Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Aimster Update
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld a preliminary injunction that shut down Aimster pending resolution of the music industry's litigation against the Internet file-sharing service. In Re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 02-4125. The appeals court agreed 'that the ability of a service provider to prevent its customers from infringing is a factor to be considered in determining whether the provider is a contributory infringer,' but added it is 'not necessarily a controlling factor, however, as the recording industry believes.' The court rejected the industry's argument that contributory infringement can be established by anything 'more than a mere showing that a product may be used for infringing purposes.' The 7th Circuit thus disagreed with the 9th Circuit's ruling in A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, (2001), which suggested that actual knowledge of specific infringing activity is enough to establish contributory infringement. But the 7th Circuit rejected Aimster's argument that the music industry must show actual monetary loss from unauthorized Internet file-sharing. The appeals court also found that the tutorial Aimster provides that cites the sharing of copyrighted music as the only example of how the software may be used is an 'invitation to infringement.' The court further noted that the Aimster defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence that Aimster was actually used for non-infringing purposes.
More Web Infringement Rulings
Last month's refusal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to stay a lower court order requiring Verizon to reveal to the names of its customers who illegally download music, has received widespread attention. Recording Industry Association of America Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services Inc., 03-7015. Less known is a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a copyright owner does not have to conduct an investigation to demonstrate actual infringement before sending an Internet Service Provider a notice demanding that an allegedly infringing website be shut down. Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America, 0200239.
Copyright License Effective
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.