Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’S Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, David E. Shipley
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
The United States Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons resolved a disagreement over when it is appropriate to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under section 505 of the Copyright Act, and ended a perceived venue advantage for losing plaintiffs in some jurisdictions. The Court ruled unanimously that courts are correct to give substantial weight to the question of whether the losing side had a reasonable case to fight, but that the objective reasonableness of that side’s position does not give rise to a presumption against fee shifting. It made clear that other factors …
Walk A Mile In The Shoes Of A Copyright Troll: Analyzing And Overcoming The Joinder Issue In Bittorrent Lawsuits, Kristina Unanyan
Walk A Mile In The Shoes Of A Copyright Troll: Analyzing And Overcoming The Joinder Issue In Bittorrent Lawsuits, Kristina Unanyan
The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law
This Comment analyzes the issues surrounding joinder of copyright infringers who use BitTorrent, explores how joinder can be used and limited to create a more viable solution for copyright holders and consumers, as well as, supplements the sparse regulations that encompass joinder to create a rule that accommodates this technological era. Part II explains Copyright Law and the procedural aspects of a copyright infringement suit and joinder of defendants. Part III delves into the history of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing lawsuits and provides an illustration of where case law rests today regarding P2P networks. Part IV describes the BitTorrent network and …
States Escape Liability For Copyright Infringement?, Michelle V. Francis
States Escape Liability For Copyright Infringement?, Michelle V. Francis
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Case Against Combating Bittorrent Piracy Through Mass John Doe Copyright Infringement Lawsuits, Sean B. Karunaratne
The Case Against Combating Bittorrent Piracy Through Mass John Doe Copyright Infringement Lawsuits, Sean B. Karunaratne
Michigan Law Review
Today, the most popular peer-to-peer file-sharing medium is the BitTorrent protocol. While BitTorrent itself is not illegal, many of its users unlawfully distribute copyrighted works. Some copyright holders enforce their rights by suing numerous infringing BitTorrent users in a single mass lawsuit. Because the copyright holder initially knows the putative defendants only by their IP addresses, it identifies the defendants anonymously in the complaint as John Does. The copyright holder then seeks a federal court's permission to engage in early discovery for the purpose of learning the identities behind the IP addresses. Once the plaintiff knows the identities of the …
A Jurisdictional Nightmare: Determining When An Interdependent Copyright And Contract Claim Arises Under The Copyright Act In Scholastic Entertainment, Inc. V. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Christopher D. Birrer
A Jurisdictional Nightmare: Determining When An Interdependent Copyright And Contract Claim Arises Under The Copyright Act In Scholastic Entertainment, Inc. V. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Christopher D. Birrer
Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Weissmann V. Freeman: Derivative Works By Joint Authors-Originality And Copyright Infringement In The Second Circuit, David P. Gerstman M.D.
Weissmann V. Freeman: Derivative Works By Joint Authors-Originality And Copyright Infringement In The Second Circuit, David P. Gerstman M.D.
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Federal Practice -Venue - Plaintiff's Privilege In Respect To Defendant's Counterclaim On An Unrelated Patent
Michigan Law Review
Petitioners brought suit in the federal court for the northern district of Ohio against defendant corporations having regular and established places of business in that district and against two individual defendants resident there alleging infringement of patent rights and asking for injunction, damages, and an accounting. Defendants' answer denied infringement and set up a counterclaim based on a patent granted one of the defendants praying for an injunction against infringement and an accounting. Defendants' counterclaim did not allege that petitioners were inhabitants of the district where the counterclaim was to be tried or that they had regular and established places …