Search for: "United States v. Minor"
Results 4461 - 4480
of 7,130
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2012, 4:00 am
A different district court followed suit and stated that Section 106 should be read literally to create an independent, exclusive right “to authorize” use of a copyrighted work.14 That court held that “mere authorization . . . constitutes direct infringement and is actionable under United States Copyright Law. [read post]
4 Nov 2012, 10:31 pm
Also worth noting, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered oral argument in the Belmont Abbey College appeal of the original “ripeness” decision for December 14, 2012. [read post]
1 Nov 2012, 8:51 pm
“[R]estraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen go to the essence of a democratic state” (R. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2012, 12:19 pm
United States v. [read post]
Second Circuit Rejects Child Pornography Appeal Arguing Defendant Requested a Lawyer – U.S. v. Oehne
31 Oct 2012, 3:22 pm
A defendant who didn’t make that request clearly enough was unsuccessful in his appeal in United States v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 12:29 pm
Attorney General's Office objected, stating that the population makeup of the state (78% white, 20% black, and 1% each Native American and Asian) made a single majority-minority district insufficient. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 7:22 am
United States and Setser v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 7:16 am
Plumer instead voted for his friend, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams for President and United States Ambassador to Britain, William Rush as Vice-President, even though neither Adams nor Rush were candidates for those offices. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 7:44 am
United States, 12-5271, for yesterday’s grant in McQuiggin v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
, says: In the same way that Congress did not intend to cabin section 602’s application to copies from countries with a shorter term or compulsory licenses, the legislative record provides no evidence that it intended its application to situations where a trademark owner adds a copyrightable insignia or label on goods to protect against their parallel importation into the United States. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
The Software and Information Industry Association, arguing that “the Copyright Act contains the flexibility to deal with unforeseen applications of section 602″, says: In the same way that Congress did not intend to cabin section 602’s application to copies from countries with a shorter term or compulsory licenses, the legislative record provides no evidence that it intended its application to situations where a trademark owner adds a copyrightable insignia or label on goods… [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 11:04 am
In more plain English, if someone in the United States purchases legitimate copies of some item abroad that has a copyrighted work somewhere in it, can they import those items into the United States and resell them here without violating the Copyright Act? [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 3:44 am
That’s the issue tackled by the 2nd District in State v. [read post]
27 Oct 2012, 7:54 pm
See United States v. [read post]
27 Oct 2012, 2:17 am
The United States Supreme Court heard an oral argument in the case of Moncrieffe v. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 7:01 am
The petitioner has nonetheless stated that it is considering its other options going forward, including a possible appeal to the United States Supreme Court and the possibility of its presenting better proof of its qualifying tax exempt status to the tax tribunal for consideration. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 5:53 am
These permits are referred to as "synthetic minor" permits. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 1:31 pm
In United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying, “the mere fact that a copyright is property derived from a grant by the United States is insufficient to support the claim of exemption.” To be exempt from state taxation, the government must reserve some sort of controlling interest in a grant or privilege. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
” As support, it then stated, “In Fox Film Corp. v. [read post]
