Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Defining Political Spam
The Internet has radically altered the nature of communication in the United States. Its effects on the American political campaigns are dramatic, as demonstrated during the most recent political campaign season where it played a decisive factor in several election victories. The Internet offers candidates the opportunity to contact a million votes for about $100 when using unsolicited bulk e-mails, often called spam. Under the First Amendment, political spam is generally lawful; however its use as a fundraising and other specific types of communication may cause legal difficulties.
Since its inception in 1994, the use of spam has grown exponentially. Since 2002, spam has been considered a mainstream marketing option. Firms have spent more than $1 billion per year on spam for the past 4 years. The costs to people and corporations to deal with spam are 10 times that amount. Such costs include lost productivity, more expensive servers and additional bandwidth, additional customer support staff, time spent deleting messages, time spent by people who mistakenly click on spam messages, and time spent tracking down messages deleted by spam filters.
During the 2004 national elections, candidates used e-mail to reach the electorate. By sending out unsolicited bulk e-mails, candidates sent information to millions of voters with the click of a button. Some see political spam as another nuisance, no different than commercial spam or junk mail. Like other forms of spam, it clogs inboxes. Others find political spam to be a form of speech. In particular, they find political spam to be protected speech.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?