Wanted: Perfect LawyersWritten by Mart Gil Abareta
In this sometimes cruel world, we can consider lawyers as our knights in shining armor especially during legal proceedings. Do you agree with me? Definitely, I think so. However, I must say that being a lawyer is really never easy. One must have expertise and experience in efficiently representing a client regarding a legal problem. Also, he must have at least gained a reputable name in legal genre to also gain trust and respect from those people who need their legal advice.
As we all know, a lawyer specializes in a certain field of law and handles a wide range of legal matters that can vary due to several factors. This is what makes legal profession a truly complicated and challenging task. Private individuals and business people depend on their lawyers to understand their legal rights and protect their financial interests. Having a good legal advice can help people in complying with and going over complex network of government rules and regulations.
When your assets or independence is at stake, it is pretty obvious that you need legal help from a reputable and proficient attorney. Even though it is a bit discouraging to know fact that you can end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in asking legal assistance from a lawyer, it is actually a real wise investment that can tremendously save you time, money and effort. Also, it can help you keep your properties from these fraudulent individuals and/or prevent criminal sanctions.
Supreme Court Decides Against Grokster In File Sharing DecisionWritten by Richard A. Chapo
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled peer-to-peer sites such as Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus can be held responsible for copyright infringement by their users. In a rare 9-0 decision in favor of Plaintiff MGM, Justices held that a business distributing technology with active intent of promoting copyright violations could not escape liability for subsequent copyright infringements. Although unanimous, ruling is a strained effort to isolate file sharing from other industries.
In arguing their position, Grokster had relied on previous rulings regarding VHS technology. In a 1984 case, Supreme Court ruled makers of VHS recorders could not be held liable for copyright piracy by users of machines. The Court specifically ruled that VHS and any other technology with "substantially non-infringing uses" could not be held responsible if individuals illegally taped movies or shows off of television. Indeed, lower courts had ruled in favor of Grokster using VHS ruling as precedent. So, what's difference between two technologies?
In a somewhat tortured reasoning, Justices distinguished two cases by focusing on "intent" of companies. If a company distributes a technology with intent that it be used by third parties for copyright infringement, then it is responsible. "Intent" is shown by a company making a "clear expression" of such intent or taking affirmative steps in said direction.