Category Archives: Business Law

Information about legal issues affecting small businesses, including big business. The latest news, videos, and discussion topics on Legal Issues involving business and money.

Why YouTube is offering legal support for users threatened with takedowns

In a bid to raise awareness about issues of ‘fair use,’ the site will provide legal aid to four users threatened with takedown notices.

When an online video creator receives a notice instructing them to take down a video because it contains copyrighted material — such as a snippet of a TV show or, until recently, even the song “Happy Birthday” — they often have few options but to comply.

Copyright battles can often prove expensive and drag on for years, presenting a challenge for video creators and for video sharing sites, which have often cracked down harshly in a bid to stop the spread of pirated material.

Now, YouTube is offering an alternative, announcing on Thursday that it will begin providing “legal support” to a handful of users so they can fight claims from copyright holders. If the copyright-holder sues, the tech giant will assist users by paying up to $1 million in legal fees.

The site, which is owned by Google, is offering aid to the creators of four videos that it says meet the standard of fair use, an exemption to US copyright law that allows new projects that make use of copyrighted material in a way that goes beyond the copyright holder’s original intent, for example by commenting, parodying, or satirizing it.

The company says the move is intended to correct some of the power balance that can be directed against content creators in the wake of the controversial 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which implemented digital rights management software often used to protect music or downloadable movies from online piracy.

Full Article – http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/1122/Why-YouTube-is-offering-legal-support-for-users-threatened-with-takedowns

CNN to Show Sex Assault Film Despite Legal Threat

LOS ANGELES — In the face of threatened legal action from the football star Jameis Winston, CNN did not back away from broadcasting “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary about sexual assault on college campuses that has stirred controversy since its January debut at the Sundance Film Festival.

“CNN is proud to provide a platform for a film that has undeniably played a significant role in advancing the national conversation about sexual assault on college campuses,” the network said in a statement. The film was shown on the network at 8 p.m. Eastern time on Sunday.

Mr. Winston, a quarterback for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, is the focus of a segment in “The Hunting Ground.” While attending Florida State University in 2012, Mr. Winston was accused of sexual assault. He asserted his innocence, did not face criminal rape charges and was cleared of violating Florida State’s student code of conduct. The movie, directed by Kirby Dick and produced by Amy Ziering, asserts that Mr. Winston received preferential treatment from officials.

Full Article – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/business/cnn-to-show-sex-assault-film-despite-legal-threat.html?_r=0

Chris Odom: ‘Bitcoins are Not Under Legal Law, They’re Under Cryptographic Law’

By Kyle Torpey Nov 19, 2015 1:30 PM EST

Smart contract is a term that gets thrown around quite often in the Bitcoin community, but the reality is not many people truly understand why these types of cryptographic contracts are useful and secure. Smart contracts can come with varying levels of complexity, and one of the most widely-used smart contracts right now is a basic Bitcoin transaction. At the recent Bitcoin Investor Conference in Las Vegas, Stash Co-Founder Chris Odomexplained the key attribute of a smart contract that makes it different from a legal contract.

Smart Contracts Don’t Need a Court of Law

During his remarks on smart contracts, Chris Odom made it clear that the self-executing properties of these sorts of contracts are what separate them from the legal contracts that have been used in the past. He explained:

“The distinguishing factor of a smart contract is that it’s self executing. It executes on its own. You see, most contracts that people make in the legal world are contracts that are designed so that someday they have to be enforced in the court of law; they have to be legally enforced, and so they’re written that way. They’re written based on, you know, ‘We’re going to expect that if we have to enforce this it will be in a court of law, and therefore, all these terms are written based on that assumption.”

Odom also noted that the point of a smart contract is to — at least partially — avoid the legal system in its entirety. He explained that the preferred smart contracts are the ones that automate the enforcement of the contract and do not require the use of a court:

“The last thing you want on a [smart] contract is something saying that it’s enforceable in court. That, ‘Hey, if you use this smart contract, you’re going to end up in court!’ Who wants to sign that? That’s your worst nightmare. When I’m picking a smart contract, I want something that will securely flow the money properly according to its terms and will not land me in court.”

Smart Contracts Automate the Flow of Money

Another key point made by Odom during his presentation is that smart contracts are mostly about automating the flow of money between the parties associated with a particular contract. Instead of having a judge decide the outcome of a contract, a smart contract can automatically trigger a transfer of funds based on a set of parameters defined by computer code. Odom noted:

“A real smart contract is something that automates money flows. It does escrow; it does surety bonds; it does insurance. These are the sorts of things that we’re building with our smart contracts. They automate the money flow. The money goes in here; after so many days, it automatically goes over there, unless a dispute gets triggered, and then maybe an oracle has to come online — or a dispute mediator or arbitrator.”

Smart Contracts Operate Under Cryptographic Law

During his presentation, Chris Odom also told a short story about a lawyer who was recently trying to understand smart contracts and how they work. Odom told the lawyer there is one important statement that should be included in any smart contract:

“Here’s what you want to put in a smart contract. Here’s how you know when you’re writing a smart contract instead of a normal, legal contract. The first thing you put at the top of the contract is ‘This contract will not be enforceable in a court of law.’”

Odom claims the lawyer did not seem to understand the point of a contract that could not be enforced in a court of law, so he went on to describe his point in further detail:

“First of all, courts of law are not able to enforce these [contracts] anyway. Imagine that you’re in court, and there’s a judge, and she says, ‘I have ruled those bitcoins shall be moved to that address.’ But it doesn’t happen. Even though she has robes, a nice chair, and a bailiff with muscles, the bitcoins don’t move. You have to have the private key to move the bitcoins because bitcoins are not under legal law, they’re under cryptographic law. It’s a new form of law that’s coming into existence.”

In short, smart contracts do not require a court or a judge to be enforced. Not only do these types of contracts not operate within the current legal system, but as Odom explained, it is sometimes impossible to enforce the rule of law on what is essentially nothing more than computer code.


Kyle Torpey is a freelance journalist who has been following Bitcoin since 2011. His work has been featured on VICE Motherboard, Business Insider, RT’s Keiser Report, and many other media outlets. You can follow@kyletorpey on Twitter.

Full Article – http://insidebitcoins.com/news/chris-odom-bitcoins-are-not-under-legal-law-theyre-under-cryptographic-law/35915

Neopets accused of violating California business law

Hoang Tran

Nov. 4, 2015, 9:53am

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A virtual pet game service is facing a lawsuit over allegations it violated California business codes.

John Doe, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit on Oct. 27 in the California Central District Court against Neopets, Inc. for allegedly violating California’s Automatic Renewal Law and California’s Unfair Competition Law, as well as for failure to obtain consumers’ consent and provide acknowledgement of automatic renewal.

The plaintiff alleges that Neopets, which provides a subscription for its virtual pet and games products/services, made automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers throughout California, but failed to present the terms in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants charged the plaintiff’s credit or debit card, or third-party account without first obtaining the plaintiff’s consent. The plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel.

The plaintiff is suing for damages and full restitution in the amount of the subscription payments already made. He also wants injunctive relief, attorney costs and any other rewards deemed just by the court. The plaintiff is represented by Scott J. Ferrell, Richard H. Hikida, David W. Reid and Victoria C. Knowles of the office of Newport Trial Group in Newport Beach, California.

U.S. District Court, California Central District Court Case number 2:15-cv-08395-DMG-PLA

Full Article – http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510646459-neopets-accused-for-violating-california-business-law

Sun Pharma settles US patent litigation with Actavis over skin care drug

 

The settlement is subject to review by the US Federal Trade Commission and the US department of justice, Sun Pharma said. Photo: Bloomberg

Mumbai: Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., a unit of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, has settled a patent litigation with Actavis over the generic version of Absorica, a drug used to treat acne.

Ranbaxy, along with its partners, Cipher Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Galephar Pharmaceutical Research, Inc. have entered into a settlement with Actavis that dismisses the lawsuit relating to Actavis’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for a generic version of Absorica (isotretinoin capsules), Sun Pharma said.

Absorica is used to treat severe recalcitrant nodular acne, a skin disease, in patients 12 years of age and older.

As part of the agreement, Ranbaxy, Cipher and Galephar have entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with Actavis under which Actavis may start selling its generic version of Absorica in the US on 27 December 2020 (nine months before the expiration of the patents in September 2021) or earlier under certain circumstances, it said.

In 2014, Ranbaxy had introduced Absorica 25 mg and 35 mg capsules in the US after the product was licensed from Cipher Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The settlement is subject to review by the US Federal Trade Commission and the US department of justice, Sun Pharma said.

Read Full Article – http://www.livemint.com/Companies/FzFiRFnBqLKVKWbhCBYnfM/Sun-Pharma-settles-patent-litigation-with-Actavis.html