Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Developments of Note
Justice Department seizes Mod Chip site after DMCA guilty plea
On Feb. 26, the Justice Department assumed control of the Web site iSONEWS.com, whose former owner, David M. Rocci, pleaded guilty in federal court in December to conspiring to import, market and sell circumvention devices known as modification, or 'mod' chips, in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The government said mod chips are designed to circumvent copyright protections built into game consoles such as Microsoft's Xbox and Sony's Playstation 2, and allow users to play illegally copied games. Mod chip sellers have been the target of international anti-piracy efforts, but this case is reportedly the first mod chip prosecution under the DMCA. Rocci was scheduled to be sentenced this month in the Eastern District of Virginia.
FTC settles COPPA charges with Mrs. Fields Cookies, Hershey Foods
Mrs. Fields Cookies and Hershey Foods agreed to pay civil penalties of $100,000 and $85,000, respectively, to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personally identifiable information from children without first obtaining parental consent. Each of the companies operated Web sites directed at children, and allegedly collected personal information from children under the age of 13, including full name, and home address and e-mail address. According to the FTC complaints, Mrs. Fields did so without obtaining any parental consent, while Hershey instructed children to have their parents fill out an online consent form without taking steps to ensure that the child's parent was providing the information.
HHS adopts final HIPAA security rule
On Feb. 13, the Department of Health and Human Services announced adoption of final security standards for protecting individually identifiable health information when it is maintained or transmitted electronically. The standards implement some of the security requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The rule requires covered entities to implement 'administrative, physical and technical safeguards' to protect electronic protected health information in their care. The regulations take effect in April, but most covered entities have until April 2005 to comply. The Final Rule is available at www.cms.hhs.gov/regulations/hipaa/cms0003-5/0049f-econ-ofr-2-12-03.pdf. www.cms.hhs.gov/regulations/hipaa/cms0003-5/0049f-econ-ofr-2-12-03.pdf
Developments of Note was written by Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta and Jeffery D. Neuburger, partners in the New York office of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner.
Justice Department seizes Mod Chip site after DMCA guilty plea
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?