This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
By guest blogger Elizabeth Townsend Gard , John E. Koerner Endowed Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School [See part 1 about defendant opt-outs and part 2 about defendant defaults.] Eight months after filing, the first two Copyright Claims Board (CCB) Final Determinations have been handed down.
To fully understand these conflicting views of the majority opinion, it is necessary to understand both the specific facts of the case and the history of the Supreme Court’s caselaw concerning the fair-use doctrine. In April 2017, it filed a lawsuit against Goldsmith and her agency (now known as Lynn Goldsmith, Ltd.,
Demo video: [link] Founded: 9/1/2017, Birmingham, MI Target customer: Law firms (all sizes), corporate legal departments, and eDiscovery service providers (our current paying customers are law firms). In fact, we are only weeks away (as of the date of filing this application) from actually reaching this audacious goal.
Demo video: [link] Founded: 9/1/2017, Birmingham, MI Target customer: Law firms (all sizes), corporate legal departments, and eDiscovery service providers (our current paying customers are law firms). In fact, we are only weeks away (as of the date of filing this application) from actually reaching this audacious goal.
The court responds: “Pointing to persuasive caselaw, Fenix contends that Plaintiff’s allegations far well short of what is needed to overcome CDA immunity. US (Guest Blog Post) * Indianapolis Police Have Been “Blinded Lately Because They Shut Backpage Down” * Constitutional Challenge Against FOSTA Filed–Woodhull v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content