Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
RIAA Counsel Appointed Appellate Judge
Richard L. Gabriel, the lead attorney for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in its copyright-infringement suits against individuals over the file-sharing of music, has been appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Gabriel, a partner and chairman of the intellectual property practice group at Denver-based Holme, Roberts & Owen, will take the official judgeship post on July 1. (An interview with Gabriel on the RIAA's file-sharing litigations appeared in the December 2007 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance.)
'It's been a long-time goal of mine to become a judge someday,' said Gabriel, who joined Holme, Roberts & Owen in 1990. For more than two years, Holme, Roberts & Owen has served as the RIAA's national counsel for copyright-infringement litigation against individuals, including students at colleges and universities.
In October 2007, Gabriel obtained a $222,000 verdict against a Minnesota woman in the first of the RIAA's copyright-infringement cases to go to trial against an individual. Gabriel said the same team of lawyers at Holme, Roberts & Owen who have been working with him on the RIAA cases will continue to spearhead those efforts. Those lawyers include partners Timothy Reynolds and Donald Kelso, as well as Eve Burton and Katheryn Coggon, who are senior counsel. All are in Colorado.
Amanda Bronstad is a Staff Reporter for The National Law Journal, an ALM affiliate publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.
Richard L. Gabriel, the lead attorney for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in its copyright-infringement suits against individuals over the file-sharing of music, has been appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Gabriel, a partner and chairman of the intellectual property practice group at Denver-based
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?