It happens rarely – usually no more than once a century or so – but when it does happen, it always occurs in pairs, eight years apart. It happened in 1761 and again in 1769. It will happen in 2117 and again in 2125. But it also happened in June 2004 and, in a little more than a month from now, at the beginning of June 2012, the second of this eight-year pair is scheduled to take place. What is it?
If you know the answers and are first to send them to me, you’ll win. Send your answers directly to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Last month, we asked you to tell us about the 100th birthday celebration that took place, starting from its humble beginnings on March 6, 1912, in New York.
Thanks to long-time friend and loyal Legal Bytes reader, Sam Dressler, for correctly reminding us that it is the OREO cookie. Happy Birthday, and congratulations Sam!
Back in December of 2010, after a previous ruling against Viacom in the billion-dollar copyright infringement case brought by Viacom (Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling) Legal Bytes reported that three legal scholars filed a brief in support of Viacom’s appeal, stating that “the central issue in this case are the legal tests for contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement from the use of Internet sites – in this instance, the YouTube site – to reproduce and disseminate large amounts of copyrighted material without authorization from copyright owners.” The U.S. District Court had previously ruled in favor of YouTube and Google, holding them protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Today, in ruling on the appeal, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals essentially breathed new life into Viacom’s case, remanding it back to the lower court and instructing the District Court judge to determine whether YouTube had knowledge of specific infringing material and willfully blinded itself to that knowledge.
The ruling vacates the District Court’s summary judgment against Viacom, noting the facts might be interpreted by a reasonable jury in a way that would not exonerate or exculpate YouTube from liability. In his opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes wrote: "We conclude that the District Court correctly held that the 512(c) safe harbor requires knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity, but we vacate the order granting summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website."
As we have over the years, Legal Bytes will continue to monitor developments in this complex, high stakes litigation involving significant intellectual property issues in our online and digital world. If you would like further information, feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.
Back in August 2010, Legal Bytes reported that a New Jersey law applicable to abandoned property (escheat) would effectively alter the tenor and scope of the New Jersey gift card law (see, Gift Cards in New Jersey: It’s Complicated!).
Well today, in an Associated Press article published by ABC News Internet Ventures. Yahoo! – ABC News Network, it is being reported that American Express, which was already pursuing its legal rights and remedies in a law suit filed to overturn the law, has now opted to pull gift cards from retail sale in New Jersey.
The new law would require sellers in New Jersey to capture the ZIP code of everyone who buys a gift card. Monies left on those gift cards bought in New Jersey that lie dormant and unused after two years would then ostensibly be required to escheat to the state. After the law was passed about two years ago, American Express (joining forces with the New Jersey Retail Merchants Association and others), filed suit challenging the new law. Initially, a U.S. District Court issued an injunction against implementing it, but more recently the injunction was removed – perhaps the stimulus for the reported move by American Express.
If you have been coming back to Legal Bytes to keep up with this and other developments in the law of Advertising Technology & Media (“ATM”), you know that Keri Bruce in Rimon’s ATM practice group previously posted a report entitled Gift Cards Tag Along with Credit Card Legislation, noting that federal legislative and regulatory requirements will soon apply to gift cards. You will also see links to a U.S. Gift Card Statutory Chart (Updated), which those of you who work with gift cards and similar financial payment instruments may find helpful; and you already know we follow and advise clients in this area all the time, assisted by a team of financial services regulatory specialists as well.
So if you need help from lawyers who know this area and can provide experienced, practical counsel, contact Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum or Keri Bruce, or your favorite Rimon lawyer, all of whom will be happy to help.
In June 2010, we announced the launch of an initiative focusing on Cloud Computing (‘Transcending the Cloud’ – Rimon Announces White Paper Series & Legal Initiative on Cloud Computing), showcased with a series of individual and topical white papers, in time being compiled into a comprehensive work entitled, “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing.” One of the first in our series was a paper on the state tax implications of cloud computing, entitled: “Pennies From Heaven”
Just as clouds have different shapes, sizes and shades of gray, different states are approaching taxation of cloud transactions differently. Well now, our State Tax practice reports that taxing storm clouds are gathering over Utah. In a marked about-face from the state’s previously issued guidance, the Utah Sales Tax Commission has ruled that web services that charge a fee constitute sale of a service, subject to sales tax. The implication being that mere access of or to an application is enough to subject the provider to a tax liability.
Notable for cloud computing providers, even though the product at issue was access to remotely hosted software that allowed users to conduct webinars "in the cloud," allowing customers to download a free device application for access to that service had the state seeing "software" (sales of which are subject to sales tax in Utah). With at least one state looking at clouds from the application side now, it will be interesting to see if other states quickly follow.
For more information about the Utah ruling, or to stay on top of the developments in the taxation cloud products and platforms, visit www.taxingtech.com. To get legal assistance and guidance from someone who really knows that state of state taxation of cloud computing, contact Kelley C. Miller directly. Of course, you can always find out more about our Cloud Computing initiative or get the assistance you need by contacting me, Joseph I. ("Joe") Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.