Search for: "Draft v. Lay et al" Results 21 - 40 of 75
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Nov 2019, 5:40 am by Barry Sookman
The order made by Justice Gleeson, in a carefully reasoned decision in Bell Media Inc. et al v GOLDTV.BIZ 2019 FC 1432, ordered certain ISPs in Canada to block access to pirate subscription streaming sites (GoldTV.biz and GoldTV.ca) that were infringing the copyrights of the plaintiffs Bell Media Inc., Groupe TVA Inc, and Rogers media Inc. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 1:07 pm by David Post
Section 230 doesn't provide Facebook et al. with an immunity from liability for publishing its users' "hate speech," the Constitution does that, in the First Amendment.*** *** Interestingly, the Times itself rather quickly recognized its error. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 5:16 pm by Eugene Volokh
Cunningham, et al. as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Neither Party, In Re: Donald J. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 11:43 pm by Wouter Pors
Wouter PorsEarly on Monday 10 December 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its judgment in Wightman et al v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (C-621/18), on whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its Brexit notification. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 4:22 pm by INFORRM
The problems with filters are not news to anyone who has been following the twisted path of the EU’s draft Copyright Directive. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 3:33 pm by Daphne Keller
The problems with filters are not news to anyone who has been following the twisted path of the EU’s draft Copyright Directive. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm by Ad Law Defense
Cal. 2014) (primary jurisdiction invoked with respect to “evaporated cane juice” labels) (collecting cases) see, e.g., Gitson, et al. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm by Ad Law Defense
Cal. 2014) (primary jurisdiction invoked with respect to “evaporated cane juice” labels) (collecting cases) see, e.g., Gitson, et al. v. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case  Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]