Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Security First Approach Provides a Significant Advantage to Law Firms
Monumental cyber events, such as the recent Equifax breach, draw enormous press attention, public outrage and government scrutiny. The coverage is almost exclusively negative, challenging the security capabilities of the firm and questioning whether negligence played a role.
These breach stories fuel a security industry that all too often feeds on fear, uncertainty and doubt — a practice collectively referred to as selling FUD. The security industry all too often sells the next shiny object touted as the Holy Grail of security that protects against all cyber threats. And the following year, the next best thing hits the market and becomes the grail until proven fallible. When the industry gets wise to this cycle of promise and disappointment, security vendors switch to the other side of their mouth to espouse a security strategy of multiple systems and technologies, known as defense in depth.
For the most part, this practice prevails, and perhaps even suits, an economy built on free market companies that overlook cybersecurity until they suffer a cyber near miss, a devastating cybersecurity event, or when the government and regulators turn their investigatory sights on their industry and operations (jovially referred to as the Eye of Sauron, in reference to the Lord of the Rings). Only then do most companies adopt a more hardened security practice. However, there is a movement towards a security first approach within more proactive organizations.
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.