Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Franchisees complain about the imbalance of power between themselves and franchisors, especially when franchisor-franchisee relationships go awry. The Web has changed that dynamic significantly by giving franchisees an easy way to voice their complaints widely and anonymously. Sean Kelly is providing one of the most popular forums for franchisees to vent about franchisors ' whether fairly or unfairly. A 20-year veteran of the franchising industry who participated in the startup of more than 100 franchises concepts, Kelly started a series of franchise-related blogs in November 2006 that have quickly become must-reads for franchisors, franchisees, franchise counsel, and consumers.
Features
To paraphrase a line from a favorite song, you don't always get what you want, but sometimes, you get what you need. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) almost certainly did not get all that it wanted when the House of Representatives passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (Pro IP Act), H.R. 4279, in May. What remains to be seen is whether the RIAA and other proponents of the legislation will get what they claim to need ' or anything at all.
Features
In-depth analysis of recent rulings.
Features
Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read format.
Features
The problem of child pornography on the Internet has long bedeviled Congress. But the legislature has floundered between the First Amendment's protection of speech and the self-evident evils involved in child porn's production and consumption, leaving a trail of laws invalidated by the High Court. The most recent legislative iteration ' the PROTECT Act, upheld on May 19 by the Supreme Court in <i>United States v. Williams</i> ' raises new and intriguing questions about the relation of sexual and political speech.
Features
In its June 3, 2008, decision in <i>Pultz v. Economakis</i>, the New York State Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no limit on the number of rent-stabilized units an owner can attempt to recover for owner occupancy. The ruling was a major victory for rent stabilized landlords, and a sharp rebuke to tenant advocates who claimed that multiple recovery for owner occupancy violated the letter and spirit of the Rent Stabilization Law. Indeed, the case continues a recent trend of favorable Court of Appeals decisions for landlords.