Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Arts (1)
- Arts and Entertainment (1)
- Bill Clinton (1)
- Biography (1)
- Civil Law (1)
-
- Collateral estoppel (1)
- Communications Law (1)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (1)
- Computer Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Copyright (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Courts (1)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (1)
- DMCA (1)
- Digital (1)
- Digital millennium copyright act (1)
- Dispute Resolution (1)
- Employment Law (1)
- Employment Practice (1)
- Employment law (1)
- Entertainment (1)
- Fair use (1)
- False claims act (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Gaming (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal Profession
The Evolution Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Changing Interpretations Of The Dmca And Future Implications For Copyright Holders, Hillary A. Henderson
The Evolution Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Changing Interpretations Of The Dmca And Future Implications For Copyright Holders, Hillary A. Henderson
Hillary A Henderson
Copyright law rewards an artificial monopoly to individual authors for their creations. This reward is based on the belief that, by granting authors the exclusive right to reproduce their works, they receive an incentive and means to create, which in turn advances the welfare of the general public by “promoting the progress of science and useful arts.” Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or …
Amicus Brief (Certiorari Stage) -- Kalyanaram V. New York Institute Of Technology, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Amicus Brief (Certiorari Stage) -- Kalyanaram V. New York Institute Of Technology, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Adam Lamparello
Whistleblowers should not be required to pick their poison. They should not be penalized for following the law, particularly where, as here, the alleged “wrong” relied upon by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was Petitioner’s compliance with the Act’s sealing provision. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) That provision expressly requires whistleblowers to maintain the confidentiality of qui tam lawsuits during the pendency of a government investigation. Petitioner followed the Act’s express mandate—and suffered the consequences.