Search for: "People v Keys" Results 2721 - 2740 of 8,034
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Mar 2007, 2:29 pm
Viacom v Gootube is on. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 5:24 am by Ezra Rosser
This Article argues that the generally accepted understanding of Hawaii Housing Authority v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 7:21 am by Andrew Hamm
The key to the “experiment,” in Holmes’ view, was that we did not give government officials that power. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 10:31 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Any general claims about distinctiveness must take into account: eligibility for protection/scope of protection; reality v. policy; words v. non-words; perception by single consumers v. aggregate; consumer search costs approach v. product goodwill approach; US v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 1:57 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Kaufman: key obstacles are that it’s very hard to develop robust databases, taxonomies for licensing. [read post]
1 Jan 2025, 7:34 am by Veridiana Alimonti
Civil society organizations in Argentina, such as Observatorio de Derecho Informático Argentino, Fundación Vía Libre, and Access Now, have gone to courts to enforce their right to access information about the new unit created. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:01 pm by John Dean
  If all three key questions that that case sets forth are answered yes, then there is immunity. [read post]
9 Sep 2020, 6:18 am by Cory Doctorow
Below, we have set out examples of how DMCA 1201 -- and its Mexican equivalent -- is incompatible with human rights, including free expression, self-determination, the rights of people with disabilities, cybersecurity, education, and archiving; as well as the law's consequences for Mexico's national resiliency and economic competitiveness and food- and health-security. [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 12:28 pm by Amy Howe
The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 11:16 am by Eugene Volokh
See Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 578 (noting that a key reason the court struck down the Communications Decency Act in Reno was that the statute failed to "exclude[] from the scope of its coverage works with serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"); see also Book People, Inc. v. [read post]