Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The ubiquity of the Internet and the ease with which copyrighted material can be widely distributed across boundaries have created novel issues regarding personal jurisdiction. In recent years, accused infringers have challenged the jurisdictional reach of federal courts in disputes over online file-sharing and copyright infringement and raised dynamic legal issues that compel courts to balance the right to seek redress against the principle of judicial fairness. For example, if a party infringes a work produced by a publisher located in one state, but the copying and distribution occurred on computers located in two other states, where did the “infringement” occur for purposes of personal jurisdiction? Moreover, can a copyright holder sue in a single forum hundreds of geographically diverse individuals accused of downloading a copyrighted movie simply because the defendants participated in a single BitTorrent “swarm”?
This article discusses jurisdictional issues involving online copyright infringement, as well as the emerging issues surrounding disputes involving BitTorrent file-sharing technology.
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
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.