Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 23

No “safe harbor” for BitTorrent website operator

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
April 30 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced

FTC updates guidelines for making proper disclosures in digital advertising

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
April 22 2013

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidance on how to make online advertising and marketing disclosures "clear and conspicuous"

Statutory damages: foreign works and the U.S. live broadcast exemption

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
September 16 2009

In a class action led by the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) and U.S. music publishers Bourne against YouTube and its owners Google (The FAPL v YouTube Inc. (US District Court Southern District of New York)) filed on 4 May 2007, a U.S. District Court judge held that, because the FAPL did not register its broadcasts of Premier League matches with the US Copyright Office, it cannot claim statutory damages under the US Copyright Act against YouTube in respect of allegedly copyright infringing material uploaded by users to the video sharing site

A combination of non-conclusory factual allegations satisfies Twombly for a Sherman Act 1 claim and can proceed to trial

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
February 28 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently reversed a district court decision dismissing a complaint alleging the defendants conspired to fix prices of digital music in violation of the Sherman Act 1

How deep is the safe harbor?

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
May 30 2012

In a case that has now been in litigation for more than five years, and in an appeal that drew close to a hundred amici briefs, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has explained its position on the contours of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DCMA's) safe harbor provision that limits the liability of online service providers who permit users to post content on their websites

Ninth Circuit no friend to Winklevoss twins: Facebook settlement stands

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
April 29 2011

Putting what appears to be an end to a highly publicized legal battle dramatized in the movie The Social Network, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a $65 million settlement agreement made between brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, their former classmate Divya Narendra, and social-networking website Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Collecting and selling data mined from social media sites covered by FCRA

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
June 25 2012

On June 12, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement with Spokeo, Inc., a data broker that compiles and sells detailed information profiles on consumers, in connection with claims that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the FTC’s Endorsement Guidelines

Webcasting music services not “interactive” when users cannot directly control the songs they hear

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
September 28 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court judgment that an internet radio service was not an “interactive service” within the meaning of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and hence was not liable for copyright infringement for failure to pay license fees

KSR based renewed motion on obviousness is a winner

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
February 26 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court grant of a post-KSR renewed summary judgment on obviousness (after denying a pre-KSR motion

Commission finds U.S. anti-gambling laws infringe WTO rules

McDermott Will & Emery
-
European Union, USA
-
June 19 2009

In a report published on 10 June 2009, the European Commission has found that U.S. laws prohibiting the cross-border supply of remote gambling and betting services and the enforcement of those laws against EU companies are in violation of Articles XVI (Market Access) and XVII (National Treatment) of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and are not justified under Article XIV (General Exceptions

next >