Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Developments of Note
VeriSign Drops New 'Site Finder' Service
Less than a month after introducing its new “Site Finder” service to the “.com” and “.net” directories, VeriSign Inc. on Oct. 4 voluntarily stopped the service, bowing to pressure from The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and lawsuits from competitors. Site Finder directs Internet users who misspell or mistype Internet addresses to a VeriSign-operated Web site that contains navigational assistance for the user, search functions and advertising links. It operates similarly to several existing redirect services, however VeriSign's competitors claim Site Finder misuses VeriSign's authority in resolving domain names ' essentially “hijacking” Internet traffic for its own commercial gain and pre-empting the other services. For example, Popular Enterprises filed a $100 million antitrust suit against VeriSign, claiming that Site Finder disrupted the core functionality of its “SmartBrowse” toolbar and resulted in lost revenues. In a letter to VeriSign on Oct. 3, ICANN issued a formal request that VeriSign suspend the service. The letter stated: “Failure to comply with this demand by that time will leave ICANN with no choice but to seek promptly to enforce VeriSigns contractual obligations.”
First Arrest Made Under Truth In Domain Names Act
On Sept. 3, federal authorities arrested notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini on charges that he violated the Truth in Domain Names Act. The Truth in Domain Names Act was recently enacted as part of larger legislation, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act), that also created the national “AMBER Alert” system. The Truth in Domain Names Act makes criminal the use of a misleading domain name to attract a minor into viewing sexually explicit material on the Internet. Zuccarini's arrest is the first under the new law. Zuccarini is accused of creating thousands of misleading domain names, such as “www.dinseyland.com,” that attracted children to pornographic sites and often “mousetrapped” them on those sites.
Britain Criminalizes Spam
British lawmakers introduced new measures that criminalize the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail and mobile text messages without prior “opt-in” consent from the recipient. The British law, which takes effect on Dec. 11, subjects violators to penalties of up to $8000 from a magistrate, or more if there is a jury trial. There is an exception when the sender and recipient have a prior business relationship, and the law excludes business e-mail addresses from coverage. Britain issued the new rules to comply with a European Union directive requiring member states to act against spam by Oct. 31, 2003, and joins Italy as the second European nation to make spamming a criminal offense.
Julian S. Millstein Edward A. Pisacreta Jeffrey D. Neuburger
VeriSign Drops New 'Site Finder' Service
Less than a month after introducing its new “Site Finder” service to the “.com” and “.net” directories,
First Arrest Made Under Truth In Domain Names Act
On Sept. 3, federal authorities arrested notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini on charges that he violated the Truth in Domain Names Act. The Truth in Domain Names Act was recently enacted as part of larger legislation, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act), that also created the national “AMBER Alert” system. The Truth in Domain Names Act makes criminal the use of a misleading domain name to attract a minor into viewing sexually explicit material on the Internet. Zuccarini's arrest is the first under the new law. Zuccarini is accused of creating thousands of misleading domain names, such as “www.dinseyland.com,” that attracted children to pornographic sites and often “mousetrapped” them on those sites.
Britain Criminalizes Spam
British lawmakers introduced new measures that criminalize the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail and mobile text messages without prior “opt-in” consent from the recipient. The British law, which takes effect on Dec. 11, subjects violators to penalties of up to $8000 from a magistrate, or more if there is a jury trial. There is an exception when the sender and recipient have a prior business relationship, and the law excludes business e-mail addresses from coverage. Britain issued the new rules to comply with a European Union directive requiring member states to act against spam by Oct. 31, 2003, and joins Italy as the second European nation to make spamming a criminal offense.
Julian S. Millstein Edward A. Pisacreta Jeffrey D. Neuburger
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?