Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), passed by Congress in 1988, has reemerged as consumer video rentals have migrated from brick-and-mortar video stores to online subscription services, or sites that allow digital streaming of TV shows and movies over the Internet. The VPPA, which generally prohibits video service providers from releasing personally identifiable information (PII) without written consent, has become a relevant concern for modern media providers because such services are now typically linked to social media sites that allow users to share viewing habits, something that was not possible 20 years ago.
The VPPA, 18 U.S.C. '2710, http://1.usa.gov/Woigzh, prohibits video tape service providers from knowingly disclosing PII concerning any consumer to any person. The impetus for the Act occurred when a reporter obtained a list of videotapes that the late U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork rented from his local video store. Specifically, the Act prohibits a “video tape service provider” from:
18 U.S.C. '2710(a)(4).
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.