Most cryptoassets natively function as bearer instruments. Whoever controls the private key for a given cryptoasset wallet generally controls the assets held by that wallet. In a civil or criminal action or as part of a governmental investigation, parties may be ordered to disclose their private keys or to transfer cryptoassets controlled by those private keys. However, people forget things and lose things, including extremely important things. Parties may lose private keys, and thereby lose control of their assets; parties acting in bad faith, or due to ideological motivation, may claim that “lost” or “forgotten” private keys prevent them from complying with disclosure or turnover orders. Determining whether claims of lost or forgotten private keys are genuine or are bad faith attempts to protect assets will be a challenge for courts, forcing them to confront complex, technology-specific evidence and requiring that they determine whether that loss is bona fide or tactical “self-created impossibility.” Courts may likewise find that traditional contempt sanctions are insufficient to compel a motivated contemnor to comply with disclosure or turnover orders. To avoid expensive, time-consuming evidentiary hearings on contempt, parties and courts should consider ex ante measures, including standing orders and injunctive relief that would require disclosure of and prevent the loss of private keys once financial condition becomes relevant to any claim or defense in litigation. Legislators could create novel contempt sanctions that leverage the unique features of cryptoassets to lien sufficiently identifiable cryptoassets at issue. New laws could create registries listing identifiable cryptoassets subject to turnover orders (similar to state UCC registries), use the infrastructure and legal obligations imposed upon regulated intermediaries by the Bank Secrecy Act and Office of Foreign Asset Controls, or modify existing state law writs to direct stateregulated financial intermediaries to seize those identifiable cryptoassets pending further court order. Although these new sanctions would destroy the fungibility of the cryptoassets at issue and reduce their commercial value, they would also create new, efficient incentives. The lien against identifiable cryptoassets would have no impact on parties who actually lose their private key but would facilitate recovery of cryptoassets taken without authorization in a hack or theft. Finally, the threat of a lien that would adversely impact the value of the specific implicated cryptoassets would reduce the incentive for a bad faith contemnor to defy a turnover order and instead encourage compliance.
What is the most popular TV program genre in China now? The answer is undoubtedly reality TV shows. There were more than 200 reality TV shows being put on air through Chinese satellite TV channels in 2015, which saw an outbreak of reality shows in China, and more than 400 in 2016. Rising together with the popularity of Chinese reality TV shows are claims of copyright infringement. Most of those reality shows do not owe their originality to domestic Chinese ideas, but are based on successful South Korean, American, and European formats. The production teams of some shows, like Daddy, Where Are We Going? and Keep Running, purchase Intellectual Property (IP) rights from the original production teams and produce the show with the advice and cooperation from the original teams. Others, however, copy ideas and easily recognizable formats from popular foreign shows directly, “[f]rom theme to general concept, to story structure, to flow and to the dynamics of the cast,” and stuff them with domestic celebrities and scenes. Criticizing some satellite TV channels as “too dependent on broadcasting foreign-inspired program[s]” with no original ideas, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) issued a directive, Directive About Strong Promotion of Innovation in Broadcasting and Television Programs (Directive), limiting the airing of foreign-produced and foreign-adapted TV programs that satellite broadcasters are allowed to import. Unsurprisingly, there was considerable skepticism toward the effect this government regulation would have on the market. In fact, plagiarized TV programs were said to have increased after the introduction of the Directive as more and more Chinese localized program producers simply changed the name of the program and claimed it was domestic and original. The fact that the current regulation system does not provide an incentive to create original content does not mean that regulation per se is not a workable solution. More than twenty countries have some form of government regulation on TV programs to protect and promote local content. Among them, the local content rules in Australia and Canada are particularly valuable such that the Chinese government could adopt a similarly effective scheme. To resolve this problem, the current government regulation on what counts as Chinese/foreign content should be changed to a multi-factor evaluation system.
Current efforts to foster research on orphan diseases are focused largely on pharmaceutical treatments. Currently, there are roughly 770 FDA approved pharmaceutical treatments designated for orphan diseases. The number of treatments has greatly improved and it can largely be attributed to government efforts to foster research on orphan diseases. However, more can be done to bridge the gap between the number of available treatments, both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical, and the number of different orphan diseases. These efforts should be supplemented by initiatives to bolster diffusion and commercialization of innovations made by the user-innovator community.
In 2016, the FBI reported that on average more than 4,000 ransomware attacks occurred every day. An October 2017 Equifax breach exposed the sensitive personal information of nearly 146 million Americans—almost half of the United States population. To make matters worse, after the Equifax breach, the public was directed to a phishing website to “check” if personal information was stolen. The internet is the new Wild West for any tech-savvy individual, and, in this modern age, there is no telling how far the tech-horizon reaches. State data breach notification laws are not uniform. There also is no uniform federal statute governing data breach notification. However, a state-by-state method, as will be analyzed in this note, is the best method for providing notice to consumers.