An eBay phishing scammer trying to pique your curiosity.

Malware delivered through fake UPS tracking page, attached as an HTML file.

Malware distributed via Dropbox with the help of fake eFax e-mails

A fake Amazon order report, with a touch of false anti-virus peace of mind...

At the end of the month you need your salary... not a virus.

Fax or malware? This is clearly malware.

From payroll to fax to a homicide suspect. Where do these spammers get their inspiration from?

Phishing scammers using UCount awards as bait to steal your Standard Bank Internet Banking login details.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a town could not enforce a hazardous substances ordinance against a railroad company that was building a road salt transloading facility. The ordinance was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. Affirmed a permanent injunction against the town.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit the limited use of motor vehicles off-road in a national forest in Arizona for certain purposes. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Invalidated portions of an Environment Protection Agency final rule regarding waste streams from steam-electric power plants. Remanded to the agency for reconsideration in regard to legacy wastewater and combustion residual leachate, in this challenge brought by environmentalists, utilities and others.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental group's challenge to the issuance of a revised permit for a landfill. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived conservationist groups' challenge to the federal government's participation in the killing of gray wolves in Idaho. Reversed a dismissal for lack of Article III standing and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit limited motorized big game retrieval in a national forest in Arizona. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that members of the Crow Tribe retain a broad right under an 1868 Treaty to hunt on land that is now part of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. One issue was whether the treaty hunting rights expired when Wyoming became a state. The U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, ruled favorably to the Tribe. Justice Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion in a Freedom of Information Act case, held that the Sierra Club was entitled to certain records generated during the Environmental Protection Agency's rule-making process concerning cooling water intake structures. However, other records were protected from public release by the deliberative process privilege. Reversed in part and remanded.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. While six justices agreed that the state ban on uranium mining was not preempted, they divided on broader questions concerning statutory interpretation and preemption doctrine, and thus were unable to agree on the rationale for the decision. Justice Gorsuch delivered a plurality opinion, and several justices concurred in the judgment only.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case involving the Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlement Agreement, held that the district court erred in analyzing certain business claims for economic loss. The issue had to do with the process of matching revenues and expenses. Reversed and remanded.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition denied. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision not to issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry was permitted because the agency's interpretation of "risk" received deference and their decision not to regulate was authorized.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the judgment upholding the Defendant, Water Board’s, determination that Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the cleanup and abatement of petroleum residue or waste. Plaintiff sought a reversal of order denying petition to overturn that determination.

(United States DC Circuit) - Granted in part. In a petition to review an order loosening regulations to allow microcell transmission towers supporting cell phone reception to be built on or near Native American cultural sites, the FCC's determination that it wasn't in the public interest to review small cell deployment was arbitrary and capricious.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming summary judgment to the defendant schoolbook publisher against a stock photography agency complaining of copyright infringement because they were nonexclusive licensing agents for the photos at issue and failed to demonstrate adequate ownership interest to confer standing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment to the defense in a Copyright Act infringement case centered on a pen and ink depiction of two dolphins whose creator claimed a painting of two dolphins was copied because the panel found that the idea was simply drawn from nature and that expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all cannot result in copyright.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defense in a copyright case where the assignee of certain photographs tried to sue the owner for infringement for exceeding its licensed use of certain photographs taken by photographers who had a non-exclusive licensing agreement with them because the Copyright Act doesn't permit prosecution of infringement suits by assignees that have never been the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right to the intellectual property.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing a district court order finding fair use in the case of a company that enables clients to view and distribute ten-minute clips of television and radio programs produced by others because whether or not the snippets served a transformational purpose the provision of virtually all of Fox's copyrighted content deprived Fox of copyright revenue and could not be justified as fair use.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Largely affirming the decision against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke in a suit brought by the estate of Marvin Gaye over copyright infringement in the song Blurred Lines, but reversing the district court's decision to overturn the jury's general verdict in favor of certain parties because the defendants had waived any challenge to the consistency of the jury's general verdicts.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a state law accounting claim and otherwise vacating and remanding the case of a musical group called Sly Slick & Wicked who challenged the collection of royalties during the renewal period of the copyright of their song, entitled Sho' Nuff, which had been sampled by Justin Timberlake and J. Cole because their repudiation of the original terms of the copyright many years earlier did not also constitute a repudiation of the renewal terms, resulting in a time-bar to their claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of copyright infringement. In an amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the decision after a jury trial that musician Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and Clifford Harris Jr.'s song Blurred Lines, the world's best-selling single in 2013, infringed the copyright in a 1977 Marvin Gaye song, Got To Give It Up. The panel also held that the award of actual damages and infringers' profits and its running royalty were proper.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a copyright ownership claim was timely filed. The statute of limitations was not triggered by the defendants' act of registering their competing claim of ownership in the Copyright Office. Denied a petition for rehearing, in a dispute over ownership of renewal term copyrights in certain musical compositions and sound records.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement lawsuit against the real estate website Zillow, reversed a judgment after a jury trial, in part. A photography studio claimed that Zillow violated its copyrights in photographs of homes.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the defendants were entitled to an award of attorney fees in a Copyright and Lanham Act lawsuit after they prevailed by asserting a collateral estoppel defense. Affirmed the award of fees.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

More Ozzy TV- Arctic Monkeys 'Four Out Of Five' Video, Muse Concert Film Preview, Cliff Burton Documentary, Sevendust, Free Volbeat Show and more

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated the denial of an exemption from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's renewable fuel standard program. A small refinery sought an extension of its exemption from EPA's renewable fuel standard program, which requires refineries and other facilities to allocate a certain percentage of their fuel production to renewable fuels. When the EPA denied the request for an extension, the refinery petitioned the Fourth Circuit, which concluded that the EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The panel therefore vacated the EPA's denial and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Denied a legal challenge filed by environmental groups seeking to prevent the construction of a natural gas pipeline across part of Virginia. The environmental groups argued that the Commonwealth of Virginia had improperly certified that the pipeline project would not degrade the state's water. Unpersuaded, the Fourth Circuit, which had jurisdiction over the case by federal statute, concluded that Virginia's issuance of a Clean Water Act certification was not arbitrary and capricious, and thus denied the environmental groups' petition for review.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Rejected challenges to a natural gas pipeline project but remanded on one issue. Local governments and an environmental organization argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a proposed interstate pipeline expansion, but the Third Circuit rejected this argument. However, on a separate issue, the panel remanded to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection with instructions to reconsider the petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the owner of a tugboat was also considered to be operating an oil barge that the tugboat was moving at the time the barge collided with a bridge, resulting in an oil spill in the Mississippi River. Affirmed partial summary judgment for the federal government in its lawsuit seeking to recover cleanup costs under the Oil Pollution Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by individuals and associations located in Mexico that relied on the fishing industry as a primary source of income, citing noncompliance with certain procedures ordered by the district court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a worker on an offshore oil platform could not proceed with his California law claim that he was denied overtime pay. The claim was preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Affirmed the dismissal, in relevant part, of his proposed class action.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.