Civil Litigation,
Intellectual Property
Apr. 2, 2019
Law professor witness challenges US judge’s copyright precedent
Seemingly settled questions about whether internet platforms should be responsible for copyright infringement by their users were dredged up Monday in a federal court in front of the very district judge who wrote the decision establishing a platform is not responsible for its users’ infringements.
LOS ANGELES -- Seemingly settled questions about whether internet platforms should be responsible for copyright infringement by their users were dredged up Monday in a federal court in front of the very district judge who wrote the decision establishing a platform is not responsible for its users' infringements.
"Look at YouTube. Is there any one video that causes users to join YouTube?" Douglas Litchman, a law professor at UCLA who...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Intellectual Property
Closing arguments end in delayed attorney fees trial
By Blaise Scemama
Civil Litigation, Law Practice, Intellectual Property
Unanimous jury awards usenet provider Giganews $1.2 million
By Blaise Scemama
Civil Litigation, Intellectual Property
CEO emotionally explains why he hasn’t paid attorney fees
By Blaise Scemama
International Law, Intellectual Property, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
In battle over attorney fees, counsel appear to be relitigating copyright infringement case
By Blaise Scemama
Civil Litigation, Intellectual Property
Defending against fee claims in copyright cases: get ahead
By Keith G. Adams
Copyright
Perfect 10 Inc. v. Giganews Inc.
In copyright dispute involving Usenet, district court does not err in concluding that defendants did not directly infringe copyrights.
