Summary: LLC V. Redigi Inc.

Herein will begin with an overview and introduction from personal knowledge of DixieLands Glory, LLC; a small family owned and operated business for the purpose of owning and managing rental properties. The company was initially operated as Warf’s Rentals; in 2003 the business was renamed and incorporated to become DixieLands Glory, LLC. The business is operated from a small office located in the family’s home, which is located in Linden, Tennessee. DixieLands Glory owns, operate, and manage approximately eighty-five rental units ranging from single-family homes to 4-plexes and mobile home parks. The properties that the company owns are mostly located in the states of Tennessee and Alabama. Of this, about 50 percent are located in the family’s hometown of Linden, Tennessee, with the remainder being located in two other Tennessee counties, and Decatur, Alabama.

At Guillien Van Nuland LLC, you will find experienced attorneys who take a compassionate approach to working through divorce and family law issues. Located in La Crosse, WI, the firm serves clients in Monroe, Vernon, Trempealeau, Juneau, and Buffalo counties in Wisconsin, as well as those in Houston and Winona counties in Minnesota.

This case was also cited in PEABODY COAL CO., LLC v. BARNHART., 469 F.Supp.2d 240 (2007) case held in the United States District Court, D. Delaware. The decision on this case was made on January 11, 2007. According to this case, on September 14, 2005, the plaintiffs Peabody Coal Company, LLC (“Peabody”) and Eastern Associated Coal Corporation ("EACC") filed suit against defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart ("Barnhart"), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). Plaintiffs' complaint that Barnhart's (defendant) actions of assigning them (plaintiffs) the responsibility for funding health and death benefits for certain retired coal industry employees violated both § 9706 of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 ("Coal Act"), 26 U.S.C.

The court decided that their needed to be further proceedings for Maureen Davis under negligence and the Alabama State law of having sufficient evidence against Hardees restaurant under Flagstar who didn’t have a strong enough backing or argument to defend that fact that there

In Star Digio’s case, the reproduction of the music by the defendant’s customers was merely an act of personal usage. The duplication of the music was being made within the scope of the customer’s right for their private use. The court relied the on the provision of Article 30 which states that a copyright work being reproduced for the purpose of private usage does not constitute to an infringement. However, there are three steps must be fulfilled before any exception may be made. The steps are as follows:

The internet has made it easier for music to be sold online. On our smartphones, we have the apple store and the play store where music is purchased and downloaded daily. It has also made it easier for people to download and share music files without paying for it. The Maverick Recording Co. v. Harper case highlights this issue.

In the oral contract between Bobby and Red Corporation, I believe the court is most likely to rule in favor of Bobby and award damages for Red Corporation’s breach. In the suit, Red’s attorneys point to the lack a written contract as a way to invalidate it. They do not refute the fact that a contract existed orally. However, only contracts under the statute of frauds must be written to be enforceable. Contracts for employment do not fall under the statute of frauds; therefore, it is not a requirement that they be written to be enforceable. It would certainly be beneficial to have such a contract in writing so that it may be proven easily. It is not a requirement though in this case. If Red Corporation refuted the existence of a contact and

In 2000 the digital music was the next big thing in how consumers listen to music. The technological shift in music changed how the relationship is between the artists, recording companies, promoters and music stores on how they operate today. In the late 90’s and early 2000’s Peer-to-peer (P2P) networks allowed free exchange of music files with companies like Napster and Kazaa was a big step that allowed consumers to store large libraries of music. With the cost of hard drive space going down; it allowed for pocket-sized computers to store more information in a smaller space that open the door for apple to step in with the unveiling of the iPod and iTunes. These systems made it possible for storage and playback that gave consumers the

Since the iTunes music store was introduced on April 28, 2003, gross music sales have plummeted in the United States - from $11.8 billion in 2003 to $7.1 billion in 2012, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (Covert). Counterintuitively, during that time consumers were buying more music than ever. How is that possible? It 's because iTunes had made digital singles popular and was selling them cheap. This would change the music industry forever. In 2000, Americans bought 943 million CD albums (Covert), and digital sales didn’t even make a dent in comparison. But by 2007, those inexpensive singles overtook CDs by a wide margin, generating 819 million sales compared to just 500 million for the CD.

We all know that downloading pirated music and films is illegal, but what exactly is it? The term piracy refers to the copying and selling of music, films and other media illegally; in other words you are copying and selling copyrighted media without the permission of the original owner (NiDirect, n.d.). With the massive growth of the internet and its ability to store and capture vast amounts of data, we have become much more reliable on information systems in all aspects of life, but it does not come without the risk of information technology being used unethically. With the number of IT breakthroughs in recent years “the importance of ethics and human values has been underemphasised” often resulting in various consequences. Not surprisingly one of the many public concerns about the ethical use of IT is that “millions of people have downloaded music and movies at no charge and in apparent violation of copyright laws at tremendous expense to the owners of those copyrights” (Reynolds, Ethics in Information Technology, 2015). This essay covers the ethical issues of downloading pirated music and films and the impact it has on music corporations and recording and film companies.

Introduction: Setting the trend for the future, the distribution and consumption of recorded music transformed dramatically with the launching of Apple’s iTunes in 2001. The proliferation of online music subscription services and other music sharing services exerted a great pressure on the conventional music distribution business model. Combined with this transformation, piracy of digital music had a profound impact on the whole industry. These worsening conditions in the market place for recorded music forced both established and upcoming new artists to experiment with new ways of selling their music.

Producers of musical content cannot undo the adverse effects that piracy has had on the industry. Because of the internet and the way individuals have manipulated it to obtain music, many people are unwilling to change their habits. Here lies the issue between the producer and the consumer. Acts like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) work against the incentive of many consumers by telling them that they cannot do what maximizes their utility. Producers are thus working against the likings of the consumer. This is wrong.

In the midst of the United States’ “dot com bubble” (years 1997-2000), there was a surge in technology that brought about file sharing and digital downloads. Threatening the survival of the music industry and introducing a unique set of challenges for the industry to overcome. To remain relevant in the new global market of digital music online, the music industry would have to evolve and change with the introduction of each new facet technology had to offer. The introduction of digitally compressed music files, so easily attainable for a small fee or downloaded legally (pirated) for free, made the music industry reevaluate how to make a profit and protect copyrights. Social media created a visible opportunity for both consumers and artists to maintain digital relationships while providing a platform for consumers to follow and discover new musicians and bands, naturally, making the internet a promotional medium for artists. As the corner record shops closed to make way for virtual storefronts and instant downloads; the internet, digital downloading, and social media made an enormous impact on the music industry that has changed the way consumers purchase, source, listen to, and produce music today.

While a portion of people may argue that downloading music illegally is used so that one can transfer music to other devices to generate profit, an abounding amount of people realize that downloading music is actually used to transfer music to other devices to avoid paying for additional products (i.e. records, cassette tapes, CDs, etc.). Numerous people claim that people buy CDs just to burn them onto another blank CD to gain a profit. Journalist Stephen Siegel suggests that mp3’s shared through the internet can be used by one who will eventually burn these mp3’s onto a disk and start selling their CDs; this idea is mainly supported by a report from the FBI, stating that “Piracy of copyrighted and trademarked items cost the U.S. economy tax revenue and jobs due to the manufacture, distribution and sale of counterfeit goods” (Gallagher). This provides information that shows that the U.S’s struggles with distributing jobs because of the theft of trademark products. This can ultimately lead to a ruined economy by having the U.S become incapable of giving out jobs, considering the fact that the government takes a portion of income from the employee’s pocket to contribute to taxes. Yet, companies adopt certain tactics to gain extra money than they actually need to by making their customers feel identical to thieves (specifically those ripping mp3’s) when these customers listen to music on other devices without having to pay for extra (and unnecessary)

I believe that at the heart of this controversy is a drive to bring music production into the twenty-first century. Making CD's more accessible, economical and usable benefits all everyone except maybe the CD producers, in the end. Listeners can access music when, where and how they want to for less money, as the have grown accustomed to doing. Musicians cut out the middleman, allowing them to keep more of the profit. This is undoubtedly the future of the industry. While companies are searching for ways to hold on to 90 percent of the profit and to continue to combat illegal downloading, others are negotiating new terrain