Regulation of P2P lending in India Regarding the legal aspects of peer-to-peer lending in India, I have two questions— Whether P2P lending in India is regulated or not? If it is regulated then what are the related laws/rules and related agencies?
What are the related laws/rules and related agencies? The Peer to Peer regulations are the Master Directions - Non-Banking Financial Company - Peer to Peer Lending Platform (Reserve Bank) Directions 2017 (pdf) and is regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. This Mondaq article from last year gives an overview of the above Directions and summarises the compliance requirements.
If you do not have permission to make and distribute reproductions of the work, then it is illegal to make and distribute reproductions of the work. US copyright law Indian copyright law
Import laws apply to the one who imports. In your scenario that is the person in country A only. The server owner does not cause the digital content to be transmitted to A. The one who downloads does.
Those countries have more restrictive gambling laws than others. For discussion of some of those relevant laws, see here. For example, [In Hong Kong], "Under the Gambling Ordinance, a prize draw is considered to be a form of lottery. Lotteries include raffles &amp; sweepstakes... In most cases, prior approval is needed for a prize draw in the form of a licence and for the majority of competitions, this will need to be in the form of a Trade Promotion Competition Licence. Selling, disposing, printing and publishing tickets without a licence are criminal offences ... punishable by fines or imprisonment. Because of Italy's strict restrictions, Unless a promotion falls under one of exceptions provided by the DPR, it is not possible to run multi-jurisdictional promotions, they need to be addressed only to people located in Italy and any activity, including the server, used for the promotion must be located in Italy.
Yes A software license is just a contract and parties to a contract are free to agree whatever terms they wish under the doctrine of freedom to contract. Government can restrict what terms can be used in a contract either in general (e.g. for being against public policy) or specifically (e.g. by requiring wages be paid in money). None of the terms you mention fall foul of any restrictions I know of.
Article 1 Section 8 appears to answer your question - only the Federal Government has the power to regulate the value of currency. Unilaterally forbidding the use of pennies as currency would be a regulation of their value (from 1 cent to 0 cents). A state government might be allowed to refuse pennies for the purpose of paying for a service in advance like a private business can, but like a private business are required to accept them as legal tender for the purpose of repaying debts, judgements, etc. Responding to the edited post, I'm inclined to say that the proposed plan is still "regulating" currency, in the same way that only the Federal government is the only entity authorized to destroy worn out currency (which it obtains by fair exchange). As Nate Eldredge points out, this may also violate the Commerce Clause of the same section, both in terms of interstate transactions and in terms of the exchange of currency between persons of different states and the implementing state. However, if it was implemented as suggested in comments, where businesses were required to exchange whatever pennies they receive with the state government for an equal amount of other currency, it might not run afoul of either of these clauses. This is probably a question the Supreme Court would have to decide, since a lot of hypothetical factors could come into play. At first glance, there doesn't appear to be any factual difference between a state holding pennies in storage indefinitely and the state holding any other currency in storage indefinitely, which they are allowed to do so long as they don't violate any part of USC Title 18, Chapter 17 (e.g., melt the pennies for the copper). On the other hand, the Federal Government could argue that the storage of pennies for the purpose of removing them from circulation is a form of currency regulation even if the action would otherwise be legal, or that the state's actions are impactful enough to affect interstate commerce even though they only directly impact commerce in the state and therefore Congress could pass a law outlawing the practice.
Under United States copyright law, according to the Copyright Office, 206.01 Edicts of government. Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. Referencing laws is even clearer: copyright doesn't protect referring to something like "Section 830 of the Penal Code of the State of California." Note that this is assuming that they remain within the US, where copyright law is a federal issue. Other countries don't all have the edict of government rule. If a place were to legally secede and become their own country, they would cease to be bound by US copyright law. They would get to decide if it was legal for them to do it or not; this is just like how it works between the UK and US (the UK claims copyright on its laws, but US courts will not enforce that copyright because it's incompatible with US law). Treaties complicate things, but the Berne Convention allows the edict of government exception. That said, seceding from the US unilaterally is both legally and practically impossible; seceding from a state is likewise generally going to be legally and practically impossible without permission from the state. So, it all depends on the agreements made. EDIT: To specifically address the model codes issue, Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Congress Int’l, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) was a case specifically about what happens when model codes are adopted wholesale into law. The Fifth Circuit (after initially finding that the model codes were protected) reversed en banc, finding that a model code produced for the purpose of being incorporated into law, and which has been incorporated into law, and which is then reproduced as the law of the place that incorporated it into law, is not subject to copyright. Veeck may not apply to cases where the law merely references the model code, or where the thing in question was not made to be incorporated into law (e.g. state laws referencing the Red Book valuation of a car didn't make the Red Book public domain). If both of those are true, it probably doesn't apply; if one holds but not the other, it's unclear. However, if the actual municipal code directly contains the text of the model code, and you reprint it as the law of that municipality (rather than as the model code), there is no copyright in the law.
Because money laundering is a form of transnational crime there is an extensive system of treaties which harmonise, to some extent, the laws of most developed countries. Relevantly to your question, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime provides in article 7: Each State Party … Shall institute a comprehensive domestic regulatory and supervisory regime for banks and non-bank financial institutions and, where appropriate, other bodies particularly susceptible to money-laundering, within its competence, in order to deter and detect all forms of money-laundering, which regime shall emphasize requirements for customer identification, record-keeping and the reporting of suspicious transactions … Generally, local laws will define concepts like &quot;money transmitting business&quot; and require individuals engaged in these businesses to obtain a licence and comply with similar KYC and reporting obligations to a bank. For example, in the United States, 18 U.S.C § 1960 makes it illegal to run an unlicensed money transmitting business. In United States v. Rockcoons (3:17-cr-03690), the defendant committed this offence through peer-to-peer bitcoin trading: Rockcoons advertised his Bitcoin exchange services on the website LocalBitcoins.com. In 2015, HSI identified Rockcoons as the most prolific San Diego-based seller. In April 2016, the defendant’s LocalBitcoins.com profile showed that he continued to advertise as a trader and seller of Bitcoin in San Diego, with his profile reflecting that he had engaged in more than 500 transactions. As of October 2017, the defendant’s profile indicated that he conducted more than 1,000 bitcoin trades with more than 644 people. Rockcoons received a commission of as much as 36 percent per transaction. On the other side of the Atlantic, the law in the United Kingdom is explained in Vladimir Consulting Ltd v Financial Conduct Authority [2022] UKUT 168 (TCC). VCL had been trading on LocalBitcoins.com since 2017, but from 2020, was required to become licensed as a &quot;cryptoasset exchange provider&quot; under the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2019. VCL was refused a licence because it had consistently failed to comply with requirements of the money laundering regulations. VCL challenged this decision in the Upper Tribunal, which analysed the applicable rules and confirmed the Financial Conduct Authority's decision.