Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that radio stations weren't liable for airing commercials made by third parties that failed to obtain licenses to use the plaintiff's songs and sound recordings in the commercials.
Features
Internet/Unauthorized Movie DistributionThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied summary judgment to both Paramount Pictures…
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Features
The trend in judicial resistance to statutes that regulate video-game content recently became clearer when federal district courts in Michigan, Illinois and California enjoined state statutes that deemed certain video-game content harmful to minors.
E-businesses, by forming networks of season ticket holders and contracting with entertainment venues, provide Internet customers with entry passes for concerts, sports and other spectator events. Generally, Internet ticket providers are in the business of buying and selling tickets to such events above face value. Some parties have equated such Internet ticket providers with ticket scalpers and claim they are acting unlawfully. In particular, some state anti-scalping laws have been applied to Internet ticketing transactions, resulting in both criminal and civil sanctions. However, the application of proper Internet notices and appropriate Web site access limitations may render such state anti-scalping laws moot.
Features
The advent of digital-music delivery has brought about significant changes in both the format and distribution channels by which consumers receive music. Nonetheless, the fundamental role of distribution remains the same: to put product into the hands ' and today the computers and portable media devices ' of consumers. <br>Now, traditional offline distributors and a number of independent record labels have decided that digital distribution is an important component of their respective business models. <br>This article examines some of the interplay between the provisions of digital-distribution contracts and provisions contained in pre-existing contracts between offline distributors and independent record labels, and between independent record labels and artists.
Features
Two recent decisions — one by an Illinois state court and the other by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — reveal that courts remain divided as to whether general liability policies provide coverage for fax-advertising claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Generally, the TCPA prohibits, among other things, the use of fax machines or other devices to send "an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3). The TCPA provides a private right of action by the recipients of such faxes to sue the senders. <i>Id.</i> Notably, under the TCPA, the recipient does not have to demonstrate any injury to prevail on its claim; the receipt of an unsolicited fax is sufficient to trigger liability under the statute.
Features
In a 2-1 opinion, the Third Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an excess medical malpractice insurer in a case involving both policy construction and evidentiary issues. In <i>Lexington Insurance Company v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital, et al.</i>, 2005 WL 2174003 (3d Cir. 9/9/05), West Penn Hospital had three layers of medical malpractice coverage. The first layer was a primary policy issued by PHICO. The PHICO policy provided both general liability, on an occurrence basis, and medical malpractice coverage on a claims-made and reported basis. The next layer was $1 million worth of excess coverage provided by the Pennsylvania Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Fund (the "CAT Fund"). Lexington issued an excess policy over those first two layers. The CAT Fund coverage was also claims-made and reported.
Features
In <i>Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp.</i> ("Liberty") <i>v. Segal Co.</i> ("Segal"), Nos. 04-5562-cv & 04-6005-cv, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16601, 2005 WL 1869146 (2d Cir. Aug. 9, 2005), in a per curiam opinion, the Second Circuit reaffirmed its view that New York allows awarding a successful insured its declaratory action attorneys' fees in two instances: 1) where the "policyholder has been cast in a defensive position by its insurer in a dispute over the insurer's duty to defend," or 2) where the insurer is guilty of bad faith.