Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Since the start of the digital media era, content industries have engaged in a tug-of-war with courts over whether the identity of defendants accused of violating plaintiffs’ rights, via online distribution, can be revealed. In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently noted that prior cases “dealt with anonymity rights during the discovery process. No case has considered the issue presented here — whether and under what circumstances a court can properly protect a party’s anonymity after judgment.” Signature Management Team LLC v. Doe, 16-2188 (6th Cir. 2017).
By Zach Schlein
A Miami, FL, federal jury ruled in favor of a Croatia-based production company in their trademark dispute with a titan of concerts, Ultra Music Festival.
By Zach Warren
Since the GDPR’s implementation, the “WHOIS” service by which the general public could search registration information, including names and contact info, has been largely in a state of flux. It’s now even tougher to find information, attorneys who work with domain registration say, which could concern entertainment and intellectual property holders who want to go after infringing websites.
By R. Robin McDonald
A federal judge in Atlanta called out attorneys in a nationally watched copyright case for their role in an “an all-out, knock-down, drag-out fight between the ‘800-pound Gorilla’ of the recording industry in one corner of the room vs. ‘Spinrilla’, the self-proclaimed ‘800-pound Gorilla of free hiphop mixtapes’ in the other corner.”
By Anthony J. Dreyer and Andrew Green
The majority of these recent amendments become effective on Dec. 28, 2018. Many of these reforms appear to be in direct response to concerns expressed in 2016 by the New York Attorney General (NYAG), yet the changes do not appear to be as sweeping as the NYAG had sought.