Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cybervillains and How to Find Them: Obtaining the Identity of Anonymous Internet Users
Many corporate executives and in-house attorneys have complained about acts done “anonymously” over the Internet and the lack of accountability for Internet users. Each has seemingly been harmed by various online conduct, such as defamation, trade libel, trade secret leakage and other acts that occur because of Internet use and abuse. This use and abuse seems to arise most commonly in online message boards and when using “anonymous” free e-mail accounts. Most of these people believe there is nothing that can be done because of the anonymity inherent in the nature of the online medium. Because of this appearance of anonymity, many perpetrators behave differently than they normally would had they known they could be held accountable. Many Internet users do not realize that an experienced lawyer can actually find their identity, location, and the situs of the damaging action(s). Each computer on the Internet has been assigned an “IP Address.” This IP Address is a unique identifier of that computer ' synonymous with the street address of real property.
IP Addresses are comprised of four numbers that range between 0 and 255. (An example of an IP Address is “164.67.0.1″). These IP Addresses serve as unique identifiers to each computer on the Internet and can be used to track Internet users who have done tortuous or otherwise harmful activity (this can also be a useful general investigation tool ' it goes without saying that the discovery process and power to subpoena should not be abused) while seemingly being anonymous.
Common Types of 'Anonymous' Activity
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.