I’ve written several columns that featured one of my favorite people in marketing, my friend Joe Pulizzi. His work has been instrumental in my marketing plans. Joe has released a second edition of his bestseller “Content, Inc.,” which is full of practical tactics that any entrepreneur can apply to their business. He graciously agreed to be interviewed about how his recommendations apply to the legal industry. In “Content Inc.” you recommend that content entrepreneurs should create content first, and then once they develop an audience, create products and services that fit their needs. Does this advice hold true for lawyers who want to start their own practice? Should they do this instead of opening it the traditional way? Joe Pulizzi: I honestly believe this is a great strategy for any business in any industry. Now, it does take some courage to launch a business without products …but what I’ve found by building an audience first is that group of people is so much more receptive to buying anything from you. Why? Because they already know, like and trust you. Of course, someone could just start a regular practice and be successful: use word-of-mouth, spot advertising and what not. But I believe the growth prospects of that business are limited. If you want to be regular, do it the old-fashioned way. If you want to change the world, build an audience first in an industry niche where you can be the leading informational expert in the world. Some parts of the law are formulaic, such as what to do if you’re in a car accident. Should we avoid how-to content in these areas because they’ve been covered by so many other practitioners? JP: It all depends on what your content tilt is. That is, what is your hook? Your area of

Case Analysis: Saregama India Limited v. Next Radio Limited & Ors. Keywords: Judicial Review, Constitutionality of Law, Re-modification of Laws, etc. FACTS There were multiple Petitions which were filed at Madras High Court. These Petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. These Petitions challenged the validity of Rule 29(4) of The Copyright Rules 2013 (hereinafter referred as Rule). Now the Division Bench of the Madras High Court passed an interim order on 2nd August 2021. The said order was appealed before the Supreme Court of India What did the Division bench directed; which was appealed? To not broadcast the copyrighted work without issuing a prior notice under Rule 29;Information like duration, time slots and the like; including the quantum of Royalty payable maybe furnished within 15 days of the broadcast;Compliance be affected with a modified regime of post facto, as opposed to prior compliance mandated by Rule 29(4).The Statutory mandate of a 24-hour prior notice shall be substituted by a provision for compliance within 15 days after the broadcast; andThe said interim order has limited scope toward the Petitioners approaching this High Court and 2nd-3rd Respondents. ISSUES High Court Whether the Rule 29(4) of the Rule violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?Whether the Rule 29(4) of the Rule ultra vires Section 31D of the Act? Supreme Court Whether the interim order of the High Court can be sustained? CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES Appellant: The interim order of the High Court has the effect of re-writing Rule 29(4) of the Rules which was framed w.r.t Section 31D and 78(2)(cD) of the Copyright Act 1957 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) There was no challenge to the validity of Section 31D of the Act and still the Rule 29 was reframed keeping Section 31D as the point of perspective. The scope of the

The Apex Court, while dismissing a petition which sought for cancellation of NEET-UG 2021 exam and fresh exams for NEET-UG, made an observation that due to the reported instances of impersonation and paper leakage, lakhs of students cannot be made to suffer. The NEET-UG 2021 had been conducted on September 12, 2021 and widespread allegations had been raised for adoption of malpractices and paper leakage. The counsel on behalf of petitioner contended that NEET-UG 2021 had been irreversibly vitiated due to the involvement of unfair means, malpractices through gadgets, devices, and facilitation through illegal and unfair means. Moreover, the counsel submitted that already five FIRs had been registered across the country over the allegations of paper leakage, malpractices and impersonation in NEET-UG exam, including the CBI. The counsel had also sought for a report from National Testing Agency (NTA) as the NEET paper had been leaked as soon as the exam had begun and the solutions to them had been circulated on Whatsapp. The bench, from the outset, expressed its disinclination towards the petition. It further questioned the petitioner for filing such a writ petition that could be detriment to the lakhs of student who’ve appeared for the NEET-UG exam. The bench agreed that allegations had been raised but merely on account of 5 FIRs, it did not agree to affect the exam that had been conducted nationally and appeared by more than 7.5 lakh students. The bench straightaway dismissed the writ petition and criticized the petitioner for being “adventurous.” Initially, the bench proposed to dismiss the petition with Rs. 5 lakhs costs, however, on the request of counsel, omitted the costs. The post Neither NEET-UG 2021 exam be cancelled nor fresh exam be conducted- SC appeared first on LexForti Legal News & Journal. Did you miss our previous article…