IPRMENTLAW’s Post

Stay tuned with the IPRMENTLAW Weekly Highlights, your weekly dose of the latest happenings on IP, media, and entertainment laws. This week's top highlights have been curated by Ujjawal Bhargava and can be viewed at:https://lnkd.in/dPniRzYW #iprmentlaw #weeklyhighlights #mediaandentertainment

K-Pop Idols Seek Justice in U.S. Courts Amid Foreign Tech Giants' Inaction. K-Pop idols from groups like NewJeans, LE SSERAFIM, and IVE have been harassed by false rumors on YouTube, affecting their reputations. Despite repeated requests for police investigations, these cases have been dismissed. Google Korea, which operates YouTube, has refused to provide information, citing that their servers are overseas. This forced victims to pursue legal action in U.S. courts, where they eventually identified the YouTubers through formal requests. Foreign tech companies often disregard South Korea’s legal system, operating as if above local laws. For example, Telegram has ignored over 200 police requests in 11 years. Companies like Google and Meta appoint local representatives who lack real authority and often deflect questions to their headquarters. When South Korea proposes regulations, these companies push back using U.S. influence. In 2021, IVE member Jang Won-young was targeted by false accusations from the YouTube channel “Taldeok Camp,” which racked up over 160 million views. After Google Korea’s refusal to cooperate, legal action in the U.S. led to the identification and conviction of the YouTuber. Similar actions have been taken for other K-Pop groups. This situation highlights a broader issue of foreign tech giants' disregard for local legal systems, contrasting with domestic platforms like Naver and Kakao that comply with South Korean laws. https://lnkd.in/gdUxG38q #KPop #FakeNews #SocialMedia #Justice #Technology #Google #YouTube #DigitalRights

📖 What are dawn raids? 👉 Thomas Bürger has us covered in this week's Legal Buzzword. Competition authorities carry out "dawn raids" of companies under suspicion of having infringed competition rules. The authorities can impose fines of up to 1% of the total turnover of companies intentionally or negligently obstructing any such antitrust investigation. Recently, the European Commission imposed a fine of EUR 15.9 million for the deletion of incriminating WhatsApp messages during an active raid. 🤔 Want to see a buzzword featured? Let us know in the comment section below! 👇 #WolfTheiss #WTLegalBuzzwordOfTheWeek #LegalTerms #LawOnTheLevel #LegalDefinition #DawnRaids #CompetitionRules #CompetitionLaw

📽️🎬 Navigating the complex world of media, entertainment and telecoms alone is a bit hard. From contract negotiations to defamation claims, but not with the right legal guidance. Whether you’re producing films, managing social media policies, or developing mobile apps, our team of legal experts is here to help you every step of the way. Ready to protect your media assets? Book a FREE consultation today! 📞 0727 158 158 | 🌐 dullo.co.ke #Media # Law #MediaLaw #EntertainmentLaw #TelecomLaw #LegalAdvice #ProtectYourBrand #TuesdayLawFacts #Defamation #IntellectualProperty #FilmLaw #SocialMediaLaw #KenyaLaw #DigitalLaw #TechLaw #CopyrightLaw #BrandProtection #ContentCreation #CreativeIndustry #LegalSupport"

In a world shaped by rapid advancements in technology, the impact of information dissemination through various online platforms has brought about significant legal challenges, particularly in the realm of defamation. As we delve into the intricacies of civil defamation in Malaysia, this write up navigates the evolving landscape, from the rise of social media to the nuances of legal defences. Join us in understanding the key elements, defences, and the importance of managing expectations in defamation cases. #defamation #legaladvice

What is #Article31C? #Article31C safeguards laws that distribute the community’s material resources for the common good (#Article39B) and prevent the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment (#Article39C). Purpose - Enactment: Introduced via the #25thConstitutionalAmendment in #1971 - Response to R.C. #Cooper Case: Addressed the Supreme Court’s decision which invalidated the Banking Companies Act, 1969 - Objective: Shields directive principles under #Articles39B and #39C from challenges against the right to equality (#Article14) and freedoms under #Article19 Legal and Constitutional Challenges #KesavanandaBharatiCase (1973): - Established the “#BasicStructureDoctrine” - Invalidated parts of #Article31C, allowing the court to review laws related to #Articles 39(b) and 39(c) Constitution (#Fortysecond) #Amendment Act, 1976: - Expanded Article 31C’s protection to all directive principles (Articles 36-51) - Clauses 4 and 5 aimed to limit judicial review and prioritise directive principles over certain #fundamentalrights #MinervaMillsCase (1980): - Struck down clauses 4 and 5 of the Forty-second Amendment - Reinforced the limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution - Raised questions about the validity and applicability of Article 31C post-ruling Current Status of Article 31C Scope of Protection: - Article 31C now specifically safeguards laws related to economic policies mentioned in Article 39(b) and(c) - These laws are immune to challenges based on contravention of #Article14 (right to equality) and #Article19 (rights related to business and property) Connect on #what’s app https://lnkd.in/gypqQRTB Connect on #telegram https://t.me/legal_sparks Connect on #instagram https://lnkd.in/gjXEhJdQ

Congress has the right to regulate commerce. But the Chinese may have a point here when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. The mistake is Congress saying TikTok can stay if they sell the platform. It may need to be an outright ban. Regardless, another example of how analog systems governing technology platforms is a necessary but insufficient containment strategy. We must build representative governance from scratch inside the digital realm.

The recent two-hour court session on the lawsuit filed by TikTok and ByteDance sheds light on the ongoing battle to prevent a potential TikTok ban in the US. This case raises significant concerns about the impact of such a ban on free speech and digital rights. As the debate unfolds, key arguments revolve around the balance between national security and individual freedoms. #FreeSpeech #TikTok #TechPolicy #SocialMedia #USLaw #OnlineFreedom #LegalBattle #US #Finance360

The new “TikTok ban” lawsuit. Some initial questions:  • Can a foreign company have First Amendment and other U.S. constitutional protections, and if so under what circumstances?  • Are Section 230 protections at risk for a platform that says it “is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising,” see paragraph 53?   • How much of the government’s national security concern will now become public?   • Is the lawsuit leverage to secure government approval for “Project Texas,” see paragraph 8 and mentioned numerous times? • What other lawsuits might follow (e.g., by users, by other platforms concerned about government overreach)? This will keep lawyers, experts, and the media busy for some time. And judges too, of course. #FirstAmendment #socialmedia #Section230 #nationalsecurity