Stages Of Ringworm Pix

With so much trouble for what the "Law Sinde" I began to read a little. Since then boiled in information and internet links, and twitter is in full swing: just look at the hashtags the moment in Spain: # leysinde and # seriesyonkis between the top-ten . This afternoon, reading bits here and there appeared this interview in February this year, Ricardo Galli, creator of Men é love. Freely admit that I have not read it all, but merely the beginning I did think about:

"Digg is financed by advertising and its 'business' is to provide links to news, many with copyright. At any moment you could have problems?

RICHARD GALLI: Linking to sites or pages can not be a crime. It would be ridiculous who managed to convince governments to change copyright laws in this regard. Even worse has been done in the name of "intellectual property", so do not rule anything. Right now the Intellectual Property Law is very restrictive on the right to quote, so that many copies of the original intros could constitute an illegal act .[...["

Well, I looked at the right to quote y. .. this is what I've got it clear: Let

. Adhering strictly to the article governing the quotation right in Intellectual Property Law current, popular sites such as Meneame.net could be illegal, "when making compilations of newspaper articles consisting mainly in the mere reproduction and that business is conducted for commercial purposes, the author has not explicitly opposed shall be entitled to equitable remuneration. "

Meneame.net site is a quick links to news of any digital medium, posts, etc. Anyone can read a interesting news in a digital newspaper and choose to "shake it", ie shared with other users (over 250,000 daily visitors). This means that these newspapers or bloggers receive more visitors as Digg users are using as an index, say, to catch the most interesting news (the most "meneadas").

seems a beneficial service for any newspaper, a sort of free advertising, and they themselves often include, among others, a button to "wiggle" on the page. A more "wiggles", more visits, more visits, more success in the network and higher advertising revenue.

However, the journalist who wrote a column that has been "shaken" not paid a proportionate share. Strictly speaking, each "wiggle" is a quote, and should be implemented as stated in that sentence of Intellectual Property Law. Digg

is profitable because thousands of people visit daily and features a 2.0 system advertising (Adsense). So, if you are profiting from the news that others have written, it seems that you are violating copyright law, but all parties are benefited out: newspaper, Digg and companies that advertise.

seems that, given that harms no one, if not opposite, nobody would be interested in starting any legal proceedings against them, it would be absurd that a columnist denounced a medium that gives readers.

But now comes the call Sinde Act, and says: "The section [of the Intellectual Property Commission] may take measures to interrupting the supply of a service or information society to remove content that infringed the intellectual property by a for-profit provider, directly or indirectly . "

What he means is passed gently through the lining to the judges and the administrative commission you can order the closure of a page if property rights are violated.

(http://juanandres.milleiro.com/la-ley-sinde-para-torpes/)

squamous Assuming that the Commission on Intellectual Property is allocated to the task of judging decide whether a website or not breaking the law (I can not help that I very much like what is supposed to be the work of a judge), I also find it curious that it is targeting these pages where users share links to other sites which host content subject to copyright laws , many of which, having no profit, were declared by judges free from stain: legal.

Thus, it appears that they have not yet been reported (and now, of course, are not being, awaiting the starting gun for this law) will be closed without much ado, bypassing the cumbersome step judges uncomfortable giving its approval to these uncomfortable pages.

So ... Digg, posting links to content on many occasions with copyright ... could be closed by the Commission on Intellectual Property without trial ... Right?

But does not it seem a bit absurd? In principle there seems to be a site that is under Focus of the Act. On the other hand I understood that laws can not have anything "concrete" in the spotlight, so that " all are equal before the law ."

And then ...? "Users sharing links to other sites containing texts under intellectual property laws ... ? Sounds to me like this and I have written.

Will the same protocol? Or maybe this would not be in anyone?