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
I did a deep dive on this topic in December , but the general gist of it is that copyright law preempts statelaw claims if the state-law claims come within the general scope of copyright. s Terms of Service (“ToS”) when it created a new account in 2019. The ToS did not define “scraping.”
That section states that rights under statelaws that are “equivalent” to rights under copyright law are preempted. If the contract limits any action that copyright law restricts, meaning reproduction, distribution, adaptation, or public performance or display of works within the scope of copyright, it is preempted.
Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act provides that “no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.” With that, any state or common law claim that is equivalent to copyright must therefore be preempted. 2019 WL 3555509 (D. Taco Bell Corp. ,
It could be a stolen car, a car used in a crime, or the car of someone wanted for breaking the law. That increases the government’s ability, and specifically, in many cases, law enforcement ability to watch people, to watch list people, to bring the light weight of the criminal justice system and the carceral system down on people.
The court responds: “Pointing to persuasive caselaw, Fenix contends that Plaintiff’s allegations far well short of what is needed to overcome CDA immunity. I agree… That is true regardless of whether the allegations are viewed singly or in combination.
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