Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Courts and law professors often praise "fair use" as the counterweight that keeps copyright balanced with free expression. Those who actually litigate fair use cases, however, will tell you a very different story. They will tell you that, when it comes to copyright cases, it's the copyright owner that has all the advantages. <br>Thanks to the recent federal district court ruling in Online Policy <i>Group v. Diebold</i>, however, the times they may be a-changin'. Fair users on the Internet can now go on the offensive to vindicate their free speech interests against overzealous copyright owners.
Features
Recent developments of note in the Internet industry.<br>This month:<br>Google Sues Internet Marketer Over False Ad Clicks <br>Movie Studios Take Cue From Record Industry ' File Suit against File-sharers <br>Another 761 Added To RIAA Tally <br>Perfect 10 Says Google Removes the Towel
After years of promise and hype, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), the ability to make telephone calls over the Internet, has emerged as a mainstream service for businesses and, increasingly, for consumers. Lower cost, competitive quality and ease of use are responsible for VoIP's accelerated adoption. However, the very features driving VoIP's rollout have brought to the fore the stresses that the Internet and modern telecommunications technology have put on the 70-year-old regulatory framework that governs them.
Features
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
For nearly 15 years, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has helped clear away barriers to public accommodations, employment, transportation, government services and telecommunications for disabled Americans. This landmark legislation granted long-overdue civil rights protections and equal opportunity guarantees to individuals with disabilities, just as earlier civil rights legislation addressed discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion or age. While the ADA improved the lives of countless disabled individuals, it also created new challenges for many employers. And as of this summer, some employers will likely face an even tougher, more complex set of ADA accessibility guidelines, the impact of which is only beginning to be understood.
Cellular phone ownership and use is pervasive. More than 70 million Americans reportedly own a cell phone and a high percentage are used for business purposes. Also on the rise are instances of phone use while driving, increasingly blurring the boundary between work and personal time, as people can stay connected professionally during commutes, vacations or other personal pursuits.
Features
In addition to or in lieu of broad-based tax-qualified retirement plans, employers often provide select executives or groups of executives with nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements. These "arrangements" may be in the form of a plan, a written agreement or even a clause in an employment agreement. Much like a "401(k)" tax-qualified retirement plan, these arrangements typically provide for an advance written election by the executive to defer the receipt of otherwise payable future compensation. However, unlike tax-qualified retirement plans, which by law must generally preclude the distribution of benefits prior to an event such as death, disability, retirement or separation from service with the employer maintaining the plan, many nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements have provided for far greater flexibility as to early access to plan funds. To date, the tax law has permitted nonqualified deferred compensation, along with the attendant deferral of tax revenues for the government, on the theory that it provided a tax-favored mechanism for the accumulation of additional savings for retirement. The implementation of nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements providing for distributions upon certain types of arguably foreseeable "hardships" (eg, to pay for college) or in return for a "haircut" forfeiture, cut against the notion that the revenue deferral effect on the government is outweighed by the benefit of permitting the accumulation of additional retirement funds, as these arrangements provide benefits which may not be used for purposes of retirement.
As many criminal practitioners are acutely aware, the Internal Revenue Service has recently ramped up compliance and enforcement efforts with budget increases and enhanced resources. A lesser-known component of this revitalized enforcement is the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which is charged with regulating professionals - mostly lawyers and accountants -- who practice before the IRS. OPR enforces ethical rules that govern practice before the Service, commonly known as "Circular 230," and may sanction practitioners who violate those rules. Because OPR matters can interact with the criminal process in many respects, conscientious white-collar practitioners and corporate tax counsel should familiarize themselves with OPR and its power over tax professionals.
Features
Banishment from the public company world -- through the enforcement of a D&O bar - used to be an extreme remedy for management misconduct. Now, the trend has turned, with Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and the current enforcement climate leading to a flood of requests for bars. In 2000, the SEC asked federal courts to impose 38 D&O bars, 7.5% of the cases initiated that year. In 2001, the SEC asked for 51 D&O bars, or 10.5%. In 2002, in the wake of corporate scandals that gave rise to Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC requested 126 D&O bars, in 21% of initiated actions. In 2003, that number shot up to 170, in 25% of cases. As Stephen Cutler, the head of the SEC's Enforcement Division, recently explained, the SEC is "aggressively" seeking D&O bars "in expanded ways." Practitioners are now finding D&O bars to be a routine component of settling an SEC action.
Features
The landscape has changed for many senior executives and other employees of corporations subject to government investigation. Two recent cases show how prosecutors virtually forced companies to "turn in" suspect executives and other employees to avoid prosecution. Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, effective Nov. 1, 2004, incorporate this change in the way courts will assess a corporation's compliance program.
