Search for: "In Re CDA"
Results 261 - 280
of 286
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2008, 2:34 am
Pileggi of Fox Rothschild in his Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog CDA protects MySpace from underage user's negligence claim - Washington, D.C. lawyer Scott J. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 5:23 pm
” Moreover, according to Judge Kozinkski, “This is no different from a real estate broker in real life saying, ‘Tell me whether you’re Jewish or you can find yourself another broker. [read post]
6 Apr 2008, 11:50 am
(B) Communications Decency Act (CDA) - Section 230(c)- Section 230(c) is an internet-specific, legislative response to case law that holds ISPs liable as publishers in online defamation actions. [read post]
4 Apr 2008, 9:44 am
The [CDA] was not meant to create a lawless no man's-land on the Internet. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 12:59 pm
The appeals court later withdrew that opinion, and re-heard arguments in front of a full panel of judges last October December. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 10:10 am
Plus, at least if you're in the majority in the en banc court, you get to assign who writes the opinion. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 8:58 am
As Judge LaPlante explained, that interpretation was contrary to the express language of the statute, and in effect constituted a judicial re-writing of the CDA. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 8:58 am
As Judge LaPlante explained, that interpretation was contrary to the express language of the statute, and in effect constituted a judicial re-writing of the CDA. [read post]
4 Feb 2008, 12:30 am
On the other hand, I think we’re a long way from the policy goals that were behind the original section, especially where a commercial advertiser is basically getting all the benefit from the content (i.e. it’s really *their* advertising) with none of the risks (if they are successful in their claim). [read post]
2 Feb 2008, 3:54 am
The New York Times ran a story about the conflict between the Lanham Act and CDA §230 immunity which sets forth the issues fairly clearly: Can a Sandwich Be Slandered? [read post]
14 Oct 2007, 5:16 am
What we're left with is intermediary power without much responsibility. [read post]
13 Oct 2007, 2:54 am
The CDA excludes IP, which is sad, but the DMCA is better than nothing. [read post]
11 Aug 2007, 3:46 pm
They need that in order to justify sweeping immunity as in the case of DMCA 512 and CDA 230. [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 5:16 am
The IP claims have the great virtue, from the plaintiffs' perspective, of being available against the website because they're exempt from section 230 of the CDA, but here the plaintiffs didn't sue the site, so I'm not sure losing the IP claims would be all that harmful to the outcome. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:20 pm
Reno) challenging a provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which was ultimately heard by the United States Supreme Court, we had also filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the ACLU in another CDA challenge before the Supreme Court, Reno v. [read post]
17 May 2007, 4:39 am
" type="text/javascript">x3C/script>'); The Register reports that "Section 230 of the CDA gives providers of an interactive computer service, such as a website, immunity from lawsuits relating to the publication of information on the site by a person other than the site's provider. [read post]
15 May 2007, 4:19 pm
The upshot was that the court held that, in fact, the CDA does not exempt the site from all that user-solicited content, and the lower court will have to take up the case again. [read post]
7 May 2007, 3:27 am
The CDA Section 230 in the defamation context raises this issue as well. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 8:51 pm
(That's a reference to the CDA case, now ten years old.) [read post]
31 Mar 2007, 4:34 am
and GeoCities were big lobbiers for 512(c), though, and they're the precursors to MySpace, YouTube, etc. [read post]
