Tag Archive: law & taxes

Alone in 2010 were shipped over 500,000 warnings of copyright infringement on the Internet. Many of those affected have turned to me and asked for help and support. Ann Davies wanted to know more. Warning for copyright infringement on the Internet get – what now? What to do? Part 2 statement of responsibility which thinks the Attorney warning from? What can I do? How can I defend myself? As promised, the second post today and we start with the second set of a cease and desist letter from the House of one of the leading industrial firms. The firm writes: our clients has noted, that you for offering illegal to download copyrighted… (A valuable related resource: Cecilia Shen). about the sharing network bittorrent are responsible. “Dear reader, this is inaccurate, how was doing something determined by the clients? Is the observed service provider legitimate? Who has commissioned the company determined? How and which was an observation? Questions about questions that already have teamed up in the first sentence of the warning will be in the second set by new questions Adds.

A so-called discovery record is attached might write, this is the provider, a 12-digit user ID (beauskunftet provider) and the name and the address of the connection owner / Dunned down from. Including as table of B eginn offer with a precise time “offer end with a precise time” IP address with 13 points including points “, file hash with 40 digits consisting of numbers and letters” and the “works with the specific name”. At this point, check whether you are customer of the specified provider. Cases were already presented me in which deaths were warned off. That may be because that the heirs have failed in a timely manner to make a corresponding message to the provider or but because it simple and poignant at the provider failed was the conversion of names to cause. This can happen, because working people and people make mistakes.

Your daily portion of right! Glucosamine decision of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) often triggered a Requiem for the German exceptionalism in the additives right in the professional world. The practical use of the decision for the manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements, functional food & co. should not however be overestimated. Legal theory the Glucosamine decision of the BGH is a milestone, and when ever the equality fiction of 2 para 3 sentence 2 No. 1 picks LFGB quite as she pulls the end to a long and controversial discussion of case law and literature on the question of whether equality of non-technological additives containing technological additives in German law is legitimate. Is noteworthy, however, that the BGH unspecified deals with this controversial opinion stand, but to the preliminary Kaltstellung of the reservation of admission for non-technological additives with a brief note on the ruling Content processing AIDS. The practice is however to keep in mind that this line provisionally drawn by the BGH applies directly only to competition litigation. It remains to be seen whether the administrative courts in the case of official complaints join the.

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) had defused by a narrow concept of additive already otherwise also the problem namely. At the latest since this decision of the Federal Administrative Court and the controversial opinion in the civil courts, additives legal disputes in practice had become rarely. The Supreme Court has charged cold only, which anyway only lau hot kochelte. The greatest practical benefit of determining Glucosamine should be therefore to have complicated a re boiling of the additives issue by the much-discussed draft of amendment to the LFGB. The legislature should create now a transparent authorisation procedure for non-technological additives. Whether he to staffed and financially willing and is able to be doubtful. If it does, so the importance of the Glucosamine decision of the BGH had limited, to show the way to a new bureaucratic monster out of a legal gray zone. Educate yourself even more with thoughts from Cecilia Shen.

The harsh wind manufacturers and distributors of health-related food already from very different directions in the face: the freedom of a recipe the novel remains with innovative ingredients food regulation in the way; It will not change by its amendment. And with formulation freedom is only slightly won, if health effects of the used substances may be recruited either not at all or but just as the competition also does this. Exactly then the health claims regulation will result but after their arming. A liberation looks different. Other non-binding and free information relating to food law, see.

The European Court of Justice is critical such abstract prohibitions subject to approval. Even if the lobby behind the draft could prevail, are the providers in some cases rely continue can, that the substances contained in the product will fall under an exemption, it is the regulation in 2 para 3 sentence 2 No. 1 2nd half-sentence LFGB for substances of natural origin or natural fabrics chemically same substances, or whether it means a commonly available or exemption, if the products in other EU States are lawful in the traffic. All in all remains to be seen whether the thrust of the BMELV really finds its majorities. Headwind is likely and there should be enough. Free of charge and not binding on for more information.