<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Entertainment Lawyer</title>
    <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/</link>
    <description>Entertainment Law, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Palm Beach, Broward FL</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:40:11 -0000</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss/</docs>
    <generator>XOOPS</generator>
    <category>News</category>
    <managingEditor>legal at cyberlaw dot info</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>legal at cyberlaw dot info</webMaster>
    <language>en</language>
        
            <item>
      <title>The CyberEntertainment Lawyer</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=98</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;It&#039;s no secret that all forms of entertainment have embraced and migrated to the web. Why? The internet allows you to select what, when, where, and how the new media is delivered. The present technology provides a vast new world of opportunities to those engaged in the entertainment industry, including artists, musicians, producers, actors, writers, production companies, the film industry, radio and television stations, record distributors, game designers, and many more. Notwithstanding, along with this freedom of choice comes several problems that we have not had to address in the past.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=98</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Ten Questions: Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Streaming Media</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=97</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Elliot Zimmerman discusses IP issues facing content creators, owners, and publishers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;by Geoff Daily&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=10254&amp;amp;page=1&amp;amp;c=31&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=10254&amp;amp&quot; title=&quot;www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=10254&amp;amp&quot; rel=&quot;external&quot;&gt;www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=10254&amp;amp&lt;/a&gt;;page=1&amp;amp;c=31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;February 15, 2007&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The questions surrounding intellectual property are too numerous and varied to be boiled down to a checklist the way we&amp;rsquo;ve done with other &amp;ldquo;Ten Questions&amp;rdquo; articles in this issue. Instead, we sat down with Elliot Zimmerman&amp;mdash;a Florida-based entertainment attorney who has represented clients including Aretha Franklin and jazz pianist Ahmad Jamal and others in cases involving copyright and trademarks, and who now specializes in &amp;ldquo;cyberlaw&amp;rdquo; legal issues related to the internet&amp;mdash;to learn a little bit more about IP issues facing content creators, owners, and publishers.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 05:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=97</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Clients In The News :: Luther Campbell for Miami Mayor 2011</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=96</link>
      <description>NBC Miami reports that our client Luther Campbell (2 Live Crew) may run for Mayor of Miami. See the article &lt;a target=&quot;blank&quot; href=&quot;public/Luther4Mayor.pdf&quot; alt=&quot;Luther Campbell, 2 Live Crew, for Miami Mayor 2011&quot;&gt; here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;center&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align:center;width:300px;padding-top:3px;&quot;&gt;&lt;object width=&quot;294&quot; height=&quot;193&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;movie&quot; value=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/v/tkSJ0whcWEc&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;allowFullScreen&quot; value=&quot;true&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;allowscriptaccess&quot; value=&quot;always&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/v/tkSJ0whcWEc&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&quot; type=&quot;application/x-shockwave-flash&quot; allowscriptaccess=&quot;always&quot; allowfullscreen=&quot;true&quot; width=&quot;294&quot; height=&quot;193&quot;&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mp3skull.com/mp3/luther_luke_campbell.html&quot;&gt;luther luke campbell mp3 download&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/center&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=96</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Cloud Law</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=95</link>
      <description>&lt;H4&gt;Cloud Law Systems :: Cloud Law Office Practice Management and Billing Software&lt;/H4&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cloudlawsystems.com&quot; target=&quot;blank&quot;&gt;CLOUD LAW&lt;/a&gt; is downloadable software, available at &lt;a target=&quot;blank&quot;  href=&quot;http://cloudlawsystems.com&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cloudlawsystems.com&quot; title=&quot;http://cloudlawsystems.com&quot; rel=&quot;external&quot;&gt;http://cloudlawsystems.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, you install on your own web server that provides web based law practice management applications and services designed specifically for lawyers by lawyers. With &lt;a href=&quot;http://cloudlawsystems.com&quot; target=&quot;blank&quot;&gt;CLOUD LAW&lt;/a&gt;, your paperless virtual law office is conveniently centrally located at your web site and comes right out of the box with all the features you need for 5 attorneys to have 24/7 access. With internet access, law firms can do anything anywhere at anytime from one secure location.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:10:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=95</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Principal Sued Individually for Chilling Student&amp;#039;s 1st Amendment Rights</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=94</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Pembroke Pines, FL. In &lt;em&gt;Katherine Evans v. Peter Bayer&lt;/em&gt;, US District Court for the Southern District of FL (2008), Magistrate Judge Barry Garber ruled against Peter Bayer&#039;s, Principal of Pembroke Pines Charter High School, motion to dismiss the case against him individually for suspending Katherine Evans, a senior, who set up a Facebook page to complain about her teacher. Magistrate Garber agreed that Evans&#039; First Amendment rights were chilled and Bayer had personal exposure to suit. Read the complaint &lt;a href=&quot;public/evans_complaint.pdf&quot; target=&quot;blank&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=94</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Toronto Radio Podcast on Cyberbullying</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=92</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Toronto Radio NewsTalk 1010 host Jamie Hofing interviewed Elliot Zimmerman on Dec. 16, 2009 regarding whether students have a right to be mean online. A recent LA Times article reported that a Beverly Hills school suspended an 8th grade student who posted a video on YouTube with several other students calling yet another student &quot;spoiled,&quot; a &quot;brat,&quot; and a &quot;slut.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;public/righttobemean.pdf&quot; target=&quot;blank&quot;&gt;Read the article here.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;center&gt;&lt;object width=&quot;165&quot; height=&quot;38&quot; data=&quot;http://cyberlaw.info/flash/niftyplayer.swf?file=http://cyberlaw.info/public/Elliot Zimmerman.mp3&amp;amp;as=0&quot; type=&quot;application/x-shockwave-flash&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;src&quot; value=&quot;http://cyberlaw.info/flash/niftyplayer.swf?file=http://cyberlaw.info/public/Elliot Zimmerman.mp3&amp;amp;as=0&quot; /&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;quality&quot; value=&quot;high&quot; /&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;pluginspage&quot; value=&quot;http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer&quot; /&gt;&lt;/object&gt;&lt;/center&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The suspended student took the case to federal court, saying her free speech rights had been violated. See &lt;em&gt;J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District,&lt;/em&gt; Case No. 08-cv-03824, California, U.S. District Court (2009). Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson sided with her. &quot;To allow the school to cast this wide a net and suspend a student simply because another student takes offense to their speech, without any evidence that such speech caused a substantial disruption of the school&#039;s activities, runs afoul of the law,&quot; wrote Judge Wilson in a 60 page opinion.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=92</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Embedded Metadata Subject to Discovery</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=93</link>
      <description>The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, October 29, 2009, in &lt;i&gt;Lake vs. City of Phoenix,&lt;/i&gt; CV-09-0036-PR that:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Arizona law provides that public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours. Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) §§ 39-121 (2001). The City of Phoenix denied a public records request for metadata in the electronic version of a public record. We today hold that if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a target=&quot;blank&quot; href=&quot;http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2009/CV090036PR.pdf&quot;&gt;Click here to read the full opinion.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:40:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=93</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Kaleidescape Ruling Overturned</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=91</link>
      <description>On August 12, 2009, just one day after Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled against RealNetworks, Inc. and RealNetWorks Home Entertainment, Inc. (&quot;RealNetworks&quot;) granting DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. (&quot;DVD CCA&quot;) and several motion picture studios a preliminary injunction that prevents RealNetworks from selling or licensing its RealDVD software [&lt;i&gt;RealNetworks, Inc. et al. v. DVD CCA et al.&lt;/i&gt;, Case No. C 08-04548 MHP (N.D. Ca. 2008)], the California Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District (Santa Clara) overturned a trial court&#039;s finding that Kaleidescape, Inc.&#039;s DVD copy product did not violate its DVD CCA contract. &lt;a target=&quot;blank&quot; href=&quot;public/20090812-kaleidescape.pdf&quot;&gt;Click here to see the Order in &lt;i&gt;DVD CCA v. Kaleidescape, Inc.&lt;/i&gt;, Case No.  H031631 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV031829)&lt;/a&gt;. The appellate court remanded the case for trial.&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;See related article &lt;a href=&quot;article.php?storyid=90&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Judge Patel Gets Real&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:40:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=91</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Judge Patel Gets Real</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=90</link>
      <description>On August 11, 2009, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled against RealNetworks, Inc. and RealNetWorks Home Entertainment, Inc. (&amp;quot;RealNetworks&amp;quot;) granting DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. (&amp;quot;DVD CCA&amp;quot;) and several motion picture studios a preliminary injunction that prevents RealNetworks from selling or licensing its RealDVD software. See &lt;i&gt;RealNetworks, Inc. et al. v. DVD CCA et al.&lt;/i&gt;, Case No. C 08-04548 MHP (N.D. Ca. 2008). &lt;a target=&quot;blank&quot; href=&quot;public/20090811-real-dvd-ruling.pdf&quot;&gt;Click here to read the 58 page Order and Memorandum&lt;/a&gt;. The court found that RealNetworks&#039; DVD copy software, which decrypts copy protection, violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and RealNetworks&#039; contract with the DVD CCA.&lt;p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:35:36 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=90</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>No Attorneys Fees For Dismissal Of Copyright Case</title>
      <link>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=89</link>
      <description>In &lt;i&gt;Cadkin v. Loose&lt;/i&gt;, 569 F.3d 1142 (9&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Cir. 2009), the Ninth  Circuit held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice &lt;i&gt;does not&lt;/i&gt; confer  prevailing party status for a claim brought under the Copyright Act.  Accordingly, Defendant was not entitled to attorneys&#039; fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act which provides that the court may, in its discretion, award full costs, including reasonable attorneys&#039; fees, to the prevailing party in a claim arising under the Copyright Act.  17 U.S.C. § 505.  The Court overruled &lt;i&gt;Corcoran v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.&lt;/i&gt;, 121 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir. 1941) in light of  &lt;i&gt;Buckhannon Bd. &amp; Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep&#039;t of Health &amp; Human Res.&lt;/i&gt;, 532 U.S. 598, because &quot;prevailing party&quot; status turns on whether there has been a &quot;material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.&quot; In &lt;i&gt;Oscar v. Alaska Dep&#039;t of Educ. &amp; Early Dev.&lt;/i&gt;, 541 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit recently held that a dismissal without prejudice does not alter the legal relationship of the parties in a similar fee shifting statute.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:40:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://entertainmentlawyer.pro/modules/news/article.php?storyid=89</guid>
    </item>
      </channel>
</rss>
