SCL University Ambassadors: "Free Benefits for Students in full-time education
Free student access to the entire content of this site: This includes our considerable archive of news items, articles, blogs, event podcasts, CPD and more.
Students can also gain free access the ePub version of the C&L Magazine – this is published 6 times a year exclusively for SCL members.
Students are also able to attend all SCL events at concessionary rates. We have an exciting range of seminars, meetings and conferences covering all the key IT Law topics with prestigious speakers and the opportunity to meet potential future employers and thought-leaders in the IT Law sector." 'via Blog this'
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
SCL Student Essay Prize 2016
SCL Student Essay Prize 2016: "SCL Student Essay Prize 2016
Stand out from the crowd!
You will stand out from the crowd. You will add credibility and marketability to your profile. And you will win access to the biggest and best IT law event of 2016.
That's why you want to write the essay that wins the SCL Essay Prize 2016.
With a range of highly current topics to choose from, you surely cannot resist the temptation to prove that you have that little bit extra. The little extra that will make law firms or other employers bow down before you with the sort of offers that you can only dream about.
It is a situation where circa 2,000 carefully chosen words might change your life for the better. Those chances don't come often. Enter the SCL Essay Prize competition and take the opportunity that beckons
The prize:
A free place at the IFCLA Conference (including the gala dinner) which will be hosted by SCL on Thursday 9 and Friday 10 June 2016 in London
Publication in the SCL's Computers & Law magazine and on this website
£250 cash
Who can enter
You are eligible to enter this competition if you are a student (undergraduate, taught postgraduate, or research postgraduate) currently registered at an accredited academic institution or legal practitioner training course (e.g. to become a barrister, solicitor or advocate).
" 'via Blog this'
Stand out from the crowd!
You will stand out from the crowd. You will add credibility and marketability to your profile. And you will win access to the biggest and best IT law event of 2016.
That's why you want to write the essay that wins the SCL Essay Prize 2016.
With a range of highly current topics to choose from, you surely cannot resist the temptation to prove that you have that little bit extra. The little extra that will make law firms or other employers bow down before you with the sort of offers that you can only dream about.
It is a situation where circa 2,000 carefully chosen words might change your life for the better. Those chances don't come often. Enter the SCL Essay Prize competition and take the opportunity that beckons
The prize:
A free place at the IFCLA Conference (including the gala dinner) which will be hosted by SCL on Thursday 9 and Friday 10 June 2016 in London
Publication in the SCL's Computers & Law magazine and on this website
£250 cash
Who can enter
You are eligible to enter this competition if you are a student (undergraduate, taught postgraduate, or research postgraduate) currently registered at an accredited academic institution or legal practitioner training course (e.g. to become a barrister, solicitor or advocate).
" 'via Blog this'
UK’s Investigatory Powers Bill: Loopholes Within Loopholes Will Lead to Unbridled Surveillance | Electronic Frontier Foundation
UK’s Investigatory Powers Bill: Loopholes Within Loopholes Will Lead to Unbridled Surveillance | Electronic Frontier Foundation: "The Investigatory Powers Bill, as written, is so vague as to permit a vast range of surveillance actions, with profoundly insufficient oversight or insight into what Britain’s intelligence, military and police intend to do with their powers. It is, in effect, a carefully-crafted loophole wide enough to drive all of existing mass surveillance practice through.
Or, in the words of Richard Clayton, Director of the Cambridge Cloud Cybercrime Centre at the University of Cambridge, in his submissions to the committee:
“the present bill forbids almost nothing ... and hides radical new capabilities behind pages of obscuring detail.”
The bill is 192 pages long, excluding over 60 pages of explanatory notes. Our comments to the committee focused on just one aspect of the bill, what they call “equipment interference.” " 'via Blog this'
Or, in the words of Richard Clayton, Director of the Cambridge Cloud Cybercrime Centre at the University of Cambridge, in his submissions to the committee:
“the present bill forbids almost nothing ... and hides radical new capabilities behind pages of obscuring detail.”
The bill is 192 pages long, excluding over 60 pages of explanatory notes. Our comments to the committee focused on just one aspect of the bill, what they call “equipment interference.” " 'via Blog this'
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
California judge reaches decision in PETA’s monkey selfie case
California judge reaches decision in PETA’s monkey selfie case – TechnoLlama:
"A judge in California has dismissed a copyright case brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), where the animal rights organisation claimed that it represented the monkey that took the famous selfie depicted above.
The case is that of Naruto v Slater, where PETA sued British photographer David Slater for copyright infringement, claiming to be acting on behalf of Naruto the monkey.
I had written an opinion about the case when it was first filed, and I am glad to report that the decision has not produced any surprises.
As most legal analysts predicted, the judge dismissed the case based on the fact that the monkey has no standing, as it cannot be considered an author for the purposes of the law and therefore it does not have copyright, so PETA cannot act on behalf of the monkey." 'via Blog this'
"A judge in California has dismissed a copyright case brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), where the animal rights organisation claimed that it represented the monkey that took the famous selfie depicted above.
The case is that of Naruto v Slater, where PETA sued British photographer David Slater for copyright infringement, claiming to be acting on behalf of Naruto the monkey.
I had written an opinion about the case when it was first filed, and I am glad to report that the decision has not produced any surprises.
As most legal analysts predicted, the judge dismissed the case based on the fact that the monkey has no standing, as it cannot be considered an author for the purposes of the law and therefore it does not have copyright, so PETA cannot act on behalf of the monkey." 'via Blog this'
Monday, 1 February 2016
Hungary: Court judgement to place spotlight on ISPs’ rights and liabilities
Hungary: Court judgement to place spotlight on internet service providers’ rights and liabilities | HUMANERIGHTSEUROPE: "Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary (no. 22947/13)
The case concerns the liability of a self-regulatory body of Internet content providers and an Internet news portal for vulgar and offensive online comments posted on their websites.
The applicants are two legal entities registered under Hungarian law, Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete (“MTE”) and Index.hu Zrt (“Index”), both based in Budapest. MTE, an association, is the self-regulatory body of Hungarian Internet content providers, and Index, a company, is the owner of one of the major Internet news portals in Hungary.
On 5 February 2010, MTE published an opinion on its webpage criticising the business practice of two real estate websites for misleading their clients into using a 30-day advertising service free of charge, which on expiry became subject to a fee without prior notification. Index subsequently wrote about the opinion, publishing the full text on its website. The opinion attracted offensive and vulgar comments both on the websites of MTE and Index.
On 17 February 2010 the company operating the real estate websites brought a civil action against the applicants, complaining that the opinion and subsequent comments had damaged its reputation.
On learning of the court action, the applicants immediately removed the comments in question.
In their counterclaims they argued that, as intermediary publishers, they were not liable for the user comments, and that, in any event, their criticism was justified given the numerous consumer complaints and proceedings which had been brought against the plaintiff’s business practices." 'via Blog this'
The case concerns the liability of a self-regulatory body of Internet content providers and an Internet news portal for vulgar and offensive online comments posted on their websites.
The applicants are two legal entities registered under Hungarian law, Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete (“MTE”) and Index.hu Zrt (“Index”), both based in Budapest. MTE, an association, is the self-regulatory body of Hungarian Internet content providers, and Index, a company, is the owner of one of the major Internet news portals in Hungary.
On 5 February 2010, MTE published an opinion on its webpage criticising the business practice of two real estate websites for misleading their clients into using a 30-day advertising service free of charge, which on expiry became subject to a fee without prior notification. Index subsequently wrote about the opinion, publishing the full text on its website. The opinion attracted offensive and vulgar comments both on the websites of MTE and Index.
On 17 February 2010 the company operating the real estate websites brought a civil action against the applicants, complaining that the opinion and subsequent comments had damaged its reputation.
On learning of the court action, the applicants immediately removed the comments in question.
In their counterclaims they argued that, as intermediary publishers, they were not liable for the user comments, and that, in any event, their criticism was justified given the numerous consumer complaints and proceedings which had been brought against the plaintiff’s business practices." 'via Blog this'
Saturday, 9 January 2016
Written evidence - Dr Julian Huppert #IPBill Joint Committee
Written evidence - Dr Julian Huppert: "I served on the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill (CDB), the predecessor to the IPB. We had five months to scrutinise a relatively simpler piece of legislation, including four months to take oral evidence. Even then, there was a lot of work involved, and our understanding both as individuals and a committee increased right through to the end, especially given that the Home Office did not provide some key information we could use in our report until the last moments. I do not envy the task this Committee has in front of it." 'via Blog this'
Wednesday, 6 January 2016
Citing References Quiz - Multiple Choice
Citing References Quiz - Multiple Choice:
"Citing References Quiz - Identify the source
The following citations appear in Cardiff University Harvard style. Look at each one and decide which type of material is being described in each case. Some examples may not supply sufficient information for you to be able to make a definite decision. If this is the case, choose the response 'Insufficient information'." 'via Blog this'
"Citing References Quiz - Identify the source
The following citations appear in Cardiff University Harvard style. Look at each one and decide which type of material is being described in each case. Some examples may not supply sufficient information for you to be able to make a definite decision. If this is the case, choose the response 'Insufficient information'." 'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)