Supreme Court
In addition are It articulates what I consider a drawer of tailor that you can include in any knowledge when it indicates other means of effective knowledge that could settle. The courts are sentences where this principle is interpreted. The Supreme Court, resorting to interpret the directive for electronic commerce, in sentences STS 773/2009, Sala civil, of December 9, 2009, STS 316/2010, room of the Civil, 18 of may of 2010, and STS 72/2011, Civil, February 10, 2011 room (case Ramoncin), indicates that article 16 allows this interpretation favourable to the directive to leave except the possibility of other means of knowledge cash that could settle, cannot dispense with the same attributes equal value than to actual knowledge to the one obtained by the provider of the service from facts or circumstances capable of enabling, although immediately or logical inferences to anyone, an effective apprehension of the reality in question. In the judgment in the case of Ramoncin providers of intermediation services are condemned by the expressions expressed by third parties on its website, based on article 16 of the LSSICE, in relation to article 10 of the same Act, and this because the Webmaster had failed to comply with the legal obligation to publish, on an ongoing basiseasy, direct and free information indicating that article, information which would enable the affected third party could communicate to the person responsible for the website any information that could be harmful. Indicates that the Webmaster has a duty in watching on content published on its website, making this judge to expressions that anyone could be included. If the administrator had at least the mere suspicion that a content could infringe any right of a third party should by itself remove such content in anticipation that it would effectively contravene the right.
Is intended to be the Webmaster Act as an Inquisitor or censor the expressions that are included in the pages of which are holders. If we read carefully the article 16 of the above-mentioned law it seems that the spirit of the same does not is that the courts seem to interpret. But let us not forget that a Web administrator is not a judge, you don’t why detail know the law, and in any case for that are the courts and tribunals, to enforce compliance with these rights. Let’s imagine that he is us you condemn any particular because someone wrote a tea on the wall of our House I want Ana and the such Anne or her boyfriend will feel offended. In conclusion, through courts and tribunals is is delimiting the notion of actual knowledge, and restricting the freedom of expression of Internet users, converting holders of intermediation services in censors of the expressions that are poured on their websites, and making them responsible for them. This requires to have an exhaustive control of Web pages, which can become very difficult, not to say impossible, in the case of great affluence of public media. It is true that it is not acceptable that anyone can field rampant and infringing the rights of a third party. A quick and effective means should be articulated so that the work of monitoring does not become a work of disapproval by the Webmaster.
This is in short what it intends to do with the law Sinde for copyright. Audea security of the information Aurelio j. Martinez Ferre. Audea information security legal consultant.
Tags: today