7/31/2023 0 Comments Mathew denapoli streamcast![]() ![]() Because Plaintiffs sought primarily injunctive relief, the Court considered only the then-current versions of Defendants' software, and did not address Grokster and StreamCast's alleged liability for past versions of their software or services. On April 25, 2003, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants StreamCast and Grokster, and denied Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. On July 12, 2002, Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint, which dropped Consumer Empowerment By, replaced StreamCast's corporate predecessors with StreamCast, and also joined a host of Defendants associated with the Kazaa file-sharing network, most notably Sharman Networks ("Sharman"). The complaint alleged that Defendants' file-sharing software contributed to massive infringement of copyrighted works owned by Plaintiffs. ("Grokster"), Consumer Empowerment By, and the corporate predecessors of StreamCast Networks, Inc. In October 2001, Plaintiffs - a group of record companies, movie studios, and music publishers - filed a single-count complaint against Defendants Grokster Ltd. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STREAMCAST NETWORK, INC.'S, MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO RULE 56(f) WILSON, District Judge. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT STREAMCAST NETWORKS, INC. ![]() 454 F.Supp.2d 966 (2006) METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,ĬONSUMER EMPOWERMENT BV, et al., Defendants. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |