We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 47

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 26 2013

District court grants in part and denies in part video-sharing website’s summary judgment motion for safe harbor protection under the DMCA for videos

CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. FilmOn.com, Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 28 2014

Click here to download a PDF of the full decision. District court issues second contempt finding against unauthorized content redistributor FilmOn

Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Hotfile Corp., et al

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 27 2011

District court dismisses plaintiff motion picture companies’ claim for direct copyright infringement against defendant file-sharing site and its operator on defendants’ motion to dismiss, but allows plaintiffs’ claim for secondary infringement to stand against both corporate and individual defendants

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc, et al v. Fung, et al

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 20 2010

In copyright infringement action against operator of BitTorrent websites, court grants summary judgment to plaintiff movie studios on liability for inducement to infringe

Andersen v. Atlantic Recording Corporation

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 25 2009

In plaintiff’s action against record companies alleging various claims related to the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants where the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine protected the record companies’ right to file suit without fear of liability

Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 23 2011

In an action for copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Third Circuit reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant radio station, finding that the station’s removal of a gutter credit from the photograph may be considered removal of “copyright management information” for purposes of the DMCA, and that the station's reproduction of the photograph was not protected as fair use

Starr, et al. v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 27 2010

Second Circuit holds that the plaintiff class adequately pled violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act against defendant producers and distributors of digital music, where the defendants’ alleged parallel conduct in selling music over the internet plausibly suggested that defendants entered into an agreement to fix prices and to restrain the availability and distribution of music over the internet

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 13 2011

In copyright infringement litigation against peer-to-peer network, court awards partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on the copyright ownership of the infringed sound recordings where plaintiffs evidenced a valid chain of title, and partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on direct infringement where the same type of electronic evidence held to be sufficient for the summary judgment of secondary liability was presented

Rossi v. Photoglou

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 6 2014

California appellate court reverses summary judgment in favor of Real Housewife of Orange County Gretchen Rossi against "friend" Jay Photoglou on his

Zuffa, LLC v. Justin.tv, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 15 2012

District court grants in part and denies in part motion to dismiss non-copyright claims arising out of live streaming of UFC fight through defendant’s internet service, limiting plaintiff’s trademark claims only to the display of trademarks that were not an inherent part of the video broadcast, and holding that Communications Act did not apply to defendant’s purported conduct