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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 40

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

UMG Recordings Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2013

Ninth Circuit upholds DMCA safe harbor protection from copyright infringement liability for defendant video-sharing site Veoh, affirming grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor

Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Barrydriller Content Systems, plc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2013

California district court grants TV networks’ motion for preliminary injunction against internet streaming service, finding that, contrary to decisions by courts in the Second Circuit, streaming transmissions of copyrighted content likely infringed networks’ exclusive right to public performances

Viacom International v. Google Inc.,

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

On remand from the Second Circuit, district court grants summary judgment in favor of Google and its YouTube platform on all copyright infringement

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

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
  • -
  • May 26 2010

In a case arising out of the infringing use of BitTorrent technology, the court grants plaintiff copyright holders a permanent injunction against defendants, finding that plaintiffs met all of the factors for a permanent injunction under eBay

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v. iiNet Limited

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • February 10 2010

In trial that may be the first of its kind in the world, Federal Court of Australia dismisses copyright infringement complaint brought by U.S. and Australian movie studios against an Australian ISP; although the court finds that defendant’s subscribers infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights using BitTorrent technology, it holds that defendant did not authorize such infringement

Summit Entertainment, LLC v. Beckett Media, LLC

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

Court grants plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in copyright and trademark infringement action against publisher of a Twilight fanzine that used plaintiff’s Twilight trademark as well as images from the Twilight films and promotional images that were taken from plaintiff’s publicity website

Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2010

Court grants summary judgment for YouTube and Google in copyright infringement action for large amount of copyrighted material on website, holding that defendants are entitled to the DMCA 512(c) safe harbor because they had insufficient notice of the particular infringements