Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
An age-old question of Internet law has heated up the intrastate rivalry between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, but this time it's not sports teams or gubernatorial candidates; it's judges. Yes, judges.
The question: When can an anonymous Internet speaker accused of defamation be unmasked? The combatants: Judge Albert Sheppard of Philadelphia and Judge R. Stanton Wettick of Pittsburgh ' two of Pennsylvania's most respected jurists. If Pennsylvania can be split on the issue, so can other states. Which argument is correct?
Wettick dealt with this question first, nearly 6 years ago in Melvin v. Doe after Judge Joan Orie Melvin filed a defamation claim against John Doe defendants based on anonymous statements about her posted on a blog hosted by AOL. When Melvin sought the defendants' identities in discovery, Wettick gave them an opportunity to oppose the subpoena and to challenge Melvin's ability to prevail on her claim. The John Doe defendants responded by filing a motion for a protective order and a motion for summary judgment.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?