Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
This is incorrect. The ISP must act expeditiously. The ten-day period refers to the counter notification procedure described in Section 512(g) after the infringing material has been removed, offering them an opportunity to counter the allegations presented to the ISP not during the stage of the so-called "take down" procedure.
In addition to the two general requirements that online service providers comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, section 512(c) also requires that the online service providers: 1) do not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) are not aware of the presence of infringing ...
Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA, and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. [3] In September 2007, Prince stated in the media that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet" and to challenge Lenz's suit ...
The case was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, with oral arguments heard on January 9, 2019. [7] Fourth Estate was represented at oral arguments by Aaron M. Panner. [8] Peter K. Stris [9] represented Wall-Street and Jerrold Burden.
The knowledge requirement for contributory infringement is an objective assessment and stands fulfilled if the defendant has actual or constructive knowledge of an infringement, i.e., if he or she has reason to believe that an infringement is taking place. [4]
The only affirmative cause of action in 17 U.S.C. § 512 is 512(f) which permits a claim for knowingly materially misrepresenting that a work is infringing. [2] However, the defendants never made any determination of whether plaintiffs' videos constituted fair use, let alone knowingly made representations to the plaintiff that it was infringing.
According to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), which was the position at the White House created by the PRO-IP Act through 15 U.S.C. § 8111 to coordinate U.S. governmental agencies that carry out the law's purpose, [4] several policy rationales informed intellectual property enforcement, including: [2] [5]
[2] While A&M Records served as the lead plaintiff, Napster was sued by 18 different record companies, all of which were members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). [3] Additionally, songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller were included on the Circuit Court appeal, representing the interests of "all others similarly ...