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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 159

No DMCA or trademark liability for provider of online printing services for removal of material deemed infringing
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

An online printing services provider is not liable for removal of user content that it deems infringing or otherwise objectionable, a district court ruled


Company that distributed P2P software secondarily liable for massive infringement by users
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

A company that created and distributed a peer-to-peer file-sharing program that was used to distribute unauthorized copies of copyrighted music files on a "massive scale" is secondarily liable for acts of direct infringement on the part of the users of the program, a district court ruled


CDA Section 230 protects web site operator from liability for user's defamatory post, despite general statement on web site concerning accuracy of information
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

A general statement on a Web site to the effect that posted information was truthful and accurate did not deprive the Web site operators of protection from liability for defamatory statements posted by third parties under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a Texas appeals court ruled


Web site operator’s knowledge of “generalized practice” of copyright infringement insufficient to negate DMCA safe harbor
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

A Web site operator's knowledge of a "generalized practice" of copyright infringement by users of its service is insufficient to deprive it of the protection of the "safe harbor" provided by Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a district court ruled


No Fourth Amendment violation in government employer review of employee text messages
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

A municipality did not violate an employee's privacy rights when it reviewed text messages on an employer-supplied pager in order to determine whether it was providing sufficient character limits to its employees under its contract with the wireless services provider, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled


Printouts of policyholder database files not protectable as trade secrets
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

Policyholder information that was contained on printouts made from an insurance company electronic database by departing insurance agents was not protected under Connecticut trade secret law because the information was readily obtainable from physical policyholder files retained by the agents, a district court ruled


No Fourth Amendment violation in transfer of laptop seized at border for forensic examination
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

The transfer of a laptop seized at a border crossing to a facility 170 miles away for forensic examination was justified under the border search doctrine, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled


Posting entire news article on nonprofit organization's blog constitutes fair use
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

The re-posting of an entire news article on the blog of a nonprofit organization is fair use as a matter of law where the purpose was to educate the public, a district court ruled


Cost of credit monitoring for victims of data security breach constitutes loss under CFAA
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

The cost of providing credit monitoring for employees whose personal information was accessed as a result of unauthorized access by an inmate to a prison computer network constitutes a "loss" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled


Google Books settlement would usurp congressional role in revising copyright law
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

Judge Chin found that the settlement was not "fair, adequate and reasonable," as required by the federal rules, and suggested that it might be able to be approved if it was changed to an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, settlement