Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Inside <i>Grokster</i>
[Editor's Note: The Internet industry has had a little time to sit back and examine the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Grokster case (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studio v. Grokster, 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005)), pondering its true meaning and its impact on technology and software developers as well as the entertainment industry. (The other articles in this special 12-page issue serve as a nice summary of the decision as well as adding to the commentary.) In this virtual roundtable discussion, members of Internet Law & Strategy's Board of Editors and other Internet law experts chime in with their thoughts. I think you'll find these comments insightful and raise the issues that the industry faces in the wake of Grokster. I am very grateful to the participants for their generous contributions. We welcome your comments and further thoughts on the case and its ramifications. - Steven Salkin, Esq., Managing Editor]
Technology Companies and Software Distributors
Joseph V. Norvell (Chair, Copyright Practice Group, Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione, Chicago; [email protected]): This decision involved peer-to-peer file sharing providers, but it will have much broader implications in the technology industry. Technology companies of all types that transfer digital data, including computer companies, data transfer providers and software companies, will need to review their products and policies to ensure that they are not exposed to potential liability for copyright infringement. The technology companies may appeal to Capitol Hill for more clarification to ensure they are insulated from liability.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.