Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Internet Service Provider Liability
One of the first decisions in these matters, the CompuServe judgments of the Munich Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals, received widespread attention (AG M nchen NJW 1998, 2836; LG M nchen I NJW 2000, 1051; comments on the judgment: Hoeren, NJW 1998, 2792; K hne, NJW 1999, 188; Koenig/Loetz, CR 1999, 438).
The case discussed the possibility of criminal liability of CompuServe's German general manager for pornographic content that was accessible through the Internet access points of CompuServe. After first having blocked the content following a notice served by the public authorities, CompuServe again allowed access to the newsgroups with offending content. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance found that the general manager had violated obligations to prevent illicit activity and, thus, had to be convicted according to the German criminal code. The penalty was released on license. The Court of Appeals remanded the case and acquitted the German CompuServe general manager (LG M nchen I NJW 2000, 1051; comments on the judgment K hne, NJW 2000, 1003; Moritz, CR 2000, 117).
This line of legal practice has been followed later in the context of criminal-code liability and civil-code indemnity only. On the other hand, Internet service providers have repeatedly been found accountable in cases of civil-code disturbance liability. While Internet service providers argued that the German act on teleservices ('TMG') included a privilege excluding them from liability for acts that their business partners and customers committed, the German Federal Court had early on confirmed that Internet service providers are very well to be considered liable under certain circumstances. In 2004, the Federal Court handed down a first decision against eBay regarding trademark infringements that obliged eBay to remove infringing content from the platform, as well as to prevent future infringements. In its new decision, the Federal Court has confirmed this position and has substantiated the preconditions for liability claims.
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?