Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Spam Gets Canned Federal Anti-Spam Law to Take Effect January 1
As widely reported in national media throughout 2003, junk e-mail or “spam” increased exponentially in the last 2 years, prompting state and federal regulators and legislators to reexamine the role of government in regulating this means of commercial advertisement. This fall, the U.S. Congress stepped in, with the ambitious goal of protecting the viability of e-mail as an instrument of interstate commerce.
Federal bills to regulate the means and content of commercial e-mail advertisements have been introduced in every Congress since at least 1998. Until this year, these bills did not receive much attention. But the massive increase in spam experienced in 2002-03 and the passage of a very stringent California spam law propelled federal spam legislation to the top of the congressional agenda this fall.
Over those years, more than 35 states enacted laws regulating spam in some form or fashion. Legitimate marketers and businesses adapted to these various state laws, gravitating toward a fairly uniform best practices model, which stopped short of the sort of true “opt-in only” model strongly preferred by consumer and anti-spam groups. Mailers could be fairly confident that they would avoid liability under state spam laws and not overly alienate Internet service providers (ISPs) or their own customers by simply including valid contact information, honoring “opt-out” requests, providing accurate headers and routing information, using nondeceptive subject lines and (in a few states) labeling the messages as advertisements.
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.