Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
States Criminalize Internet Identity Theft
Last year, CNN reported that more than 80 million fake/impostor Facebook profiles were in use. Among them was a New Jersey Facebook user who was prosecuted for identity theft after creating a fake profile that depicted her ex-boyfriend as a criminal. Another Facebook user in California was prosecuted for accessing and altering another's Facebook account without consent. These unlawful actions typify the two most common forms of Internet identity theft: e-impersonation by fraudulently creating a fake account or by deceptively using an existing account.
Both types of impersonation result in criminal liability for perpetrators of Internet impersonation. Some state statutes have specifically criminalized such Internet activity. For example, New York Penal Law '190.25(4)'states that a person is guilty of criminal impersonation when said person impersonates another by communication by Internet website or electronic means with intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud another. The California Penal Code '528.5 states that any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet website or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense.
Only Texas, Mississippi, Hawaii, New York and California have enacted statutes containing language explicitly referring to Internet impersonation. However, most states have statutes that would cover Internet impersonation transactions. In New Jersey, for example, a defendant is guilty of identity theft if that person impersonates another and does an act in such assumed identity for the purpose of obtaining a benefit or to injure or defraud another (see, New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice '2C:21-17, Impersonation; theft of identity; crime).
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.