Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
[Ed. Note: One would expect law firms to consider it beneath them to deliberately have staff members ' or those of an ancillary business ' use illegal software copies. But the potentially high cost and embarrassment that can result from even tacitly permitting violations of software licenses should merit proactive attention by firm management.]
According to a report released earlier this year by the Business Software Alliance, one of every four business software applications installed in the United States is unlicensed, and thus a potential copyright infringement violation. Numbers like these have turned many businesses into targets of software audits in recent years, as software companies have made battling unlicensed software in the workplace a top priority. Armed with the threat of stiff penalties under the copyright law and backed by highly active trade groups, software vendors are increasingly making businesses aware of the unlicensed software problem, and requesting that businesses perform a 'software audit,' in which the trade group will use an express or implied threat of litigation to ask that a company submit to a determination of whether unlicensed software exists on its computer system.
Unlicensed software can make its way onto a company's desktops and servers in a number of ways, most of them far removed from traditional notions of 'software piracy.' Employees may share applications with one another without going through the proper channels, or load personal copies of a program onto their work computers, which copies may then, in turn, be shared. Business entities expand and undergo personnel changes, leading to unauthorized copying; often, the rights granted by a software license are not easy to discern. Of course, deliberate corporate cost-cutting exists as well and licenses can be especially burdensome in this economic climate, but the downturn cuts both ways: software companies are facing new pressures to generate revenue, leading perhaps to zealous pursuit of license fees from their customers.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?