Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is Google Enabling Illegal Ads That May Harm Children?
Advertisements for counterfeit merchandise, illegal drugs, pornography, etc, have been on the Internet for years. Unfortunately, it appears some companies that have the ability to remove ads and/or links from their websites to illegal products and/or services may not be putting forth their best effort to do so. Refusing to properly address these issues may lead to major legal and financial consequences.
On his website recently, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood publicly asked Google to 'address issues on its [website] that are allowing users to obtain illegal and counterfeit goods, including dangerous drugs without a prescription.' See, 'Attorney General Hood Asking Google to Address Alleged Violations of Intellectual Property Rights.' According to Hood: 'On every check we have made, Google's search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games.' Hood further stated: 'This behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior.'
Google's response to Hood's allegations that it is not doing enough to stop the proliferation of ads for counterfeit goods has been called insufficient and inadequate and that its 'lack of meaningful action is unacceptable.' (See the series of letters and responses on Hood's website at www.agjimhood.com/images/uploads/forms/GoogleLetters.pdf.) According to the Associated Press, Hood has stated that Google's previous response was also 'evasive' and 'overly technical' See, 'Google Blasted for Persisting Online Drug Ads,' Mercury News, June 7, 2013.
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.