Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hotline
Corporation Not Liable for Employee's Abusive E-mails
The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District has ruled that where an employee sends tortuous e-mail transmissions to a third party, the corporate employer providing the email and Internet access is not liable for damages under the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Delfino v. Agilent Technologies Inc., No. 1-03-cv-001573 (Dec. 14).
The plaintiffs were the recipients of a series of threatening, anonymous messages sent over the Internet and also posted on Internet bulletin boards. After the e-mails and postings were later traced to a single individual, the plaintiffs brought suit against him and his former employer. Plaintiffs included claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the threats the employee made over the employer's computer system. The plaintiffs alleged further that the employer was aware of these activities and that it took no action to stop them. The employer moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion on the basis that the employer was immune from suit under the CDA. The trial court held that under title 47 of the United States Code ' 230(c)(1), the employer was a 'provider ' of an interactive computer service' entitled to immunity under the CDA.
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.