Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Utilizing CAN-SPAM Provisions To The Best Advantage
When, in December 2003, U.S. companies were given only a few weeks to become compliant with the newly-enacted Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (the CAN-SPAM Act, Pub. L. No. 108-187, codified at 15 U.S.C. '7701 et seq.), many companies may have hastily implemented compliance programs in order to get up to speed by the time the Act became effective on Jan. 1, 2004. However, many companies may not have looked for ways to benefit from some of the Act's lesser-known provisions and, in fact, some wrinkles inherent in the Act. A careful review of the details of the Act will reveal ways companies can utilize its provisions to their best advantage.
Use A Menu-Driven Opt-Out Mechanism
As many in-house counsel tasked with CAN-SPAM compliance may know, the Act requires that a commercial e-mail message (as defined by the Act) include a mechanism by which the recipient of the e-mail can opt-out of receiving all future messages from the sender of the e-mail. CAN-SPAM Act '5(a)(3). However, the Act affords an option that may be used to reduce the amount of lost marketing opportunities resulting from opt-out requests. That is, the Act expressly provides that the e-mail may, in addition to providing a means for opting out of all e-mail messages from the sender of the e-mail, also provide additional opt-out choices that enable the recipient to opt-out of receiving only certain types of commercial e-mails from the sender. CAN-SPAM Act '5(a)(3)(B).
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.