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 77

The legality of ordering ISPs to install filtering and blocking systems to protect IP rights
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • Belgium, European Union
  • May 31 2011

In Scarlet Extended SA v Société Belge des Auteurs Compositeurs et Editeurs C-7010, the Advocate General (AG) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has given his opinion on whether it is lawful for a national court to impose an order on an internet service provider (ISP) to make in impossible for its customers to send or receive, by means of peer-to-peer software, particular music files


ISP not responsible for preventing illegal downloading: CJEU decision finds filtering system would infringe ISP’s business rights and customers’ freedom
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • January 12 2012

In Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL C-7010 24 November 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that imposing an injunction on an internet service provider (ISP) requiring it to install a filtering system to prevent illegal downloading is unlawful under European law


Searching for photos? Go ahead, Google those thumbnails
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • Germany
  • June 30 2010

The German Federal Supreme Court has decided that Google is not liable for unlawful copyright infringement for displaying thumbnail preview images of the artist's photographs in its search engine


Vicarious copyright infringement requires a showing of supervision or control
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 30 2013

In an opinion that elaborates on the degree of third-party supervision required in order to attach vicarious copyright infringement liability, the U.S


The Aereo crashed: cheap internet TV thwarted
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 30 2014

The Supreme Court of the United States has now determined that internet streaming services directly infringe the copyrights of several television


DMCA safe harbor analysis now the same in both Ninth and Second Circuits
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • April 30 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its 2011 opinion applying the "safe harbor" provision of the Digital Millennium


Second Circuit refuses to enjoin Aereo’s internet streaming of broadcast television
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 31 2013

Addressing the legality of a streaming TV service that provides internet-streaming of broadcast television programming, the U.S. Court of Appeals for


Second Circuit revives copyright infringement suit against non-resident for uploading copyrighted material online
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2011

Employing the standard set out by the New York Court of Appeals in internet copyright infringement cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has revived a copyright infringement suit brought by a New York resident against a non-resident based upon defendant’s alleged uploading of copyrighted materials onto the internet


Constitutional challenge to (file sharing) damage award rebuffed
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2011

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was less sympathetic than the district court to a Boston College graduate student who was found to have used file sharing software to distribute copyrighted music, concluding that the district court erred in reducing the damage award based on due process concerns


eBay abrogates presumption of irreparable harm in copyright cases in Ninth Circuit
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 31 2011

Considering the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in the patent infringement case eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. on copyright cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court held that irreparable harm may no longer be presumed upon showing a likelihood of success when seeking preliminary or permanent injunctive relief in copyright infringement cases