Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Enemy Is Inside the Wire
By now you've likely read the headlines about the recent attacks on various Asian banks, resulting in cyber losses reported in the tens of billions. And if you're really paying attention, you probably know these attacks have been linked to the Lazarus cybercrime organization, which has suspected ties to the North Korean government. Earlier this year, the Lazarus Group was also identified as the likely culprit behind the brazen attacks on Sony back in 2014. In all likelihood, you read the headlines, and then you moved on to read the latest sports scores. Why? Because it doesn't relate to you. Or does it?
I often use this analogy when speaking with law firms about cyber risks: If I told you that thieves broke into a major bank in your town and stole cash, you wouldn't care. If I told you that the same thieves broke into your neighbor's house, you'd rush out and sign up for an alarm service and buy an intimidating watch dog. The point is, we only pay attention to that which we think relates to us.
And that's the general problem with a security industry obsessed with big retail and entertainment brands splashed across headlines, and a paparazzi-like zeal for mega data breach and the resulting class action suits. Much like my analogy, most mid-market firms ignore the lesson learned by the big game bagged by cybercriminals. Smaller firms write off the cyber risk as hyperbole or misguided panic. Smaller firms don't think they have anything worth stealing.
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.