Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Aereo, the online service that captures over-the-air broadcasts of copyrighted TV programming and sells them to subscribers for a monthly fee, notched another victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The circuit has denied rehearing en banc of its April 2013 decision that found Aereo is not in violation of the Copyright Act.
The decision was a win for Barry Diller and his fellow investors in the Aereo start-up. They are taking their service nationwide this year after a New York City test run where signals broadcast from the Empire State building are captured and put on a “platform” for retransmission to subscribers.
The Second Circuit's en banc denial came in tandem cases, WNET v. Aereo , 12-2786, and ABC v. Aereo, 12-2807, where on April 1 a divided panel upheld Southern District of New York Judge Alison Nathan's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction against Aereo ' a business modeled on the circuit's language in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, 536 F.3d 121, a 2008 decision that found Cablevision's DVR service did not violate the Copyright Act.
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?