Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Thus, the Circuit Court rejected Napster's argument that file sharing by its users qualified for the fair use defense. Napster's claims that it enabled legal sampling, space shifting, and permissive distribution (some artists had consented to the presence of their songs on the Napster service) were also rejected by the court.
Judge Louis Stanton dismissed the privacy concerns as "speculative", and ordered YouTube to hand over documents totaling about 12 terabytes of data. [12] On the other hand, Stanton rejected Viacom's request that YouTube hand over the source code of its search engine, saying that it was a trade secret.
[31] [32] This prompted YouTube's CEO Susan Wojcicki to respond three months later with "Thank you @YouTube community for all the feedback. We're listening" in February 2016. [33] Videos continued to be removed and flagged on the site when copyright claims were made against uploaders for using the alleged use of protected material.
The "innocent infringer" defense, which lowers statutory minimum damages of copyright infringement from $750 to $200, was written in a time when copyright notices would be clearly affixed to physical media, which was part of the expectation in favor of the defense.
A New York judge ruled Reddit, YouTube and YouTube’s parent companies Google and Alphabet Inc. must face lawsuits that allege their content algorithms contributed to the radicalization of an 18 ...
Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube.The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers.
Lenz in turn sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting that the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA, and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. [3]
The plaintiffs moved for partial summary adjudication on defendants' fair use defense on October 4, 1999, and cross-filed for summary judgment citing a First Amendment defense on October 19 under seal. Judge Margaret M. Morrow issued a preliminary ruling on November 8, 1999, rejecting the "fair use" argument. [6]