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 34

Cable Networks throw copyright infringement haymaker at online streaming sites
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 29 2015

The May 2nd bout between Floyd "Money" Mayweather and Manny "Pac-Man" Pacquiao(the "Fight") was billed as the most anticipated boxing match in recent


Limited damages available under DMCA 512(f) for wrongful takedown notice
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

Although DMCA 512(f) allows an award of "any damages" for wrongful removal of alleged infringing material as a result of misrepresentations to a service provider, such damages "must be proximately caused by the misrepresentation to the service provider and the service provider's reliance on the misrepresentation," 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


Operator of BitTorrent P2P file-sharing network induced copyright infringement and is ineligible for DMCA safe harbors
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

The operator of a file-sharing network that utilized the BitTorrent file-sharing technology is secondarily liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of the network, a district court ruled


Web site owner's assertion of CDA Section 230 in response to defamation claim not an extortionate threat
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

A Web site operator's assertion of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in response to a demand that allegedly defamatory third-party content be removed from its consumer complaint site does not constitute an extortionate threat under California law, a district court ruled


No CDA Section 230 immunity for claim that service provider promised to "take care of" defamatory posts
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

A plaintiff's allegation that an employee of an online service provider promised to "take care of" defamatory material is sufficient to state a cognizable promissory estoppel claim under California law that is not barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a state trial court judge ruled


Web site addition of hyperlinks to a previously posted online article does not restart defamation statute of limitations
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

The addition of hyperlinks to an allegedly defamatory online article does not restart the statute of limitations for defamation, a district court ruled


Advertiser protection under CDA Section 230 for user-generated online contest submissions held an issue for jury
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

Material issues of fact concerning an advertiser's role in the creation of user-generated videos submitted in an online contest preclude a grant of summary judgment on the issuer's defense under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a district court ruled


Excerpting and linking to online news article protected by fair use doctrine
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

A blogger's posting of an eight-line excerpt from a 30-line online newspaper article, coupled with a link to the full article on the newspaper Web site, is protected by the copyright fair use doctrine, a district court ruled


Download of copyrighted digital music file not a public performance under Copyright Act
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

Downloading a copyrighted digital music file does not constitute a public performance under the Copyright Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled