Author Archives: ligitsec

UMG Recordings v. Augusto: First Sale Doctrine Protects Reseller of Promo CDs

UMG Recordings v. Augusto First Sale Doctrine Protects Reseller of Promo CDsLiving on the west side of Los Angeles puts me smack in the middle of the entertainment industry. I have often seen promotional copies of DVDs of TV shows and feature films or music CDs being exchanged at parties, and even seen stacks of these being left out by the side of the street for trash pickup. Studios and labels don’t want this content distributed to the public because early distribution can foul up marketing campaigns, and because promotional versions of content may be remixed or reedited. But can the studios and labels prevent recipients from giving away or even reselling these lightly-controlled promotional discs? A June 2008 case said “No”.

The case is UMG Records, Inc. v. Augusto, C.D. Cal., No. CV-07-03106. UMG is a well-known record label and frequently produces promotional CDs. UMG’s promotional CDs are labeled with language stating that “This CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use only. Acceptance of this CD shall constitute an agreement to comply with the terms of the license. Resale or transfer of possession is not allowed and may be punishable under federal and state laws.”

The defendant Augusto was not one of the original recipients of UMGs CDs, but came into possession of many of these promotional CDs through music shops and online auctions. Augusto then resold the promotional CDs via eBay, as rare collectibles that were not available in stores. After discovering the sales, UMG attempted to get eBay to take down Augusto’s auction sites. However, after initially taking them down, eBay eventually reinstated Augusto’s sites.

UMG then filed suit against Augusto for copyright infringement, arguing that the language on its CDs created a license agreement precluding sale or distribution of the CDs. Augusto defended, relying primarily on the “first sale” doctrine. Under the first sale doctrine, a copyright holder’s right to distribute a work is limited to the initial distribution of copies of a work, not to the resale or further transfer of possession of those copies. 17 U.S.C. § 109.
Central District Judge Otero held that principal issue in the case was whether UMG had transferred title when it sent out the promotional CDs. If the answer was yes, then the first sale doctrine applied and Augusto did not infringe UMG’s distribution rights when he resold the CDs on eBay.

Convertino v. DOJ: Federal Court Upholds Attorney-Client Privilege for Employee’s Private Communications to which Employer Had Access

to Unmask Anonymous BloggerInternet defamation law update: Courts around the U.S. regularly grant requests by plaintiffs to force publishers to disclose the identity of anonymous bloggers — albeit, often not until the plaintiff has jumped over some rather stringent procedural hurdles. However, in a recent case, a federal judge in Missouri denied such a request, on the grounds that the plaintiff’s need for the blogger’s testimony did not outweigh the blogger’s First Amendment right of anonymity. Sedersten v. Taylor, W.D.Mo., 6:09-cv-03031, Order Denying Motion to Compel (Dec. 9, 2009). This decision is not an outlier, but represents principles governing such cases that are recognized by most courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment. Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). For example, in a case in which it invalidated an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous political leafleting, the Court declared that “an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of speech protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995).
The degree of protection provided speech is dependent, among other things, on its content.

Restrictions on the content of “core political speech” are subject to “exacting scrutiny” by the courts, and may only be upheld if they are “narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.” Id., 514 U.S. at 347. Core political speech encompasses “debate over the qualifications of candidates, discussion of governmental or political affairs, discussion of political campaigns, and advocacy of controversial points of view.” Doe v. 2The Mart.com, Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1092 (W. D. Wash. 2001).

Restrictions on the content of non-core speech are subject to “normal strict scrutiny analysis.” Id., 140 F.Supp.2d at 1093. Under strict scrutiny, the government must assert a significant and compelling government interest, and the court must decide whether the legislation is sufficiently narrowly tailored to serve that interest. People with Disabilities v. Herrera, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1215 (D.N.M. 2008). Non-core speech would include most blog posts criticizing individuals or private companies.

Courts around the U.S. impose widely varying standards when dealing with requests to unmask the identity of an anonymous blogger in defamation cases. On the lighter end of the scale, some courts require a plaintiff merely to show he has a good faith basis to contend that he may be the victim of actionable conduct. On the heavier end of the scale, other courts require a plaintiff to support his defamation claim with facts sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Others impose procedural hurdles, such as requiring efforts to notify the anonymous poster that he is the subject of a subpoena so the he can oppose, and requiring the plaintiff to show that the information sought is directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claims and unavailable from other sources.

Impact of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster

Tens of billions of dollars in losses have been incurred due to the Gulf Coast Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There have been thousands of square miles of waters closed to fishing, swimming and/or boating, and thousands of square miles of historic coastal marshes, cypress forests, barrier islands, and white sand beaches compromised. Fishermen and marine businesses have lost and continue to lose income and be put out of business; the tourism industry and hotels, resorts, restaurant owners, and other tourism-reliant businesses are losing income; and property values along the Gulf of Mexico coastline are decreasing due to the oil spill.

While it has been reported that the majority of the surface oil has now been collected, burned, dispersed or broken down, the subsurface plumes still cover extensive areas potentially larger than the surface slicks ever were, continuing to threaten ecosystems throughout the water column and the economy of the Gulf Coast.

This environmental and economic disaster would never have occurred if BP and the other companies involved in drilling at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, as alleged in class action complaints, followed required safety protocols and precautionary procedures, properly maintained equipment, and used widely available emergency safety technology. Instead, they chose to skimp on safety and cut costs in a short-sighted effort to maximize profits.

Gulf Oil Spill Lawsuit News

On August 10, 2010, all cases filed against defendants in federal court were transferred to U.S. District Court Judge Barbier in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

On August 20, 2010, a group of Gulf Coast fishermen, property owners, business owners, and wage earners filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against BP, Transocean, Cameron International, and Halliburton seeking certification of a class for the purpose of determining punitive damages against defendants for the April 20, 2010, explosion and resulting oil spill from the Deep Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The complaint seeks the establishment of a nationwide punishment fund and that the funds be distributed under Court supervision to all class members for their benefit and that of society.

Many Individuals, Businesses and Communities May Be Eligible to Bring Legal Claims

The BP Deep water horizon oil disaster poses a severe threat to the economic welfare of the Gulf Coast, including:

  1. Companies and individuals involved in the commercial fishing, oyster and shrimping industries;
  2. Companies and individuals involved in wholesale seafood sales and the seafood processing/packaging industry;
  3. Dock and marina owners/operators;
  4. Restaurants;
  5. Commercial and private boat owners;
  6. Property owners and developers;
  7. City, county or state governments.

Each of these victims of the Gulf Spill may be eligible to bring legal claims against BP and the other defendants.

Damages related to this disaster may include real or personal property damages; loss of profits and earning capacity; loss of subsistence use of natural resources; increased costs of public services; and, loss of government revenue.

Google Strikes Back Against Attorney General Jim Hood

In the latest twist in the dispute between Google and Hollywood, Google has now sued Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and is seeking a court order to prevent him from enforcing a wide-ranging subpoena.

The lawsuit has been filed in the US District Court for Southern Mississippi. Google claims that Mr. Hood has been threatening to prosecute the company for the last eighteen months if the company did not block certain content on its websites. Since Google refused to be bogged down by Mr. Hood’s threat, he filed a burdensome subpoena seeking information about Internet activity that is related to drugs, human trafficking and copyrighted content.

Google’s position is that this subpoena is unconstitutional as it seeks information that is protected by the First Amendment and other federal laws. However, Mr. Hood is of the opinion that Google is trying to stop the state of Mississippi from asking a few questions.

This lawsuit is the latest in the war between Hollywood and Google over online piracy. Previously, the Stop Online Piracy Act had also made a legislative move against Google but had failed.

Google claims that movie studios are working behind the scenes with law-enforcement officials to discredit Google. In fact, according to Kent Walker, the Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Google, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is doing legal legwork for Mr. Hood.

Google has also launched evidentiary actions against the MPAA and its counsel Jenner & Block. Mr. Walker is of the opinion that the MPAA is doing nothing but attempting to censor the Internet. However, the MPAA is adamant in its views that Google is exploiting the freedom of speech and using it to shield unlawful activities and allowing the Internet to be used as a license to steal.

Google defends itself on the grounds that it has made significant effort to discourage piracy and had rolled out refinements to its search algorithm making it harder for people to find content that infringes copyrights.

With respect to the lawsuit, Google has said, “We regret having to take this matter to court,” Google said in a statement, “and we are doing so only after years of efforts to explain both the merits of our position and the extensive steps we’ve taken on our platforms.”

Google has fought legal actions before but this is the first time the search giant has gone on the offense and is striking back through the court.

Court revives robbie tolan civil lawsuit in mistaken shooting by bellaire officer

WASHINGTON –
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday reinstated a lawsuit filed by a Bellaire man who claims his constitutional rights were violated when he was shot by a police officer in the driveway of his parents’ home.

In 2008, Robert “Robbie” Tolan was shot by Sgt. Jeffery Cotton of the Bellaire Police Department. A U.S. District Judge tossed out Tolan’s lawsuit claiming Cotton had used excessive force. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme court reinstated the case and remanded it to the Fifth Circuit.

“The Supreme Court essentially gave new life to Robbie Tolan’s lawsuit against Sgt. Cotton and the Bellaire Police Department,” said KPRC Legal Analyst Brian Wice.

In a written statement Tolan’s attorney said, “We’re pleased the Supreme Court agreed that the case should go forward. A jury should decide whether Robbie’s civil rights were violated. Robbie continues to suffer from the after-effects of the shooting, and we hope this decision will bring him closer to having his day in court.”

A jury acquitted Sgt. Cotton in the criminal case.

Cotton’s attorney told KPRC Local 2 that SCOTUS decision was based on procedure.

“It doesn’t change any of the factual findings and it certainly doesn’t mandate a new trial,” said William S. Helfand.

Tolan, who was 23 and unarmed at the time of the shooting, is the son of a former major league baseball player. He planned to pursue a professional baseball career, but was sidelined by his injuries caused by the shooting.

Tolan’s attorney said the family plans to hold a news conference early next week to discuss the high court’s decision.

Local 2 put in a call to the Bellaire city attorney’s office, but has not received a response by the time this story was published.

Sandy Hook Massacre Victims Suing Gunmaker

Another attempt to sue a gunmaker is currently in the works in Connecticut. Nine families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre have filed a wrongful death suit against Bushmaster Firearms, the company that made the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle that had been used by the killer. 26 people had been killed during this tragedy.

Bushmaster Firearms is owned by Remington, part of Freedom Group, a firearms and ammunition conglomerate that is controlled by Cerberus Capital Management. According to the families filing the lawsuit, the AR-15 and similar weapons should not be sold to civilians. Several versions of the AR-15 are available and quite popular with law-abiding gun enthusiasts. However, if these weapons get into the wrong hands, they have the capacity to cause significant damage, as evident by the Sandy Hook massacre. As per the plaintiffs, these weapons “enable mass murderers to inflict unparalleled civilian carnage.”

“The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the United States military to meet the needs of changing warfare,” attorney Josh Koskoff said in a release. “In fact, one of the Army’s specifications for the AR-15 was that it has the capability to penetrate a steel helmet.”

However, some believe that the argument holds very little truth to it since the AR-15 is not very lethal. What makes it lethal is the use of a large ammunition magazine. Thus, manufacturers should be held liable on magazine size rather than on rifle style. Previous efforts have been made to ban assault weapons and Congress legislation had been passed in 1994 but the law expired a decade later and was never renewed again. It wasn’t effective than either because manufacturers simply made cosmetic changes to their firearms and continued to sell them.

Over and over again, legislation has somehow protected the firearm industry – whether it is suing handgun manufacturers, or pushing for assault weapons ban. The vote has always been in the favor of firearms. A federal statute was enacted in 2005 called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This act was backed by the National Rifle Association and was signed by George W. Bush.

Lawsuits previously filed by anti-gun activists have all fizzed out. Handgun suits have faced similar fates with early dismissals. This new lawsuit isn’t expected to result in any positive measure against firearms. They will probably face the hurdle of the liability-shield law and while they may argue on the basis of negligent entrustment, it is doubtful that their efforts will materialize into anything constructive.

Legal Immunity For Ebola Vaccine Makers

In order to encourage the development and availability of experimental Ebola vaccines, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has offered liability protection to drug makers who are currently developing Ebola vaccines.

The announcement was made as part of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. The goal of this measure is to encourage the development and availability of Ebola vaccines.

As per this protection, companies will have immunity under the US law against any legal claims related to the manufacturing, testing, development, distribution and administration of these vaccines. However, they will not enjoy the same immunity for claims that are brought in courts outside the United States.

Similar protection has been offered previously to vaccine makers in the US with the same objective: to encourage the development of childhood vaccines. This particular announcement is part of an effort by the HHS to address issues in the US and in other countries with respect to the development and use of Ebola vaccines. The HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell has encouraged other countries to follow suit and to offer similar liability protections.

“As a global community, we must ensure that legitimate concerns about liability do not hold back the possibility of developing an Ebola vaccine, an essential strategy in our global response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa,” she said in a statement.

Thus, as per this law, anyone who is allegedly injured by a vaccine can only sue in federal court if the FDA or the Justice Department investigates and finds definite proof of misconduct by the drug company.

Also, this declaration will apply to three specific countermeasures. First, the liability immunity will protect manufacturers and distributors regardless of whether it’s administered and applied without geographic limitation. This protection will last until December 10, 2015. Any individual who sustains a serious physical injury as a result of the vaccine can seek compensation through a Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program but such a claim will have to be supported with reliable and valid evidence.

This measure is expected to encourage more companies to invest in research and development efforts for an Ebola vaccine without the fear that they may be subject to lawsuits and compensation claims in case the vaccine does not provide the necessary results.

Model Masker trandi sekarang ini buat dipakai

Leave a reply

Variasi maskerseven amat beraneka, ada yang buat menghambat pencemaran atau pencemaran udara, serta ada pula yang dirancang teristimewa buat menghambat penebaran virus yang lebih efisien.
Satu diantara keistimewaan dalam menghambat virus yang terdapat pada waktu kini merupakan peraturan pemanfaatan masker.
Di awalnya endemi, Pusat Pengaturan dan Penghambatan Penyakit (CDC) dan Organisasi Kesehatan Dunia (WHO) cuma memandang perlu masker buat club klinis serta pasien.
Setelah itu, diawalnya endemi, Orang bersama-sama beli masker klinik, juga nilai dari harga masker naik tinggi di atas harga biasa. Ini
berlangsung lantaran kelangkaan masker klinis. Harga masker klinis jadi tak masuk akal sampai pemerintahan keluarkan aturan pemakaian masker kain tiga lapis oleh orang pemula.
Tidak paham hingga sampai kapan, harga masker di waktu ini kapan buat dapat turun, serta orang mulai gunakan masker klinik menjadi sisi dari kehidupan tiap hari. maskerseven
Jumlahnya beraneka jenis style, warna dan wujud masker yang tersebar pada masyarakat saat ini amat banyak.

Ketika berada di luar rumah, Anda dapat memutuskan untuk memakai banyak type masker. Kecuali peranan pelindungan pokok, Anda harus cari masker yang nyaman. Diantaranya yaitu kedok bebek. Lantaran memiliki bentuk yang seperti bebek karena itu diberi nama Duckbill. Banyak orang-orang pilih masker Duckbill karena mempunyai bentuk yang sesuai dengan wujud paras, tidak besar atau kekecilan. Tentulah yang terutama ialah wujud kedok duckbill bisa tutupi hidung serta mulut dengan prima.

Lebih pada satu tahun endemi menempa Indonesia. Pemerintahan serta banyak tenaga kedokteran lantas terus menghimbau rakyat terus untuk menempatkan prosedur kesehatan yang ketat buat meminimalkan terjangkit virus itu. Membasuh tangan, menghindari dari keramaian, Satu yang paling penting yakni selalu gunakan masker.

dalam artikel ini kalian mesti mengerti dengan bahanya virus ini dan mengupayakan agar kalian minum vitamin menjaga kesehatan menjaga pun imun kalian lantaran virus ini amat berbahayauntuk pergi dengan menggunakan masker menjaga jarak minimum 1 mtr. serta jagan lupa bawa hand sanitaizer ya, terima kasih yang telah baca artikel ini
kalau ada kata yang kurang, tolong dimaafkan.

Gunakan lah masker kalian dengan mengikut protkol kesehatan wejangan dari pemerintahan, biar dunia terselamatkan dengan kepedulian orang bakal kesehatan di kitaran kita serta meminimalkan perkara yang saat ini semakin tambah baik.

Innovative Lawsuit Against U.S. Bank

US BankHayward Ferrell of Huber Heights, Ohio has initiated an innovative lawsuit against U.S. Bank, a division of U.S. Bancorp, one of the largest banks in the country. This lawsuit is related to a popular type of government-guaranteed mortgage that in fact requires banks to take distinct step if a borrower stops making payments.
In Ferrell’s case, when he fell behind on his mortgage payments, U.S. Bank made no effort to try to work out a payment plan but instead foreclosed on his house.

“They never sat me down and said, ‘It looks like you are going to lose this, so why don’t you do this?” he said. “They never did that.”

While this does not seem a sufficient reason for litigation against one of the biggest banks in the country, the lawsuit will eventually mean legal problems for other mortgage banks as well. It is also the latest in a barrage of cases that have forced banks to pay significant penalties in recent months.

The lawsuit is being handled by Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, a legal aid group. The group is suing the bank in federal court in Ohio and is using the False Claims Act that allows private citizens and groups to use legal action against companies and other entities for receiving payments from the government on false grounds.

The lawsuit will focus on mortgages guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA backs approximately $1.2 trillion worth of loans. According to the legal aid group, the U.S. Bank used false claims to collect payments from the FHA. They did not fulfil the agency’s requirements that banks should take certain steps to work out payment arrangements before declaring that the borrower is in default.

In the lawsuit, it is being claimed that U.S. Bank made 22,586 claims to the FHA between 2001 and 2011 and received nearly $2.37 billion in payments. As per the argument, a large proportion of these claims did not meet FHA requirements related to dealing with borrowers.

According to Andrew Neuhauser, a lawyer for Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, “I’ve been representing homeowners in foreclosure for seven years and I’ve never seen a case when U.S. Bank complied with these regulations.”
While the legal aid group is quite aggressive in its claims, the Justice Department has declined to join the legal action. U.S. Bank is seeing this as a positive sign and is confident that the civil action is without any merit.

The Procter & Gamble Company Given Buy Rating at Bank of America (PG)

The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG)‘s stock had its “buy” rating reiterated by Bank of America in a research note issued on Friday. They currently have a $91.00 price target on the stock, up from their previous price target of $88.00. Bank of America’s price target suggests a potential upside of 8.77% from the company’s current price.

The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) traded up 1.53% during mid-day trading on Friday, hitting $84.94. 6,230,407 shares of the company’s stock traded hands. The Procter & Gamble Company has a one year low of $75.26 and a one year high of $85.82. The stock has a 50-day moving average of $83.7 and a 200-day moving average of $81.33. The company has a market cap of $230.0 billion and a P/E ratio of 20.87. The Procter & Gamble Company also saw a large drop in short interest in September. As of September 15th, there was short interest totalling 25,645,271 shares, a drop of 10.6% from the August 29th total of 28,682,652 shares. Based on an average daily volume of 6,126,356 shares, the short-interest ratio is currently 4.2 days. Currently, 0.9% of the shares of the stock are short sold.

The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) last issued its quarterly earnings data on Friday, August 1st. The company reported $0.95 EPS for the quarter, beating the Thomson Reuters consensus estimate of $0.91 by $0.04. The company had revenue of $20.16 billion for the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $20.48 billion. During the same quarter in the prior year, the company posted $0.79 earnings per share. The company’s quarterly revenue was down .7% on a year-over-year basis. Analysts expect that The Procter & Gamble Company will post $4.43 EPS for the current fiscal year.

PG has been the subject of a number of other recent research reports. Analysts at Zacks reiterated a “neutral” rating on shares of The Procter & Gamble Company in a research note on Monday, September 15th. They now have a $87.00 price target on the stock. Finally, analysts at Citigroup Inc. reiterated a “buy” rating on shares of The Procter & Gamble Company in a research note on Monday, August 4th. They now have a $94.00 price target on the stock, up previously from $92.00. Six analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and five have assigned a buy rating to the company’s stock. The company has an average rating of “Hold” and an average price target of $91.17.

The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) is focused on providing consumer packaged goods.

Originally posted in Mideasttime.