Sunday, January 26, 2020

Interest of Stakeholders and Copyright Law

Interest of Stakeholders and Copyright Law Introduction Copyright law has been developed into major issue when it comes to the interest between the stakeholders as the technologies today are evolving in decent speed. Copying an intellectual property without the authorisation of the owner is an infringement under the law of United Kingdom and European Union. Under European copyright law, art.2 of Directive 2001/29/EC stated that authors, producers and performers will possess the exclusive right for the reproduction of their own works.[1] However, when it comes to private copying, there is an exception under the directive with certain conditions. This could be said as the balance of the interest between the copyright owner and user of the products. A private copy is defined as any copy for non-commercial purposes neither directly or indirectly by a natural person for personal use.[2] The private copy exception is provided in the art.5(2)b of the DIRECTIVE 2001/29/EC, where Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, the right holders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned; [3] The would permit someone to format shift (i.e. shift content from one format to another); or space-shift (i.e. move content to different personal devices or media); and back-up copies that they have acquired.[4] As a mechanism for fair compensation, 22 out of 27 European Union members have chosen to meet the requirement through a levy system[5] The fair compensation or the levy system of private copying mainly to compensate the copyright owner for the potential harms to their works due to private copying.[6] In Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana (SGAE), the court held that held that fair compensation is an autonomous concept of EU law which had to be interpreted uniformly in all the Member States that had introduced a private copying exception: although it is open to the Member States, pursuant to Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, to introduce a private copying exception to the authors exclusive reproduction right laid down in European Union law, those Member States which make use of that option must provide for the payment of fair compensation to authors affected by the application of that exception. An interpretation according to which Member States which have introduced an identical exception of that kind, provided for by European Union law and including, as set out in recitals 35 and 38 in the preamble thereto the concept of fair compensation as an essential element, are free to determine the limits in an inconsistent and un-harmonised manner which may vary from one Member State to another, would be incompatible with the objective of that directive[7] The exception had to satisfy a three-step-test provided in art.5 of the Directive (also in Art.9.2 of the Berne Convention, Art.10 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Art.13 of the TRIPS Agreement).[8] The exception can only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.[9] Legislators of Member States must take into account the criteria provided in the test when implementing the exception to the copyright in national legislation.[10] There are still uncertainties in the scope of this exception. When it comes to the second step of the test, the phrase normal exploitation remain as a broad and unclear concept. [11] To prevent most of the infringement of exploitation, the definition of the phrase need to be interpreted in clear and restrictive approach to limit certain range of exploitation of works. reference is often made to the WTO Panels report, in which the criterion of normal exploitation was deemed to involve consideration of the forms of exploitation that currently generate an income for the author as well as those which will be probably important in the future.[12] , it could impose a status quo and prevent any extension of exceptions to new situations unforeseen by the letter of the text, but which could derive from its spirit. On the other hand, reference to future exploitations runs the risk of paralyzing exceptions every time a technical evolution allows to control previously uncontrollable uses, and thus creates new possibilities for exploitation.[13] As concerns the control by right holders of the uses of their works through technical measures, this could even lead, in the long run, to the disappearance of limitations in the digital environment.[14] , a conflict with the normal exploitation can only occur if the author is deprived of a current or potential market of considerable economic and practical importance.[15] One of the issue regarding this point is that art.5(2)(b) didnt expressly state that whether the private copy exception only refer to copies from lawful sources, or involving the copies from illegal sources. Due to this uncertain area, the exception does not actual provide the copyright holders to authorise or prohibit the users from making a private copy. Nonetheless, the uncertainty could not be leading to the meaning of that the provision could demand the copyright holders to tolerate with the infringement of rights within private copy. This issue occurs in Netherland, where the Government of Netherland stated that the source of copy is irrelevant despite it is unlawful. The reason provided by the Government is that mere downloading is not a form of reproducing or making available. However, the Government held that the damages caused by illegal downloading to the copyright holder will be compensated by blank levies. The Government confirmed that only the act of uploading the unlawful content would be considered as an act of infringement, instead of mere downloading the work. The blank levies provided for illegal downloading could seen as protecting the interest of copyright holders as it would be practically impossible to enforce copyrights within the private copy area.[16] However, the legality of the sources of reproduction is matter to private copy exception. Court of Justice of European Union(CJEU) in the case of ACI Adam BV v Stichting de Thuiskopie [17]mentioned that Member States should not permitting private copy exception for any reproductions from unlawful sources as it could lead to negative impact on the functioning of the internal market[18]. In fact, tolerate to the unlawful distribution of illegal works would only legalize the act of infringement and will not minimising the act of illegal downloading. Thus, the CJEU said, art.5(2)(b) seek to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and ensuring proper support for the dissemination of cultural works.[19] Why illegal downloading from unlawful sources shall not be legalised? First, legalising the act of illegal downloading would promote piracy, which would reduce the sales of the works from lawful sources and contravene the normal exploitation of works. Allowing illegal downloading would put the copyright holders in a position where they have to unreasonably tolerate the act of infringements, and this is clearly discriminating their legitimate interests.[20] To clearly distinguish copying from unlawful sources from private copy exception, the national legislators could achieve it by implementing a condition into the law that prohibit the acts of reproduction from the source that is obviously unlawful. [21] This approach has been taken by certain Member States to clarify the downloading act from unlawful sources not to be recognised as private copy. The German legislator expressly did in his first implementation act of the Directive (s.53(1) of the law of September 13, 2003, also called the first basket). Spain adopted a similar solution in the law of July 7, 2006, stating in Art.31.2 that the reproduction must be made from a legally accessed source to qualify as private copy. [22] Still today, it remains uncertain whether private copying is a mere defence or is actually enforceable against undue restrictions[23]. In fact, even where private copying is statutorily permitted, right holders may foreclose its exercise by relying upon technological protection measures or through licensing terms. To develop this interesting thesis more in detail, as the perspective adopted is mainly an EU one, it would have been interesting to include a discussion on the history behind the drafting of art.5 of the InfoSoc Directive (this is the relevant provision on copyright exceptions and limitations, including private copying).[24] However, the problem with the three-step test is probably to be found elsewhere: in the Directive of 2001. There, the test seems to be addressed not only to the national legislature but also to national judges.36 This gives it a broader scope than in the international conventions.37 Judges may be required to examine whether the application of a limitation in a specific case respects the conditions of Art.5.5. National courts in Europe have already analysed the application of national limitations to copyright in the light of the three-step test.38 Indeed, it is difficult to dispute judicial reliance on the test where it has been implemented in national law.39 The danger of such an approach is obvious: the private copy is at risk of being challenged by judges. Its scope risks dramatic reduction. The decision of February 28, 2006 of the French Supreme Court delivers an outstanding example.40 In this much commentated decision, the Supreme Court applied for the first time Art.5.5 of the directive in order to overcome the application of an exception in favour of a technical protection measure, arguing abstractly and generally that the private copy of a DVD conflicts with the normal exploitation of the work, without providing a definition of this term at any time.41 To avoid such misuse of the test, some guidelines *E.I.P.R. 128 for the judges of how to interpret the test in a more balanced way should urgently be worked out. The Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and the Queen Mary University of London jointly put in place a working group of European scholars that are currently working on this issue.42 Private Copy Exception in United Kingdom Copyright law in the United Kingdom has been evolving in recent years and the changes started to get significant since the Gowers Review of 2006 and the Hargreaves Review of 2011, gathering pace with the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.[25] The report in Hargreaves Review of intellectual property and the digital market in May 2011, recommend that the UK should implement the exception to ensure that the law kept up with digital copyright use.[26] For the first time, the UK legislator had implement the private copy exception into the national law. The exception was introduced by s.28B of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act(CDPA) of 1988. This section of CDPA was enforced on October 1, 2014.[27] The new act implemented only allow copy from lawful sources for private purpose of individual concerned only. This exception does not include the passing of copy to family and friends which was allowed in the Directive. Such an exception would permit people legally to copy any work that they had access to and it would be easy to obtain copies of works without paying for them.[28] As to the narrower implementation, the Government stated that such implementation would cause no more than minimal or zero harm to the copyright holders. Based on this condition, there were no compensation provided for copyright holders in S.28B CDPA by the UK Government.[29] Problem with S.28B of CDPA The exception provided by the Directive allow the passing of copies to family or friend but the exception implemented in UK legislation prohibited such act. Professor Hargreaves suggested the Government should introduce an exception to allow individuals to make copies for their own use and that of their immediate family on different media. Importantly, Professor Hargreaves thought that the question of compensation was wrapped up in the copyright holders freedom to choose an appropriate price: Rights-holders will be free to pursue whatever compensation the market will provide by taking account of consumers freedom to act in this way and by setting prices accordingly.[30] The biggest issue in the S.28B of CDPA is that the fair compensation as provided by the directive is not implemented into the exception. Based on the directive, fair compensation to the copyright holders only could be exempt if the damage caused would be de minimis or minimal. [31]However, the UK Government commissioned a research study and impact assessment that showed the harm that would likely cause to the copyright holders due to the private copying acts permitted in S.28B of CDPA would be minimal. The main reason is that the exception only applies to rightfully acquired copies which the copyright holders would receive the sufficient remuneration at the sales of the works, which the compensation was already priced in.[32] Quashing of S.28B CDPA The exception introduced by UK Government had been challenged after it had been introduced by British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, Musicians Union and UK Music 2009 Limited. The parties had applied for judicial review on the newly introduced exception on the basis that it failed to provide fair compensation as in the Directive to the copyright holders which would be unlawful.[33] The main issue leads to the quashing of the Regulation is that whether there is evidence of the harm to the copyright holders which would be minimal to determine that compensation scheme is not required as provided by the Regulation.[34] The judge reviewed the evidence provided in Governments Updated Impact Assessment and stated that evidence to prove the harm is minimal do not meet the satisfactory level.[35] The judge also criticised the IPO Research Report provided as evidence that lack of consumer surveys, price analysis and comparative analysis with other Member States.[36] How the Exception Affect the Interest of Stakeholders When it comes to the interest of the copyright holders, we would straight pinpoint to the fair compensation issue. The reproductions of works are getting easier and wider due to advancement of technology. As downloading from unlawful sources would not be considered as private copying, CJEU in its decision in ACI Adam stated that the levy system would not be applied to illegal downloading from unlawful sources.[37] Such development had great impact on certain countries which dont distinguish between lawful and unlawful sources for private copy exception. [38] However, as large part of copies made online from unlawful sources, the levy system should be implemented to compensate such condition as only compensating copies made from lawful resources would left the copyright holders to bear the losses. Copyright holders had to prosecute the users to get remuneration for copies from unlawful sources. Such approach does not balance the interest of copyright holders if the users continue to access the unlawful sources instead of the legal online services provided.[39] Distinguishing illegal downloading from the exception would make the law serves better, but it taken away the minimum damages to be suffered by the copyright holder as online piracy and illegal downloading would not reduce merely due to removing such act from private copy exception. The decease of compensation for copyright holders would not be a reasonable solution as private copying is increasing. The interest of the copyright holders would be harmed due to such limitation instead of getting protected.[40] Recent Development In Entidad de Gestion de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v Administracion del Estado, the funding scheme of Spanish for private copy exception was criticised by the ECJ, where the court held that the scheme does not guarantee the cost of such compensation would solely bear by the user who made private copy.[41] In Case C-521/11 Amazon.com (11th July 2013) at paragraph [20], in relation to the person who has to pay, the Court confirmed that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦since the provisions of Directive 2001/29 do not expressly address the issue of who is to pay that compensation, the Member States enjoy broad discretion when determining who must discharge that obligation[42] However, the ECJ held that the Copyright Directive shall precludes budgetary scheme such as the scheme established in Spain to work as fair compensation to the copyright holders due to the private copy of their works as such scheme would involve a legal person who did not conduct such reproduction to bear the funding with those who make reproduction of works for private purpose. As the scheme could not guarantee the cost of that fair compensation is ultimately borne solely by the users of who make private copies, it shall not be treated as the fair compensation to the copyright holders even though Member States have the discretion to determine the legal person to bear such obligation.[43] [1] European Competition Law Review 2011 Case Comment Copying levies: moving towards harmonisation? The European Court rules on the concept of fair compensation for rightholders Bill Batchelor Tom Jenkins Matthew Butter [2] International Survey on Private Copying Law Practice 2015 [3] Art. 5(2)b of DIRECTIVE 2001/29/EC [4] Paragraph 91 R. (on the application of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Queens Bench Division (Administrative Court) [5] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310183/ipresearch-faircomp-201110.pdf [6] Entertainment Law Review 2009 Finland: copyright Mikko Manner [7] Paragraph 36 Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana (SGAE) (C-467/08) [8] European Intellectual Property Review 2008 The answer to the machine should not be the machine: safeguarding the private copy exception in the digital environment Christophe Geiger [9] Art. 5(5) of DIRECTIVE 2001/29/EC [10] Refer to no.8 [11]Refer to no.8 [12] THE ROLE OF THE THREE-STEP TEST IN THE ADAPTATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW TO THE INFORMATION SOCIETY Christophe Geiger [13] In this sense also M. Buydens and S. Dusollier, Les exceptions au droit dauteur : à ©volutions dangereuses: Comm. com. à ©lectr. Sept. 2001, p. 13; J. C. Ginsburg (prec. note 20), p. 48, which underlines the risk that the traditionally free uses, such as for training purposes or parody, be considered as normal exploitations, supposing that right holders manage to implement a profitable collecting system. [14] See also in this sense M. Buydens and S. Dusollier (prec. note 30), p. 12. For more developments, see C. Geiger (prec. note 8), n ° 418 and s. [15] International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 2006 The private copy exception, an area of freedom (temporarily) preserved in the digital environment Christophe Geiger [16] Entertainment Law Review 2008 Case Comment Netherlands: copyright home copying Diederik Stols [17] ACI Adam BV v Stichting de Thuiskopie [18] Entertainment Law Review 2014 Case Comment Private copying levies, illegal online sources and the private use defence: Case C-435/12 ACI Adam BV v Stichting de Thuiskopie1 Kirsten Toft [19] Refer to no.18 [20] International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 2015 Case Comment Private copying and downloading from unlawful sources Joao Pedro Quintais [21] Refer to no.8 [22] Refer to no.8 [23] European Intellectual Property Review 2013 Publication Review Private Copying: The Scope of User Freedom in EU Digital Copyright Stavroula Karapapa Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati* [24] [25] Entertainment Law Review 2015 Case Comment You say you want a revolution: judicial review of the UKs private copying exception James Sead Rebecca Pakenham-Walsh [26] European Intellectual Property Review 2015 Case Comment A pause in private copying: judicial review holds the UK private copying exception to be unlawful because there was no evidence to support the decision not to provide compensation to rights holders Joel Smith Heather Newton* [27] s.28B of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 [28] Para 71 R. (on the application of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Queens Bench Division (Administrative Court) [29] European Intellectual Property Review 2015 Case Comment A pause in private copying: judicial review holds the UK private copying exception to be unlawful because there was no evidence to support the decision not to provide compensation to rights holders Joel Smith Heather Newton* [30] Paragraph 53 of R. (on the application of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Queens Bench Division (Administrative Court) [31] Recital (35) of Directive 2001/29/EC [32] European Intellectual Property Review 2015 A comparative study on the reproduction by natural persons for private use exception to copyright in the UK and France Myriam Otaola Allende* [33] European Intellectual Property Review 2015 Case Comment A pause in private copying: judicial review holds the UK private copying exception to be unlawful because there was no evidence to support the decision not to provide compensation to rights holders Joel Smith Heather Newton* [34] Entertainment Law Review 2015 Case Comment You say you want a revolution: judicial review of the UKs private copying exception James Seadon* Rebecca Pakenham-Walsh [35] European Intellectual Property Review 2015 Case Comment A pause in private copying: judicial review holds the UK private copying e

Friday, January 17, 2020

Written Analysis and Communication: Report on Homesafe Limited

Homesafe Ltd. Written Analysis and Communication Instructor: Dr. Seema Khanvilkar Submitted By: Apurv Jain, D023 Shreyansh Jain, D027 Mohit Sejwal, D055 Vinay Pal, D045 Sahil Bhavnani, D006 Aman Jakhar, D030 Letter of Transmittal To, Dr. Seema Khanvilkar, Business Communication Faculty, SBM, NMIMS – Mumbai Date: 4th March 2013 From, Div D, MBA – I Subject: Report on Homesafe Ltd. Respected Ma’am, With reference to the meeting held on 20th Feb, 13 regarding the recommendation required on Homesafe Ltd. case, I am enclosing the complete report with our recommendations.We recommend that Holmes should help Jackson find a part time job in an external unrelated business. This will be a win-win situation for both the parties. Sincerely, Div D Executive Summary This is report about a challenging situation faced by George Holmes, the founder of Homesafe Ltd. an emerging start-Â ­? up. Homesafe was doing very well with business prospering and expanding demand. Holmes found himself in a tricky situation when Jackson, the purchase manager of his largest client, Dwason’s, subtly suggested that he needed an alternate source of income and if Holmes did not help, Homesafe might lose business with Dwason’s. Holmes as several options like offering Jackson direct help, help him find employment elsewhere or to let go of business with Dwason’s. We recommended that Holmes leverages his personal network to find Jackson a part time job in an external unrelated business. This will conserve the relationship between Holmes and Jackson and will be in the best interest of both. Report SITUATION ANALYSIS Homesafe Ltd is an emerging start-Â ­? up in the security space. It was a started as a single product company by an engineer, George Holmes in his personal workshop. Over the year this company has grown significantly and added an advisory services vertical oo. There is significant demand for the company’s products and the business has been p rofitable in both the years. Things are looking good with business prospering, Homes has had some of his old friends join him in his business which they operate part time. Holmesafe also recently recruited fulltime employees and shifted to new premises. Holmes has invested significantly in networking and has maintained personal relationship with his clients and till a certain extend relies on these relations to push his sales too. Most prominent of these, is his relationship with Jackson, who is a procurement manager at Dwason’s Ltd, Homesafe’s argest client. During the course of these years Jackson was also offered a job at Homesafe but refused to take it up as there was a conflict of interest. One day, Holmes finds himself in a tricky situation when Jackson calls him and hints at his bleak cash situation and how a little more cash will help him. Jackson also subtly threatens Homes that Dawson’s might start buying from Browns instead of Homesafe. Although there is enough demand in the market and the security segment is growing Homes still has to think weather he can afford to lose the contract with Dwason’s. Homes has to evaluate this situation carefully and weigh his ptions of how to deal with Jackson. PROBLEM STATEMENT Should Holmes help Jackson to find him a part time job? OPTIONS 1. Holmes hires Frank Jackson as a part time employee at Homesafe 2. Offer Jackson a part time consultant role in Advisory Services 3. Help Jackson find a part time job in an external unrelated business 4. Not providing Jackson any assistance CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 1. Holmes Ltd. ’s revenues 2. Holmes Ltd. ’s relationship with Dawson’s Ltd. 3. Frank Jackson’s conflict of interest 4. Legal implications EVALUATION OF OPTIONS George Holmes hires Frank Jackson as a part time employee for the position of a buyer IfGeorge Holmes hires Frank Jackson as an employee in his company then they might lose their partnership with the Daws on’s Ltd. since earlier on Thomas, Jackson’s boss had not approved of Jackson working with a supplier. There would be a significant conflict of interest which might pose a legal problems for both Dwason’s and jackson’s too. Since major part of the revenues comes from there, the next year’s revenues would come down steeply. Their relationship with Dawson limited would also be strained hence we can rule this option out. Offer Jackson a part time consultant role in Advisory Services By choosing this option Holmesafe ould be able to mitigate direct legal implications and also the conflict of interest can be reduced. However this is also not ideal as Jackson still would be associated with Homesafe. From Homesafe’s point of view this arrangement will work because Jackson will get a job and their relationship with Dwason’s will persist. Help Jackson find a part time job in an external unrelated business In this option there would be minimal conflict of interest and virtually no legal implications. This will be a win-Â ­? win situation for both as Jackson will find an alternate stream of income and his relationship with Holmes will continue to be ordial. This way Homesafe will be able to continue their sales to Dwason’s. Not provide assistance for his personal problem at all Choosing this option would result in a priority clash between Holmes & Jackson and thus would prune the revenues of Holmesafe in coming years as Jackson would convince his superiors to end contract with Holmesafe & hire Browns instead. The relationship between Jackson & Holmes would thus end on a bitter note, thus bringing an end to symbiotic relationship. We can rule this option out too. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that Holmes helps Jackson find a part time job in an external unrelated business. This ill benefit everyone involved and will be the most ethical choice too. Holmes helped Jackson in the capacity of a friend. PLAN OF ACTION Holme s should explain Jackson how a Job at Homesafe would be counterproductive for everyone and how he will help find him a job at an external business. Holmes by nature maintains good personal relationships with people around him. He would have significant personal contacts that he can leverage and recommend Jackson to them for a Job. Also he is joined by several of his friends at Homesafe that can also help Jackson find a job. Together they can find Jackson a job in their personal network only.

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Must-Know Vocabulary for French Restaurant Dining

Knowing how to conduct yourself and order food in a  French restaurant can be a little tricky. There are some  important differences between restaurants in France and other countries, including what foods are offered and how they are prepared. Even the way dishes are listed on most  French menus  is a little different. Knowing the terms to use in most French restaurants—and especially learning how to pronounce them correctly—is the key to ensuring that your restaurant experience is enjoyable and that you receive the food you want. Understanding what your waiter is asking you or what the menu says—from Quest-ce  que  je  vous  sers? (What can I get you?) to service  compris (tip included)—will soon have your server and others wishing you:  Bon appà ©tit! (Enjoy your meal!). French Restaurant Terms and Pronunciations The table below contains key French restaurant terms followed by their English translations. Click on the French words and phrases to hear how to pronounce them correctly. French Term English Translation commander to order Vous avez choisi? Have you decided? Que voudriez-vous? Vous dsirez? What would you like? Je vous coute. What would you like? (Literally, Im listening to you.) Que prenez-vous? What are you having? Quest-ce que je vous sers? What can I get you? Je voudrais... Jaimerais... I would like... Je vais prendre... Je prends... Ill have... Combien cote...? How much does ... cost? Cest votre got? Do you like it? Is everything ok? Cest termin? Have you finished? a a t? Was everything ok? Je suis... I am... allergique ... allergic to... diabtique diabetic vgtarien / vgtarienne vegetarian vgtalien / vgtalienne vegan Je ne peux pas manger... I cant eat... bleu, saignant very rare ros rare point medium-rare bien cuit well done le serveur (not garon) waiter la serveuse waitress le/la chef cook le menu fixed-price meal la carte menu la carte side order laddition check/bill le socle base of credit card machine le pourboire tip service compris tip included service non compris tip not included A la vtre! Cheers! Bon apptit Enjoy your meal dfense de fumer no smoking les animaux sont interdits no pets allowed A Typical French Restaurant Dialogue Now that you know the key terms you might need to know to dine in a French restaurant, scan the table below to study a typical dialogue that might occur between a serveur  (server) and à ©tudiant  (student). The first column lists the speaker, the second gives the French dialogue, and the third provides the English translation. Serveur Bonsoir Monsieur/Madame. Good evening sir/maam. tudiant Bonsoir Madame/Monsieur. Je voudrais une table pour trois personnes, pour dner, sil vous plat. Good evening maam/sir. I would like a table for 3, for dinner, please. Serveur Vous avez une reservation? Do you have a reservation? tudiant Non, je nai pas de reservation. No, I dont have a reservation. Serveur Pas de problme. Voici une table pour 3 personnes, et voici la carte. No problem. Here is a table for 3, and here is the menu. tudiant Merci Madame/Monsieur. Sil vous plat. Thank you maam/sir. Excuse me? Serveur Oui Monsieur/Madame ? Yes sir/maam ? tudiant Je voudrais de leau. I would like some water. Serveur Oui Monsieur/Madame. Et pour dner, vous avez choisi ? Yes sir/maam. And for dinner, have you decided? tudiant Je voudrais le menu 15 Euros. I would like the set price menu for 15 Euros. Serveur Oui. En entre ? Yes. For the appetizer? tudiant Je voudrais le pat. I would like the pat. Serveur Et en plat principal. And for your main course? tudiant Je voudrais le steak frites. I would like the steak with French fries. Serveur Bien Monsieur/Madame, quelle cuisson ? OK sir/maam, how would you like it cooked? tudiant Bien cuit, sil vous plat. Non, point, sil vous plat. Well done please. No, medium rare, please. Serveur En dessert? For dessert? tudiant Une glace la vanille. Et, excusez-moi Madame/ Monsieur, o sont les toilettes ? Vanilla ice cream. And, excuse me maam/sir, where is the restroom? Serveur Au sous-sol. In the basement. tudiant Je ne comprends pas. Vous pouvez rpter sil vous plat ? I dont understand. Could you repeat please? Serveur Au sous sol. Vous descendez lescalier. In the basement. Go down the stairs. tudiant Oh, je comprends maintenant. Merci. Ah, now I understand. Thank you. Serveur Comment vous trouvez votre steak frites ? How is your steak? tudiant Cest dlicieux. Cest parfait. Its delicious. Its perfect. tudiant Laddition sil vous plat. May I have the check, please? Serveur Bien Monsieur/Madame. Vous pouvez payer la caisse. OK sir/maam. You can pay at the register.

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Essay on moralhf Huckleberry Finns Struggles with...

Huckleberry Finns Struggles with Conscience Since Mark Twain published The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in 1885, critics have considered it an excellent example of a story tracing the journey of a young man from childhood to adulthood. Through the years, readers have enjoyed seeing Huck grow from a young, carefree boy into a responsible young man with a decent sense of right and wrong. The adventures appeal to readers who had to make some of the same tough decisions Huck did in struggles with conscience. When readers first meet Huck, he is living with the Widow Douglas and trying his best to conform to her rules. For example, when he wanted to smoke, She said it was a†¦show more content†¦He decides to run away and teams up with one of the widows runaway slaves named Jim. They decide to travel down the river to seek Jims freedom. Huck faced a moral conflict in this part of the story. His whole life Huck had been told that black people are different and not to help them in any way. On the other hand, inside Huck thought that Jim was no different and felt he needed to help him. He said, People would call me a low-down Abolitionist and despise me for keeping mum--but that dont make no difference (43). Huck is beginning to show signs of maturity in that he is making decisions based on what he feels is right rather than on what other people have told him throughout his life. His conscience is beginning to mature. Two characters claiming to be part of the French monarchy begin to travel with Huck and Jim. They travel from town to town finding ways to con people out of their money. Although Huck tolerates it at first, he begins to realize their acts are unethical. This is an example of how Huck is maturing and realizing right from wrong. He says, I aint opposed to spending money on circuses when there aint no other way, but there aint no use in wasting it on them (143). Huck was angered that the men would take his money and spend it all on drinking. Huck did not realize