Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
BIT PARTS
California Federal Court Rules in Favor of YouTube in Lawsuit over Removal of Artist's Music Video
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit brought by a music company over YouTube's initial removal of an artist's music video for auto-inflating user view counts. Darnaa LLC v. Google Inc., 15-03221. Darnaa's complaint alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. But District Judge William Alsup upheld YouTube's limitation-of-liability clause in its service agreement with Darnaa that applies to an “interruption or cessation of transmission.” Darnaa argued Cal. Civ. Code §1668 supported its case. That statute states: “All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.” Judge Alsup explained, however: “Darnaa, LLC, has not alleged that Google acted fraudulently, or that it willfully or intentionally injured Darnaa's person or property. Darnaa, LLC's claims simply stem from Google's interruption of service and resetting the view count on the 'Cowgirl' video, which it did pursuant to a term in the agreement (namely, the prohibition of systems that artificially inflate view counts). As pled, [Darnaa's complaint] … does not protect such a claim from the limitation-of-liability clause found in Section 10 of the terms of service agreement.
Daman Wayans' Anti-SLAPP Motion Is Granted in Racial Harassment Suit by Actor
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.