We all remember “Captain Sully” and his seemingly miraculous safe landing of an airliner in the Hudson River several years ago. He maneuvered the airplane expertly at just the right angle and with just the right speed to glide it onto the water without sinking it. Chapter 11 bankruptcy has the same goal for struggling businesses – a soft landing instead of a crash.

This aspect of the United States Bankruptcy Code differs from the more familiar Chapters 7 and 13 in that Chapter 11 isn’t designed primarily to erase debt, but to restructure it. Chapter 11 protection generally is not available to individuals, but only to businesses. Many companies find Chapter 11 bankruptcy to be a valuable tool for remaining in operation despite financial strains, and often emerge from Chapter 11 stronger and more competitive.

American Airlines is the most recent high-profile company to seek Chapter 11 protection. In fact, American Airlines is the last major airline from the pre-deregulation days to file for protection. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the rise in oil prices, along with the economic downturn, airlines were hit particularly hard. Their plight, along with other industries such as auto manufacturing and entertainment, make the promise of reorganization under Chapter 11 appealing to struggling businesses.

Chapter 11 reorganization is an option for companies with expected revenues that are of greater value than the amount that could be realized if their assets simply were liquidated. A business in Chapter 11 continues to operate in its usual manner, and the company generally remains under the control of its ownership.  Usually, no trustee is appointed nor is there any direct supervision by the court. While companies can continue to do business as usual, they cannot enter into any major expansions or alter their scope of business in any significant manner.

The centerpiece of a Chapter 11 plan is the development of a payment plan. The business discloses all of its assets and liabilities to the court, and suggests a plan by which its creditors can be paid, at least in part. Sometimes it is necessary to cancel or modify certain contracts, or for a company to curtail operations to some extent by reducing sites of operation, employees or product lines. Unlike other forms of bankruptcy, creditors in a Chapter 11 case have significant power to affect the terms of a proposed plan, although ultimately the decision rests with the bankruptcy judge.

Other than creditors, other groups that may be affected by a Chapter 11 plan are employees and vendors. A restructuring plan can require that labor agreements and supply contracts be modified or rejected if such decisions would be beneficial to the business and its creditors. Such a move makes it possible for a business to renegotiate more favorable terms with its union employees and set new prices for materials and services supplied by vendors.

Once a plan is in place, the company must adhere to its terms. If problems arise, a trustee could be appointed, the plan could be adjusted or the company could cease operations. Generally, though, a well-conceived reorganization plan will make it possible for a company to regain its footing, steady its position in the marketplace, and move forward to the benefit of its creditors, employees, suppliers and the general public.

Posted by Jennifer on December 13, 2011 at 2:39pm.

As you have probably heard, businesses and law firms are slashing costs at every level.  Unfortunately, this does not mean cost-cutting starts or ends with the elimination of frills like entertainment expense accounts and bonuses, either.  Your friends are talking about lay-offs, you’re waiting longer for services because of understaffing, and now an “I” exists in your support staff “team” because only one support personnel is left in your department.  That’s right, you’ve probably noticed less chatter at the water cooler, and one or more once-occupied offices are barren and cold spaces that people only acknowledge in soft whispers after 5pm.   It seems by necessity everyone left has acquired several additional job duties; as a result, you and your remaining colleagues are assigned more work.

In fact, you’re overworked.  You may grimace and bear it for the first couple of weeks because you’re glad it wasn’t you that “got let go.”  But, as time goes on, and as you find yourself consistently working in excess of forty (40) hours per week—late or through lunch, and occasionally on the weekend in order to complete ever more demanding tasks required by your recently acquired job duties—you start to wonder when it will end.  You get the feeling that you’re underpaid, but you’re afraid to discuss the situation with your supervisor because now does not really seem like the time to complain.  Still, something about moonlighting your daytime responsibilities seems unfair.

Let me be the first to say, maybe you deserve additional pay.  No, not because you’re educated and have a sense of entitlement stemming from having been slightly coddled much of your life, but because it’s what the law requires.  The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was drafted to protect against these types of abuses by employers and says certain employees must be paid time and a half for any time worked over forty (40) in a workweek—potentially everything from answering an evening email from your boss to heading to the post office to drop off those TPS reports after work, and every work-related action in between.  Every minute over forty (40) hours spent working in a week is potentially compensable at time and a half.  Some employees are “exempt” and thus not entitled to this overtime pay, but many more are unfairly mischaracterized by their employers as exempt as a way for the employer only to save a ton of cash by avoiding paying overtime.

The most well-known and broadest categories of exempt employees are “Executive, Administrative, or Professional personnel” (note:  that’s you, attorneys.  Sorry.).  You may think you automatically fall into one of these seemingly broad categories based on your job title alone—but the categories are not well-defined, and if you have any question about whether you are entitled to back-wage overtime pay (and other money), you should consult an attorney.  The consultation is likely free, and, potentially, so is the entire representation.

It may be worth looking in to. In your spare time.

Posted by Adam on May 3, 2011 at 1:09pm.

How many online accounts do you have? Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Tumblr, YouTube, LinkedIn, blogs, online banking, email—the list goes on. Because of this, you may stick around for a lot longer than you had planned. Many new companies, like DataInherit, My Web Will and AssetLock are offering services to take care of your web presence after your death. Another option is to leave instructions for someone with your passwords, usernames and what you would like done with the accounts. However, some material may be too sensitive (private emails, financial accounts) for that approach; the wrong people might end up with information you don’t want revealed. It should also be kept separate from a will, which becomes public record—meaning your account passwords would become public record if they aren’t changed. However, different websites have different “terms of service” which may make is difficult for the average person to navigate, say John Romano and Evan Carroll, the authors of the book Your Digital Afterlife and founders of the site The Digital Beyond.

Facebook, for example, can either delete a deceased person’s page or memorialize it, meaning friends can write condolences and other things on the page, if shown a death certificate or news item reporting the death. To access a deceased person’s account, Gmail requires proof of death, an email you received from the person and proof “that you are the lawful representative of the deceased’s estate.” Twitter will terminate the account and/or provide the family with an archive of the deceased’s tweets.

Yahoo, on the other hand, which owns photo-sharing site Flickr, doesn’t allow accounts to be transferred. They will delete the account and all of its contents upon proof of death, so it’s important to back up any photos hosted on the site or request that an executor back up the photos before providing Yahoo with a death certificate.

It’s always important to think about how you’re being represented on the internet, but you don’t want to leave it up to the service providers to decide what happens to your online legacy.

Posted by Nancy on March 22, 2011 at 5:30pm.

The divorce rate in the United States is often cited as at least 50 percent, a daunting statistic for those considering marriage. However, the most recent census data puts the figure a bit lower, around 36 percent. Despite the decline, divorce and family law affects many adults and children in the U.S. Visitation rights are often a point of contention in divorce agreements, especially when the parent with primary custody seeks to move out-of-state. Ten years ago, most divorces ended in one parent getting sole custody, usually the mother. Today, an increasing amount of divorces result in joint custody of the children. In states with more restrictive rulings on this issue, if the move is good for the parent, it is considered good for the child(ren) as well, and the other parent is faced with the task of proving it would be detrimental to their relationship. In more lenient states, the custodial parent has to prove the move would not harm the relationship.

Recently, though, the use of internet video technology has changed the way some courts deal with visitation rights. Last year, Illinois made it legal for judges to enforce “virtual visitation,” where parents talk to their children using online video chat programs like Skype, iChat, or Google Voice. This option allows parents to keep in touch with children who have been moved far away and is one step beyond a mere voice telephone call. Utah was the first state to adopt similar legislation in 2004 when a father fought for guaranteed virtual visitation rights when his ex-wife wanted to move to Wisconsin. He now runs the website internetvisitation.org. In 2010, a New York judge ruled that a mother who wished to move with her children to Florida must allow their father to communicate with them via Skype. Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin also have virtual visitation laws. Contact over the internet can also be used in situations where the parent hasn’t been granted in-person visitation, or if the parent is incarcerated. It is especially helpful when the parent with custody is uncooperative—as much as 77 percent of non-custodial fathers face “some form of visitation interference,” according to the Huffington Post.

However, some critics say virtual visitation will lead judges to allow more move-aways and allow farther distances than they would if video chatting were not an option. They also stress that internet communication should supplement in-person visitations, not replace it. While video chatting, emailing, and text messaging certainly makes it easier for far-away parents to keep in touch, is it enough? Has the internet improved your ability to talk to your kids, or is it simply more impersonal and quick?

Posted by Nancy on February 17, 2010 at 12:58pm.

Eavesdropping may sound like harmless fodder for Jane Austen novels and nosy neighbors. However, recording conversations can be considered an invasion of privacy—and not just conversations where the participants don’t know they’re being recorded. This can be an issue for journalists, law enforcement, politicians and even businesspeople.

In an age when anyone can easily record at a moment’s notice on a cell phone, digital camera or other mobile device, eavesdropping legislation has come under review. Federal law prohibits recording private wireless phone calls without consent. Thirty-eight states require only one-party consent during in-person conversations and phone calls; that is, if you are part of the conversation, you don’t have to tell the other person you’re recording it. California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington require the consent of everyone in the conversation to legally record.

However, the Illinois Eavesdropping Act is being challenged by the ACLU after felony charges were filed against people filming police officers making an arrest in a public place. Prosecutors said it violated the law because the police did not consent to being recorded. The Illinois law is one of the most extensive, applying even to conversations in a public area that anyone would be able to hear normally without the consent of all parties. Representatives for the police say the law protects officers from being afraid to do their job. The ACLU says it’s a double standard—police record people they pull over all the time, why shouldn’t citizens be able to record the encounter to ensure their rights are protected?

Hidden cameras with audio or the use of wiretapping (to record a conversation that you are not privy to), though, is generally illegal without a court order. Even taping under a one-party consent law will get you in trouble if it’s used to “further a criminal or tortious purpose,” such as blackmail. If you are taping a private conversation for journalistic purposes or otherwise, be sure to include the consent on the recording to cover your bases.

What do you think about the disparity in consent laws? Should police officers be subject to the same scrutiny as those they arrest?

Posted by Nancy on January 26, 2011 at 3:26pm.

2010 was a year of groundbreaking legislation and legal controversy, from Wikileaks to campaign contributions to BP’s oil spill. However, a few stood out more than others. My top three legal stories of the year and the ones to watch in 2011:

Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy

Although Democrats lost the majority in the House of Representatives, the lame-duck period was one of substantial activity. In a historic and across-the-aisle vote, the House and the Senate voted to repeal the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy, which essentially banned gays in the military. The measure came about in 1993 as a compromise between barring gays and lesbians outright and allowing them to serve openly. Sodomy has been grounds for discharge since 1778, and Congress enacted anti-gay military policies in the 1940s, 1960s and 1980s. Bills to repeal DADT were introduced to both the Senate in the House in 2005, 2007 and 2009. President Obama made it part of his campaign while running for office and promised repeatedly in the past two years to end the discriminatory policy. The Department of Defense released a report in November stating that 70 percent of military personnel felt that allowing gays to serve opening would have a mostly mixed and positive reaction or no consequence at all. The repeal passed in the House on December 15 and passed in the Senate on December 18, despite Senator John McCain’s efforts to filibuster, which he did successfully in September. Obama signed the bill into law on December 22, but the repeal will not go into effect immediately. First, Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have to certify that they have reviewed the predicted effects in the Defense Department report and put an implementation policy into place, followed by a 60-day waiting period. Opponents have voiced concerns about gay and straight same-sex service members living in such close quarters and that open gays and lesbians will be a distraction on the battlefield. Over 13,000 troops have been discharged as a result of DADT since 1993, so it will be interesting to see who will step forward and become the first serving, openly gay member of the military.

Passage of Obama’s Healthcare Plan

Earlier in the year, Congress passed another historic bill: healthcare reform. This was one of the big issues in Obama’s presidential bid, so it was a crucial piece of legislation for his administration and the Democrats. Formally called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it’s arguably the biggest social reform since Medicare. It passed in the House and the Senate in late March without a single vote from Republicans in either chamber. The Republican Party opposed the plan because they say it’s unconstitutional to force people to purchase something, the bill encroached on states’ rights and it originally allowed for federal funding of abortion services. The plan will go into effect gradually over the next four years. Within the first year, children will be able to be covered on their parents’ plans until they are 26, insurance providers won’t be able to refuse children with pre-existing conditions or cancel policies when the recipient becomes ill. By 2014, electronic health records will be required and everyone will have to buy a healthcare plan or pay a penalty (over $2,000 per household by 2016). However, a federal judge in Virginia ruled the compulsory coverage part of the act unconstitutional on December 13. Attorney David Rivkin, representing a multi-state lawsuit comprised to 20 state Attorney Generals, argued that the Obama administration’s justification for this portion of the law could “allow regulation of any behavior with an economic impact.” The Justice Department, representing the administration, maintains that healthcare isn’t a commodity, so it isn’t unconstitutional. Automobile insurance is also required, but the logic is that buying a car isn’t. So, if you choose to buy a car, you must buy insurance as well. The state of Florida filed suit against the federal government a few days after the Virginia decision and was soon joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah. 32 Republican Senators have filed friend-of-the-court briefs (testimonies not solicited by the defense or prosecution), as did as Speaker of the House-elect John Boehner. The case will likely make its way to the Supreme Court; its defeat would be a huge blow to Obama.

Arizona Immigration Law

A controversial and oft-contested law that passed this year was Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration bill—the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Signed into law by the Governor Jan Brewer in April and set to go into effect July 29, the act makes it a misdemeanor for aliens to be without the necessary immigration documents and instructs police to act if they have reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally. U.S. Federal law already requires immigrants to carry proof of their legal status on their person—violation can result in a misdemeanor charge, a $100 fine and up to 30 days of jail time. The controversy with the Arizona law seems to be the provision that obligates law enforcement to ask about people’s immigration status; most other states discourage this sort of thing because they fear it will dissuade people from cooperating with police investigations and reporting crimes. Although illegal immigration is certainly a hot-button issue nationwide, it’s an even more pressing topic in Arizona, where the majority of Border Patrol arrests take place and there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants living. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a challenge against the act’s constitutionality, claiming it violates the supremacy of the federal government in trying to regulate immigration, and succeeded in getting a federal judge to pass a temporary injunction the day before it was to go into effect. The ACLU also had the same objection to the Arizona law. The group is one of fourteen organizations and ten people that filed a joint class-action lawsuit in May in opposition to the immigration law. After the temporary injunction in July, Arizona appealed the case and arguments were made to the Ninth Circuit court in November. An Arizona state senator predicted the case will go to the Supreme Court. The decision will affect not only the government’s stance on illegal immigration, but also states’ rights, which could open up a whole new set of issues for 2011.

What do you think were some of the most important legal issues of 2010?

Posted by Nancy on January 5, 2011 at 12:57pm.

It could be said that Wikileaks is an equal opportunity whistleblower. It has leaked documents not only against the United States government, but also the Somali government, Kenyan leaders, Swiss bank Julius Baer, the Church of Scientology, Sarah Palin, Iran, Peru, the British Ministry of Defense and climate scientists, to name a few. Its foundations are murky at best, and the source of its funding is equally mysterious. Australian Julian Assange has emerged as the spokesperson, apparent “editor-in-chief” and maybe-founder of Wikileaks.

As anyone following the news knows, Wikileaks has gained a massive amount of attention for leaking hundreds of thousands of documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan earlier this year and U.S. State Department diplomatic cables last month. Disclosure of the cables, which were private correspondence, poses a problem for the Obama Administration. While the leaks are certainly embarrassing, some argue that they put national security at risk. For example, the Afghan War Diary named many Afghan informants; revealing their identities obviously put them at risk of being killed, but Wikileaks refused to redact the names.

This issue hearkens back to 1971 when the Pentagon Papers were leaked and published in the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Johnson Administration got a temporary injunction to stop publication, claiming the documents were a threat to national security. In a matter of weeks, the Supreme Court disagreed and allowed the Pentagon Papers to continue to be published. Although the Wikileaks documents do not put the war in a favorable light, it can hardly be said they had the same impact on the war or the opinion of the people as the Pentagon Papers did regarding Vietnam.

Assange recently said that if the U.S. attempted to bring legal action against him, he’d release thousands more cables. It’s unclear if there is even a case against him. While whoever gave him the documents could be prosecuted, Assange and Wikileaks did not do anything illegal to obtain them. Journalists are generally protected in this kind of situation. If the journalist’s hands are clean, the courts will say to look at the type of information. It is truly private, then its publication would most likely violate privacy laws. If the information is of public concern, however, journalists are typically able to publish it because the courts don’t want journalists to have to ask “twenty questions” about how the information was obtained; instead, they should focus on the nature of the information and whether it should be made public. But then again, what are the requirements that determine who is a journalist? A degree? Their employer? Freelancers? Bloggers? Can Assange be considered a journalist?

Some critics, like Senator Joe Lieberman, are saying even the New York Times should be prosecuted for republishing the Wikileaks cables. Columbia University students were told that discussing Wikileaks on social media like Facebook or Twitter could jeopardize their chances of getting State Department jobs. PayPal stopped processing donations to Wikileaks, and Amazon.com pulled the use of their servers.

Is Wikileaks an essential watchdog organization? Did they have the right to publish those documents? Many, like Salon.com’s Dan Gillmor say traditional journalists should defend Wikileaks, because an attack on the site is an attack on free speech. However, though many leaks have exposed corruption, they also have shown a complete disregard for the safety of those involved: besides revealing Afghan informants names, they published a full list of the names of the far-right British National Party complete with home addresses. When a hacker got into Sarah Palin’s email, instead of publishing the relevant, work-related content, Wikileaks also published the email addresses of Palin’s friends and family. Is that information of public concern? Probably not.

Most recently, Assange was arrested in London on sexual assault charges and faces extradition to Sweden. His lawyer says the U.S. is also seeking to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act. Assange was granted bail this morning (reportedly paid for by several people including controversial filmmaker Michael Moore) but will remain in jail for now as Sweden is appealing the bail decision.

What do you think?

Posted by Nancy on December 17, 2010 at 2:06pm.

Admit it, it’s a bit strange when someone you haven’t talked to in years “friends” you on Facebook, but you disregard your hesitations and accept because who wouldn’t mind a few extra “friends?” After all, according to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s unofficial mission is to make “the world more open and connected,” and in regards to using Facebook as a connecting tool, what’s wrong with seeking out some old friends with its help? That person who contacted you out of the blue could simply be reaching out to an old classmate just because they wanted to see what the connection between the two of you could bring. It could be that this person is starting work in a field in which they noticed you have been working for some time, and your hypothetical friendship could allow you to help them further their career. That would be a positive example of Facebook making the world more open and connected wouldn’t it? And most of the time this is how Facebook works, making it an excellent social tool. However, there are a few things that some Facebook users do or share that simply are not things that need to be on Facebook.

The whole social networking phenomenon has millions of Americans sharing everything from photos and favorite songs, to their birthdates and details about when and where they went to school. Some people are offering these precious details, on sites like Facebook, to whoever would care to look. A Consumer Reports survey found that more than half of adults who use social networks post information that puts them at risk for identity theft and other cyber crimes, and more often than not these people are unaware that they are putting themselves at such risk.

A survey of 2,000 U.S. households in January showed 9% of those who used social networks were indeed victims of either malware, identity theft, or scams of harassment within the last year

No one wants cyber criminals to rob them blind, but that is a risk a person is assuming should they decide to offer too many personal details on their Facebook page. The people at Insure.com add that ill-advised Facebook postings increasingly can get insurance policies cancelled or cause significantly increased payments for everything from auto to life insurance coverage. And by now, almost everybody knows that those drunken party photos could even cost you a job, too.

You can certainly enjoy networking and sharing photos, but you should know that sharing some information puts you at risk. Although what really constitutes risky information? What should you never say on a social networking site?

Here’s a handy list of things users should stop posting on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or any other social network:

Your Birth Date and Place
Sure, you can say what day you were born, but if you provide the year and where you were born too, you’ve just given identity thieves a key to stealing your financial life. A study done by Carnegie Mellon showed that a date and place of birth could be used to predict most — and sometimes all — of the numbers in your Social Security number.

Your Current Home Address
It should be obvious that it’s unnecessary to include your home address on your Facebook page, after all, your real friends already know where you live. A study recently released by the Ponemon Institute found that users of social media sites were at greater risk of physical and identity theft because of the information they were sharing. Some 40% listed their home address on the sites; 65% didn’t even attempt to block out strangers with privacy settings. And 60% said they weren’t confident that their “friends” were really just people they know.

Your Phone Numbers
Watch where you post your phone number. Include it in your profile and, depending on your privacy settings, even your most distant Facebook “friends” (think exes, elementary school contacts, friends-of-friends) might be able to access it and give you a ring. Sharing it with Facebook Pages can also get you in trouble. Developer Tom Scott created an app called Evil that displays phone numbers published anywhere on Facebook. According to Scott, “There are uncountable numbers of groups on Facebook called ‘lost my phone!!!!! need ur numbers!!!!!’ [...] Most of them are marked as ‘public’, and a lot of folks don’t understand what that means in Facebook’s context — to Facebook, ‘public’ means everyone in the world, whether they’re a Facebook member or not.”

Your Every Waking Moment
Facebook is not Twitter, although it is understandable to not know the difference. Your updates sound the same when you try to be insanely prolific and most people do not care what you’re doing every thirty minutes. If they do, perhaps they have an ulterior motive, like maybe they’re curious to know when you are usually away from home so they can pay your house a visit.

Statuses Mentioning Being Away From Home
Don’t post status updates that mention when you will be away from home, advises New York Times columnist Ron Lieber. When you broadcast your vacation dates, you might be telling untrustworthy Facebook “friends” that your house is empty and unwatched. “[R]emind ‘friends’ that you have an alarm or a guard dog,” Lieber writes.

Confessionals
You may hate your job; lie on your taxes; or be a recreational user of illicit drugs, but this is no place to confess. Employers commonly peruse social networking sites to determine who to hire — and, sometimes, who to fire. Need proof? In the not-so-distant past, an emergency dispatcher was fired in Wisconsin for revealing drug use; a waitress got canned for complaining about customers, and the Pittsburgh Pirate’s mascot was dumped for bashing the team on Facebook. One study done last year estimated that 8% of companies fired someone for “misuse” of social media.

Scandalous or Drunken Photographs
By now, nearly everyone knows that racy, illicit, or otherwise incriminating photos posted on Facebook can cost you a job (or worse). But even deleted photos could come back to haunt you. Here’s a simple rule to live by when posting photographs of yourself and allowing yourself to be tagged in photographs: if you wouldn’t show them to your parents, you’re not going to want to show them to the Facebook community. Employers and co-workers can and will get a hold of these pictures and you will be fired for them. Unfair? It may be, but putting these pictures on the internet gives employers the right to find them. So consider the possibility that everyone will someday see the photos you’re posting to Facebook before you do.

In the end, a little commonsense when using social media sites can prevent unnecessary trouble for you later.

Posted by Alex on December 6, 2010 at 1:08pm.

The infamous shut-down of Napster in 2001 was not the end of illegal file sharing. Despite the lawsuits brought (and won) against the company, new peer-to-peer programs such as Limewire and Acquisition popped up. A few weeks ago, however, the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) got the court to pass an injunction ordering Limewire to immediately disable its software that allows for searching, downloading and trading. The injunction said that Limewire’s software knowingly “allows for [copyright] infringement on a massive scale.”

The RIAA also managed the suit against Napster. This time, the plaintiffs represented big-time record companies like Sony Music, Motown Records, Arista Records, Capitol Records, Interscope Records and Warner Bros. Records, among others. This decision has been four years in the making—the RIAA filed in 2006—and isn’t over yet. New York Federal District Judge Kimba M. Wood also held that the file sharing company is liable for damages for violating copyright law in billions of illegal downloads. Federal law allows for up to $150,000 in damages per copyrighted song, so the amount could potentially be enormous.

Since the late October injunction, a pirated version of Limewire—that still allowed file sharing— came out, and the RIAA accused Limewire of violating the injunction. However, this version of the software appears to be distributed by someone else, and Limewire claims it has no affiliation with “Meta Pirate,” the individual publishing the software. The RIAA asked the court to appoint a receiver, who would investigate and make sure Limewire was complying with the injunction.

Limewire users have still been able to work software that has already been downloaded and installed. PCMag.com has also pointed out that by shutting down Limewire, downloaders will probably just move to new software; the record labels missed their chance at making Limewire a paying community. Others have said that the loss to record companies is negligible and should even be considered free advertising since users share music.

Can Limewire users be held liable for damages as well? Only a handful of people have been prosecuted and ordered to pay tens of thousands in damages—one mother was ordered to pay over $1 million for downloading 24 songs—so it’s unclear whether the RIAA plans to go after individual users. Your best bet is to simply pay for your music by downloading from iTunes, Rhapsody or listening to music on Pandora.

Do you use file sharing software? Do you think it should be illegal?

Posted by Nancy on November 29, 2010 at 3:13pm.

A few weeks ago, NPR contributor Juan Williams was fired, ostensibly for making controversial statements on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor about Muslims. Mixed reactions followed, and while NPR president Vivian Schiller apologized—but not for Williams’ termination—Williams was not offered his job back. Luckily for him, he had a fallback job at Fox News. Most people, though, probably aren’t that lucky. If you lose your job, when is it considered wrongful termination?

In a broader sense, “wrongful termination” can mean a firing that violates the terms of your contract with your employer. Unfortunately for the employee, most places follow “at will” employment, which means someone can be fired for any reason, at the employer’s discretion. There are, however, a few exceptions. The first is discrimination; you can’t be fired because of race, gender, religion or age. Sexual orientation is protected in some states, but not all. The second is retaliation, or being fired for because you filed a claim of discrimination. Another exception is for contractual employees, that is, employees whose contracts state limited, specific reasons that they can be fired. However, such fixed terms are uncommon today. You also can’t be fired for refusing to do something illegal. You may also have a claim if your employer didn’t follow the guidelines or correct procedure for termination.

If any of these are the case, a lawyer should be contacted—there are often deadlines and specific procedures set out by employment laws that you will need help navigating through.

But what about Williams? His case doesn’t fall neatly into any of those categories. Can you really be fired for exercising your right to free speech? Absolutely. Most employers have guidelines about this stated in company policy, especially governmental institutions like the CIA. Schiller said the decision to fire Williams was made over an ethics violation, not because he made the statements on a right-leaning news program (when NPR is often accused of being left-leaning). NPR’s employee guidelines do prohibit speaking “where the appearance might put into question NPR’s impartiality” and maintain that coverage should be unbiased, in that employees must “separate [their] personal opinions from the subjects we are covering.” As articles on the Washington Post’s blog and Slate have pointed out, NPR warned Williams more than once that his comments on Fox repeatedly violated the standards for NPR news analysts. Williams, however, said he was “fired for telling the truth,” and O’Reilly called for the removal of public funding to NPR, although he’s hardly the first to suggest it.

Have you ever been wrongfully terminated? Do you think Williams was?

Posted by Nancy on November 15, 2010 at 3:37pm.