Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The RIAA has filed thousands of legal actions since its campaign against unauthorized file sharers began in 2003. For the past two years, Holme Roberts & Owen ('HRO'), based in Denver, CO, has served as national coordinating counsel for these cases. Late last year, the first trial against a file-sharer resulted in a jury in Duluth, MN, finding the defendant liable for willful infringement and awarding the record company plaintiffs $222,000. HRO partner Richard L. Gabriel is the record industry's lead counsel in that case and in its national campaign. He recently gave an update on the Duluth case and the industry's legal efforts against file sharing in a discussion at his office with Stan Soocher, Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado Denver and Editor-in-Chief of <i>Internet Law & Strategy</i>'s sibling newsletter <i>Entertainment Law & Finance</i>.
Features
In the days of only paper documents, smaller companies could afford to wait until they became involved in a lawsuit to worry about pre-trial discovery, but today's reliance on digital information makes that a risky and unnecessarily expensive strategy.
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the road to legal sanctions can be paved with intentions to show good faith. That's particularly true when it comes to implementing a legal hold process. Companies with lawsuits on the horizon must be extremely careful with the technology they use and the processes they follow regarding e-discovery in order to avoid sanctions and maintain defensibility.
The 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ('FRCP') were anticipated by some corporate counsel with Y2K-like gloom and doom predictions. In particular, many wondered aloud whether the rules would have the effect of placing reasonable limits on electronic discovery, or whether instead they would open the floodgates and drown us all in a sea of electronic document production. However, the past year has shown that, like the Y2K hysteria that went out with a whimper, the fretting over the negative impact of the amendments may have been overblown.
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
Features
If you use software and work for or with a company subject to Sarbanes-Oxley ('SOX'), then 2007 was an interesting year for you. How interesting? I'll raise some issues arising from the intersection of the topic of software use and SOX from last year to help you keep to a minimum the risk that 2008 will be an interesting year in some very bad ways.
Internet telemedicine, in use to varying degrees for more than a decade and general technology-assisted telemedicine for much longer than that, is plagued by concern for patients whose physicians prescribe medication without a face-to-face examination. The result has been that state boards of medical examiners and state legislatures throughout the country have initiated disciplinary hearings and legislation to limit a physician's ability to practice medicine without prior hands-on contact with a patient. But emerging technology and medical advancements may be stifled by problems unique to Internet telemedicine.
One of the most important decisions that corporate counsel must make in any case is whether to file a motion to dismiss. While a motion can put an early end to the case, it can also prompt a judge to make damaging pronouncements about the law, without the benefit of a fully developed factual record.
Features
The controversial German draft bill designed to amend legislation on communications surveillance and other secret investigation measures, and to implement the European Directive 2006/24/EC ' which was set to introduce mandatory retention of communications traffic data ' went into effect on January 1.
For Donald Trump, 'You're fired!' has become a money-maker. But for Human Resources managers and in-house counsel, 'You're fired' is a dreaded phrase that will bring not an increase in ratings, but an increase in lawsuits. A poorly executed termination exposes the employer to significant liability; even a simple discrimination claim can cost the employer $100,000 in defense costs.