Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Lessons and Ramifications That Can Be Learned From iTunes
Maybe the 'i' in intellectual property should be lower case, as in iNtellectual property. In most cases, the problems relating to infringement of IP rights on YouTube are pretty clear-cut. The company (now owned by Google) primarily bears the onus of policing what is uploaded and downloaded on its site. And, clearly, some people made a lot of money as a result of Web site visitors watching a variety of videos.
As Apple, Inc. just announced record quarterly profits of $770 million, the iTunes world created by Apple, through its iPod portable music player and iTunes online music store, offers a different and ultimately more successful legal answer to regulating and protecting legitimate business interests in intellectual property. For IP practitioners, it requires a deep understanding of technologies, of foreign trade and international law, the interrelationship between patents, trademarks and copyrights, and the ability to see past the products, technologies and businesses of tomorrow.
Earlier this year, Apple announced that it had sold its 100 millionth iPod. By comparison, it took Sony Corp.'s Walkman ' the pioneering portable music player ' 14 years to duplicate that feat. In a few short years, Apple's iTunes store has sold more than 2.5 billion songs, 50 million television shows and 1.3 million movies. A 2004 case study conducted by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School suggests that online music services could maintain the same business model from country to country thanks in large part to the harmonization of international copyright law.
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?