You are here: / / Copyright Infringement Action Re Pre-1972 Recordings Not Precluded by “Safe H...
,

Copyright Infringement Action Re Pre-1972 Recordings Not Precluded by “Safe Harbor” Provision of Digital Millenium Copyright Act

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, the First Department determined that the “safe harbor” provisions in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not protect defendant, an Internet-based music streaming service, from a copyright infringement action based upon the uploading of recordings made prior to February 15, 1972.  In making this determination, the 2nd Department applied statutory interpretation principles to the relevant provisions of the DMCA and the Copyright Act.  UMG Recs, Inc v Escape Media Group, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02702, 1st Dept, 4-23-13

 

You might also like
ORDINANCE OR LAW ENDORSEMENT DID NOT REQUIRE INSURER TO PAY FOR REMEDIATION OF CODE VIOLATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE COVERED DAMAGE.
NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION MAY APPLY.
Death Threats Not Protected Under First Amendment; Hearsay May Be Basis of Administrative Determination
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION.
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE SCAFFOLD FROM WHICH HE FELL DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
STEP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIES TO DEFAMATION ACTIONS WAS NOT APPLICABLE HERE IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISPARAGEMENT PROVISIONS; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY THREATENED TO PROVIDE DAMAGING TESTIMONY IN ANOTHER ACTION INVOLVING PLAINTIFFS, IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARTY, IF DEFENDANT’S DEMANDS WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Jury’s Consulting a Dictionary Justified Mistrial Conviction Reversed Because of Improper Cross-Examination by Prosecutor; Defendant...