Would not better protected the rights of all if resolved an independent? As to this question, very clear and simple answers are not so simple and clear (or does not respond in any way), it is clear the administration's expansionist zeal, to the detriment of the powers of justice, the administrativizando conflict resolution. And it is also undeniable totalitarian monstrosity clear consensus basis.

With the mouth small, but steadily, advocates of the "Law Sinde" in all versions argues the slow Justice. Given this argument, is not fooled thing as dumb, not realizing that versus "slow Justice ', these advocates of" Sinde "can not oppose without incurring tremendous too much sarcasm and constant proverbial speed, efficiency and cleanliness of the Administration Legal . Civil process of rapid intellectual property protection would be perfectly possible in the very short term. What happens is that politicians do not offer means to Justice (on the contrary, cut) and, instead, when they are interested (only if interested) the place, sometimes very generous in the hands of certain administrative agencies.

now, administrationalisation similar operation is in progress. Is a highly dangerous for everyone, consisting subtracting the Civil Registry of the hands of judges and administrativizarlo completely with forced and total computerization . After denying "effective" and material resources to the Registrar that an independent judge decide, totalitarian politicians allege Judges-slow caused by them, to put the birth, death, parentage, nationality, citizenship, etc. all of us in the hands of officials alone applications (which are investing millions, swelling the coffers of certain companies) governed by a Ministry (now, yet his name is "Justice"). Have already banned, even if the "system" is "down", doing nothing on paper . Think wrong and fall short. The new tyrants (new age: the DNA is always the same) do not know anything about computers (computer think it is perfect) and guarantees: what we know is to control and command.

If they do this they want to carry a story of intellectual property (the "Sinde.2 Act") or our marital status, what will they do then, for our health, housing, the absence of tension (and are therefore more administrative and political organs of control), or that no one feels humiliated, inferior, or simply "wrong"?

I'm going to an end. In the "post" earlier in this blog pointed two positions of judge worthy to minimize as much as possible the monster if it becomes law . First, to authorize the order for delivery of data to identify the alleged violations of intellectual property, the referee Contentious rather it may-be-require that you submit documentation proving just cause and legitimate interest to the information request and, since before the request can not be opposed, it would be reasonable for the judge does not authorize it if he could not establish a probability own qualified opinion that there is infringement of the right and a list of such infringement with destinarario the request. Second position: if the administrative proceedings arising from the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission reaches the point where you decide to take action section, a judge should be allowed only worthy if you have been convinced of the certainty of the offense who would be the recipient and taxpayer of the measures.

I know that the "Law Sinde.2" does not say this and that with a good dose of absurdity and acriticism, provides that the court weigh (weight limited to) measures (already decided by Administration) regarding respect for fundamental rights of the art. 20 CE: the so-called ideological freedoms "and the prohibition of seizure of publications, recordings and other media without judicial authorization. But, just as you can not think rationally, in the previous judicial authorization (of the requirement), the Judge is called comparsa legally officiate or automaton, but must be assumed to consent or not the order has to be governed by reasonable, for the second and decisive approval of the measures it must understand that neither is the Judge for the mere act of affixing stamps of legitimacy without trial for their part, subject to acceptable legal parameters: whether to remove content or closing a "web" is to indicate the existence of the violation of a right because for judicial authorization of a seizure of publications, recordings and other media (aptdo. 5 of art. 20) claimed it kidnapped not be merely suspected of violating a law, but security or completeness of the violation of another fundamental right . Here, when no question of dissemination of ideas, thoughts and opinions (aptdo. 1, point to the art. 20 CE) or disclosure (aptdo. 1, letter d of the art. 20 CE), it seems reasonable that these measures (similar to kidnapping) at least some justification for the violation of intellectual property rights.

Finally, one other observation. In these instances of our politicians affect certain authors and certain industries, who want to continue negotiating with the music, example, as they have been doing since the invention of the phonograph, more or less. But, in my view, what matters is not so much economic pressure on these and other companies such as the desire for power and control and despotic mentality that long ago went beyond traditional ideological boundaries and theoretically diverse political positions and settled in countless people of all parties. No external economic pressures on the real example that I put on the Civil Register, nor in the internal control of the Justice reforms of 2003 and 2009. Environmental authoritarianism is fed, even with an economic factor: the budget and the money is handled that can be mobilized is the real measure of power. So our political class (although they can always be found within her individual exceptions) full accordance with the idea that only the executive power is: governments (national, regional, municipal) and the corresponding authorities . So we reached a purely formal rule of law, where the separation of powers and judicial independence are hollow words. Lawmakers rarely take themselves seriously (and not give them facilities, and unconstitutional infumable with party discipline and other mechanisms) and the Judges should be having them at bay while there are still some that are created independent of the true owners the right to say and make the law, until they have been transformed, as it is trying with some success, into docile servants entitled, subject, as every single official, a clear chain of command .

Ultimately, determining all, a general debasement: to despise the freedom of others (starting with the thought and expression) and be willing to limit itself, gladly exchanging higher dimensions by what they call "quality of life." As this debasement is so widespread and entrenched, we see patients with T of liberal progress by selling as the most tremendous freedom abuses.