Ellison v. Robertson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that defendant had not reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy where it “allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded”
• concluding that defendant did not have a direct 19 financial interest because there was no evidence to show that defendant “attracted or 20 retained subscriptions” to its online service as a result of the infringement or that it lost 21 subscriptions when the infringement ceased
• holding financial benefit need not be substantial to establish financial 4 interest
• explaining vicarious liability exists “if [someone] enjoys a direct financial benefit from another’s infringing activity”
• finding material dispute of fact as to whether ISP was entitled to invoke safe harbor provision because there was “ample evidence” that ISP did not terminate “repeat infringers,” but not suggesting that the infringing subscribers were adjudicated infringers
• distinguishing between infringing content being a draw 20 versus merely an added benefit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).