29.12.2013

Youtube law of attraction 101

The law library provides guidance to students and faculty performing research on mobile devices including tablets and smartphones. A one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube threatens internet freedom, according to its owner Google. Google's claim follows Viacom's move to sue the video sharing service for its inability to keep copyrighted material off its site. In court documents Google's lawyers say the action "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information" over the web. The search giant's legal team also maintained that YouTube had been faithful to the requirements of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that they responded properly to claims of infringement. In papers submitted to a Manhattan court, Google said it and YouTube "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works". Viacom disagreed that either firm had lived up to that standard and said that they had done "little or nothing" to stop infringement.
In a rewritten lawsuit filed last month, Viacom claimed YouTube consistently allowed unauthorised copies of popular television programming and movies to be posted on its website and viewed tens of thousands of times. It said it had identified more than 150,000 such abuses which included clips from shows such as South Park, SpongeBob SquarePants and MTV Unplugged. The company says the infringement also included the documentary An Inconvenient Truth which had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times".
Viacom, which is asking for damages for the unauthorised viewing of its programming, said its tally represented only a fraction of the content on YouTube that violates its copyrights. Google's vice president of content partnerships David Eun has said: "We're going all the way to the Supreme Court.
After the legal action was first started, YouTube launched an anti-piracy tool that checks uploaded videos against the original content in an effort to flag piracy.
New Mexico trucking accidents: a brief overview of qualifications for drivers, negligent hiring and retention Lawsuits. Law is often a question of blame and litigation ultimately results in the allocation of fault among the parties involved, with each to pay his respective share.
Some might see this as odd; there were only two parties involved in the accident, the truck driver and the plaintiff, so why involve the in the trucking company in a trucking accident? In many instances this is simply the nature of the beast; our society mandates that corporate and other employers be responsible for the harm caused by their employees when they are on the job. It is in the latter scenario that we get concerned, mostly because employers take affirmative steps to place profit above the safety of the public.


Thus, at least in theory, if a driver’s logs are not turned in, or if there is an apparent discrepancy in them, then they should not be allowed on the road.
Trucking companies are required to periodically ensure that their drivers’ vehicle histories are clear, and that their drivers are complying with traffic regulations. This means that they are to look up their employee’s records, and issue disciplinary action especially if traffic violations such as speeding and reckless driving are present. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that safety compliance can ultimately saves lives, decrease injuries and reduce property loss.
Federal law mandates that, upon conviction of traffic violations, a driver must notify his or her employer in writing, and give a detailed description of the violation. As with any personal injury case, we will seek compensation for any medical treatment, funeral services, losses to property, physical pain, or mental suffering incurred in a trucking accident.
Trucking cases are generally more difficult that the average accident case because of additional factors that come to play when an agency relationship exists between the negligent actor and a third party who is responsible for that person’s actions. This simple fact adds a unique filter to the case, especially where evidence exists that the company sanctioned or should have known that the driver posed a risk to the public. This is a little different from the theory of respondeat superior, which allows for employer liability if their employee was on the job, in that the employee does not necessarily have to be on the job to qualify. Applying abstract concepts like this is what we do on a daily basis and we will be happy to explain all of this legal jargon more clearly at your initial consultation with our firm. It is in this divvying up of fault juries are asked to consider how much of the truck accident was due to the defendant truck driver, the plaintiff, or the trucking company involved. The most common forms of such abuses are in logbook falsifications and overlooked safety violations, which make up a large amount of negligent hiring, retention and training cases we, at the Davis Law Firm, have seen. The driver is expected to record his or her “duty status” in a form similar to the one shown above. Only after the driver has acknowledged and fixed the discrepancies should he be allowed back on duty. When a company decides to allow a driver (who they know will likely falsify a log) on the road its corporate officers essentially condone unsafe behavior and extended driving hours, far beyond what our society has deemed safe. The purpose of this is to ensure that reckless drivers are made painfully aware that their disregard for the safety of public is unacceptable. If, for any reason, a driver’s CDL (commercial driver’s license) is revoked or suspended then a company must disqualify and disallow driving until it has been reinstated.
While these basic checks are easily carried out, many companies falsify (or simply do not conduct) legitimate reporting in the interest of keeping cheaper drivers on the road, regardless of the potential safety risks they might pose.


Beyond the general causation and damages that are essential to any case, plaintiffs seeking to establish the claim of negligence in hiring, supervising, or retaining an employee, must prove that company knew, or should have known that, the employee would create an unreasonable risk of injury to the public; and that it was the company’s failure to use ordinary care in training or supervising the employee that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
Here at the Davis Law Firm we specialize in injury cases, and have handled complex trucking accident cases in the past. We are always vigilant in staying up-to-date on all areas of law that could affect your case and we make a living negotiating with insurance adjusters and trucking companies on our clients’ behalf. Every time the driver changes their status they are required to note the municipality and state they are in, or, if on the road, the highway number and nearest milepost, service plaza, or intersecting roadways followed by the name of the nearest city, town, or village and State. If a driver who should have been removed from the road is allowed to drive, and subsequently causes an accident, the trucking company can be held liable for the fact that the driver was even on the road through a negligent hiring and retention lawsuit.
Tired drivers get people killed, and it is the duty of every trucking company to reprimand and supervise its drivers to prevent unnecessary harm their reckless behavior can cause. Just as lawyers have a duty to uphold the constitution, trucking companies also have a duty to follow the duly enacted safety laws of our country. As these are fairly basic regulations, we wonder constantly why companies choose to put the public in danger, rather than requiring and enforcing more stringent requirements relating to safety of operation. Punitive damages are essentially meant to punish the company or driver for reckless or intentional behavior that causes injury to other people. We are fully equipped to go the extra mile to ensure you are compensated for any damages caused by the reckless conduct of a truck driver or negligent trucking company. Greater weight is given to traffic violations which indicate that the driver exhibited disregard for safety of public such as speeding and reckless driving. Such damages are often meant to deter future misconduct, and are directly applicable to companies who placed profits over safety.
Please call us today for a free preliminary discussion of your rights and possible representation in your case. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.



Numerology reading 19 bus
4 mm dc power plug
Decoz numerology life path 9


Comments to «Youtube law of attraction 101»

  1. Shadow writes:
    This turning point show additional life lessons close your eyes and think about a laptop for.
  2. nurane writes:
    Calculate Your with destiny number.
  3. Zayka writes:
    Life path quantity reveals that you have.
  4. Ayshe writes:
    Emotions, laughing and joking and.