This article is contributing to the future of copyright law debate by exploring the recently harmonised originality standard in the EU copyright law and its suitability to a creative sharing community of Wikipedia. It shows that the “free creative choices” and “author’s personal” touch criteria established by the CJEU might be unsuitable not only because of practical concerns, but also because the understanding of “author” they are based on does not match the understanding possessed by Wikipedia community. The concepts of author (or rather author and Wikipedian) are compared through three key elements: author’s relationship with work, author’s relationship with others and presumptions about author’s personality and creative process.
{"title":"On Author, Copyright and Originality: does the unified EU originality standard correspond to the digital reality in Wikipedia?","authors":"Aurelija Lukoševičienė","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-2-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-2-2","url":null,"abstract":"This article is contributing to the future of copyright law debate by exploring the recently harmonised originality standard in the EU copyright law and its suitability to a creative sharing community of Wikipedia. It shows that the “free creative choices” and “author’s personal” touch criteria established by the CJEU might be unsuitable not only because of practical concerns, but also because the understanding of “author” they are based on does not match the understanding possessed by Wikipedia community. The concepts of author (or rather author and Wikipedian) are compared through three key elements: author’s relationship with work, author’s relationship with others and presumptions about author’s personality and creative process.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"215-244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43748121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses the impact of art. 79(2) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in international litigation over online privacy violations. The first part introduces the tendency of the European legislator to treat private international law problems in the field of data protection as isolated and independent from the traditional secondary private international law acts. The second part analyses the current status quo of international jurisdiction over online privacy violations according to Regulation 1215/2012. After briefly examining the eDate and Martinez ruling (joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10), it concludes that the Court of Justice of the European Union has stretched the jurisdictional grounds of art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012 too far in order to afford strong protection to data subjects. In that sense, it raises doubts on whether art. 79(2) was necessary. Following this conclusion, it tries to explore the uneasy relationship of GDPR art. 79(2) with the jurisdictional regime established under Regulation 1215/2012. Instead of an epilogue, the last part tries to make some reflections on the impact of GDPR art. 79(2) in privacy litigation cases involving non-EU parties.
{"title":"Judicial Jurisdiction over Internet Privacy Violations and the GDPR: a Case of ''Privacy Tourism''?","authors":"Ioannis Revolidis","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-2","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the impact of art. 79(2) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in international litigation over online privacy violations. The first part introduces the tendency of the European legislator to treat private international law problems in the field of data protection as isolated and independent from the traditional secondary private international law acts. The second part analyses the current status quo of international jurisdiction over online privacy violations according to Regulation 1215/2012. After briefly examining the eDate and Martinez ruling (joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10), it concludes that the Court of Justice of the European Union has stretched the jurisdictional grounds of art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012 too far in order to afford strong protection to data subjects. In that sense, it raises doubts on whether art. 79(2) was necessary. Following this conclusion, it tries to explore the uneasy relationship of GDPR art. 79(2) with the jurisdictional regime established under Regulation 1215/2012. Instead of an epilogue, the last part tries to make some reflections on the impact of GDPR art. 79(2) in privacy litigation cases involving non-EU parties.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"7-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41781487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anyone studying the comparatively short history of the discipline we may refer to as information and communications technology (ICT) law will notice several trends. One such trend is that, where a new topic starts gaining attention, that attention is typically directed at the domestic context. For example, it is only relatively recently that the international dimensions of data privacy law have started to gain widespread attention, and areas such as cyber security are still mainly approached from a domestic perspective. This is not to deny that there, already early on, is an awareness of the international dimensions. All I am suggesting here is that those international dimensions only gain widespread attention once the domestic perspective has been pursued. And maybe this is both natural and desirable. However, what is striking is the extent to which attention is now being directed at the international dimensions of various topics falling within the umbrella term of ICT law. In fact, I think we are now in a “golden era” for anyone who has an interest in the cross-section of ICT law and international law – be it public, or private, international law (to the extent that distinction still is valid). In light of this, this special issue of the Masaryk University’s flagship journal – the Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology (MUJLT) – is definitely timely. And given the high quality of the contributions, and the interesting topics they address, I have no doubt that this issue will help progress the law on several vitally important topics. Because the time
任何研究我们可以称之为信息和通信技术法的学科相对较短历史的人都会注意到几个趋势。其中一个趋势是，当一个新话题开始引起关注时，这种关注通常会针对国内背景。例如，直到最近，数据隐私法的国际层面才开始受到广泛关注，网络安全等领域仍然主要从国内角度进行研究。这并不是否认，在早期就已经有了对国际层面的认识。我在这里所建议的是，只有从国内角度出发，这些国际层面才会得到广泛关注。也许这既自然又令人向往。然而，令人震惊的是，人们现在在多大程度上关注属于信息和通信技术法总括条款范围内的各种专题的国际层面。事实上，我认为，对于任何对信息和通信技术法和国际法——无论是公法还是私法——感兴趣的人来说，我们现在正处于一个“黄金时代”（在这种区别仍然有效的范围内）。有鉴于此，Masaryk大学旗舰期刊《Masaryk University journal of Law and Technology》（MUJLT）的这期特刊无疑是及时的。鉴于这些贡献的高质量，以及它们所涉及的有趣话题，我毫不怀疑，这个问题将有助于在几个至关重要的话题上推动法律的发展。因为时间
{"title":"Editorial: Time to Move Forward on International ICT Law","authors":"D. Svantesson","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-1","url":null,"abstract":"Anyone studying the comparatively short history of the discipline we may refer to as information and communications technology (ICT) law will notice several trends. One such trend is that, where a new topic starts gaining attention, that attention is typically directed at the domestic context. For example, it is only relatively recently that the international dimensions of data privacy law have started to gain widespread attention, and areas such as cyber security are still mainly approached from a domestic perspective. This is not to deny that there, already early on, is an awareness of the international dimensions. All I am suggesting here is that those international dimensions only gain widespread attention once the domestic perspective has been pursued. And maybe this is both natural and desirable. However, what is striking is the extent to which attention is now being directed at the international dimensions of various topics falling within the umbrella term of ICT law. In fact, I think we are now in a “golden era” for anyone who has an interest in the cross-section of ICT law and international law – be it public, or private, international law (to the extent that distinction still is valid). In light of this, this special issue of the Masaryk University’s flagship journal – the Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology (MUJLT) – is definitely timely. And given the high quality of the contributions, and the interesting topics they address, I have no doubt that this issue will help progress the law on several vitally important topics. Because the time","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"3-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45295463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper deals with those provisions of the new EU Regulation No. 2015/848 on Insolvency Proceedings (Recast) that create a system of national insolvency registers and establish a decentralized system for the interconnection of such registers by means of the European e-Justice Portal.
{"title":"The new EU rules on electronic insolvency registers","authors":"M. Bogdan","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-9","url":null,"abstract":"This paper deals with those provisions of the new EU Regulation No. 2015/848 on Insolvency Proceedings (Recast) that create a system of national insolvency registers and establish a decentralized system for the interconnection of such registers by means of the European e-Justice Portal.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"175-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47310268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As part of its Digital Single Market strategy, the European Commission envisages to take action aimed at eradicating the practice of blocking one’s website to persons established or residing in a particular EU Member State. To that extent, a 2015 proposal for a regulation on the portability of online streaming services and a 2016 proposal for a regulation on geo-blocking outside the audio-visual context have been presented, the scope of which will be analysed in this paper. Although the proposed Regulations would tackle topical problems in EU e commerce and thus offer a necessary step forward in enhancing cross-border trade in the European Union, their envisaged regulatory approach raises important concerns from enforcement and rules’ circumvention points of view. Taking stock of those two concerns, the paper will reflect upon ways to mitigate their detrimental effects. Arguing that the geo-blocking proposals already contain the basic tools for such mitigation, the paper advocates the adoption of a more streamlined EU competition law and e-commerce regulation enforcement strategy, complemented by a “technologically more pro-active” EU law interpretation stance to e-commerce at the EU level.
{"title":"The European Commission’s Geo-blocking Proposals and the Future of EU E‑commerce Regulation","authors":"P. V. Cleynenbreugel","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-3","url":null,"abstract":"As part of its Digital Single Market strategy, the European Commission envisages to take action aimed at eradicating the practice of blocking one’s website to persons established or residing in a particular EU Member State. To that extent, a 2015 proposal for a regulation on the portability of online streaming services and a 2016 proposal for a regulation on geo-blocking outside the audio-visual context have been presented, the scope of which will be analysed in this paper. Although the proposed Regulations would tackle topical problems in EU e commerce and thus offer a necessary step forward in enhancing cross-border trade in the European Union, their envisaged regulatory approach raises important concerns from enforcement and rules’ circumvention points of view. Taking stock of those two concerns, the paper will reflect upon ways to mitigate their detrimental effects. Arguing that the geo-blocking proposals already contain the basic tools for such mitigation, the paper advocates the adoption of a more streamlined EU competition law and e-commerce regulation enforcement strategy, complemented by a “technologically more pro-active” EU law interpretation stance to e-commerce at the EU level.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"39-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42345142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the two mainstream directions of debates about the possibility of establishing a kind of international cybersecurity regime. It develops the idea of different governance models based on sovereignty, on the one hand, and multistakeholderism on the other. The application of international relations theory helps to understand the current process and stalemate initiatives regarding state cooperation in this field. In addition, the author pays attention to the applicability of the constructivism framework to the understanding of cybersecurity threats and the elaboration of international norms applicable to cyberspace. Finally, the article concludes with the idea that the multistakeholder approach to norm-making may become a viable solution to the problem of constructing an international cybersecurity regime.
{"title":"What Is an International Cybersecurity Regime and How We Can Achieve It","authors":"I. Stadnik","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-7","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the two mainstream directions of debates about the possibility of establishing a kind of international cybersecurity regime. It develops the idea of different governance models based on sovereignty, on the one hand, and multistakeholderism on the other. The application of international relations theory helps to understand the current process and stalemate initiatives regarding state cooperation in this field. In addition, the author pays attention to the applicability of the constructivism framework to the understanding of cybersecurity threats and the elaboration of international norms applicable to cyberspace. Finally, the article concludes with the idea that the multistakeholder approach to norm-making may become a viable solution to the problem of constructing an international cybersecurity regime.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"129-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42139500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is one of the world's prior organizations governing the Internet. Since its establishement in 1998 it faced criticism concerning the lack of legitimacy and accountability. ICANN was also challenged because of the ongoing tight relationship with the US government, which was not considered to be acceptable by the rest of the world. The article focuses on the development of ICANN and its approach towards the criticism. It elaborates on the sector-specific issues regarding Internet governance. And finally it informs the reader about the process of transformation of ICANN, which severed the link between the US government and ICANN.
{"title":"ICANN: Transformation of Approach towards Internet Governance","authors":"Veronika Zolnercíková","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-8","url":null,"abstract":"Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is one of the world's prior organizations governing the Internet. Since its establishement in 1998 it faced criticism concerning the lack of legitimacy and accountability. ICANN was also challenged because of the ongoing tight relationship with the US government, which was not considered to be acceptable by the rest of the world. The article focuses on the development of ICANN and its approach towards the criticism. It elaborates on the sector-specific issues regarding Internet governance. And finally it informs the reader about the process of transformation of ICANN, which severed the link between the US government and ICANN.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"155-174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43295062","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The choice-of-court agreements are a common practice in the e commerce international contracts. In the European Union, the choice-of-courts agreements find their legal framework in Article 25 of Regulation No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 December 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I bis). The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current legal framework, in the European Union, of the jurisdiction agreements in international contracts concluded in e commerce, comparing it to the previous one, and taking into consideration the interpretative options of the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ).
{"title":"Choice-of-court Agreements in the E-commerce International Contracts","authors":"A. Gonçalves","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-4","url":null,"abstract":"The choice-of-court agreements are a common practice in the e commerce international contracts. In the European Union, the choice-of-courts agreements find their legal framework in Article 25 of Regulation No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 December 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I bis). The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current legal framework, in the European Union, of the jurisdiction agreements in international contracts concluded in e commerce, comparing it to the previous one, and taking into consideration the interpretative options of the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ).","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"63-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47311889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper I will use concepts from innovation theory to analyse the work of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its important role as sole interpreter of EU law. In that regard, I define ‘innovator’ as one that facilitates use of new or existing inventions. Thus innovation is portrayed as a process in which several actors may contribute and where it all starts with an invention (the solution) and it ends with the innovation (the process of making use of the invention). The Court of Justice of the European Union may be an inventor in as much as it is allowed to invent solutions in order to solve new or existing problems, and it may be innovative in as much as it hands down judgments that shall be followed (i.e. it makes use of the invention). The substance of the paper deals with case-law from the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of cross-border infringements. The cases will be analysed in relation to the idea that legal decision-making can be described as an innovative process. An approach like this makes it possible to draw conclusions regarding the Court of Justice of the European Unions ability to innovate. It will be apparent that the Court is primarily concerned with so called reactive innovation (i.e. innovation that builds on existing knowledge). Only in exceptional circumstances do we find examples where the Court has proved to conduct in proactive innovation (i.e. inventing and applying new solutions) and this may, according to the author, prove to be a preferred standard. Better to drive safely than to drive in the ditch.
{"title":"The CJEU as an Innovator – a New Perspective on the Development of Internet Related Case-law","authors":"Ulf Maunsbach","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-5","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I will use concepts from innovation theory to analyse the work of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its important role as sole interpreter of EU law. In that regard, I define ‘innovator’ as one that facilitates use of new or existing inventions. Thus innovation is portrayed as a process in which several actors may contribute and where it all starts with an invention (the solution) and it ends with the innovation (the process of making use of the invention). The Court of Justice of the European Union may be an inventor in as much as it is allowed to invent solutions in order to solve new or existing problems, and it may be innovative in as much as it hands down judgments that shall be followed (i.e. it makes use of the invention). The substance of the paper deals with case-law from the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of cross-border infringements. The cases will be analysed in relation to the idea that legal decision-making can be described as an innovative process. An approach like this makes it possible to draw conclusions regarding the Court of Justice of the European Unions ability to innovate. It will be apparent that the Court is primarily concerned with so called reactive innovation (i.e. innovation that builds on existing knowledge). Only in exceptional circumstances do we find examples where the Court has proved to conduct in proactive innovation (i.e. inventing and applying new solutions) and this may, according to the author, prove to be a preferred standard. Better to drive safely than to drive in the ditch.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"77-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44787983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Modern criminal investigations increasingly rely on evidence that is not in a tangible format and can no longer be assumed to be located close to the locus delicti or the perpetrator. This article focuses on the notification requirement embedded into the legal regimes regulating one of the available investigative measures employed to access data stored in digital devices – remote search and seizure. The article will first analyse whether there is an obligation under international law to notify the other state about such a transborder investigative measure. Then we will compare the notification requirements for remote search and seizure in three countries’ domestic law: in Estonia, the Netherlands and the United States. Finally, we will draw conclusions on the principal challenges related to the implementation of the notification requirement under the domestic regulation. These involve balancing, on the one hand, the difficulties in identifying the location and the identity of the possible suspect and, on the other hand, the need to provide the involved individuals’ protection as guaranteed by the principles of fair trial and effective remedy.
{"title":"The Notification Requirement in Transborder Remote Search and Seizure: Domestic and International Law Perspectives","authors":"Anna-Maria Osula, Mark Zoetekouw","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-6","url":null,"abstract":"Modern criminal investigations increasingly rely on evidence that is not in a tangible format and can no longer be assumed to be located close to the locus delicti or the perpetrator. This article focuses on the notification requirement embedded into the legal regimes regulating one of the available investigative measures employed to access data stored in digital devices – remote search and seizure. The article will first analyse whether there is an obligation under international law to notify the other state about such a transborder investigative measure. Then we will compare the notification requirements for remote search and seizure in three countries’ domestic law: in Estonia, the Netherlands and the United States. Finally, we will draw conclusions on the principal challenges related to the implementation of the notification requirement under the domestic regulation. These involve balancing, on the one hand, the difficulties in identifying the location and the identity of the possible suspect and, on the other hand, the need to provide the involved individuals’ protection as guaranteed by the principles of fair trial and effective remedy.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"103-128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44846226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：