I am a little weary of the speed of which AI has progressed. When it comes to considerations like have been brought to us in this post. That being said, I think there will be legal issues as these technologies continue down the path that they are, at the speed that they are. One of the article’s topics that particularly concerned me involved nudity and a lack of filtering out of such materials. Though these images are not considered “real”, I think these materials can be harmful, especially to younger audiences, and can even victimize young audiences. To me, this is dangerous and could present a risk of being child pornography.

Aside from the aforementioned risks, I can see that ChatGPT may cause some concern in my practice as an attorney one day. There are some considerations that we may need to consider and even updates to our rules of professional responsibility as these technologies continue to progress. I wonder how filling out legal documents would work using ChatGPT or something similar. Would this open attorneys up to more scrutiny? Would there be more ineffective assistance of counsel arguments? Would the responsibilities or burdens be different or shifted? I think these are all things that need to be considered before implementing programs such as ChatGPT or those similar in this world.

I think as this continues to progress, companies and employees really need to take these things into account and this can be hard when people are unaware of these technologies and their processes. I look forward to seeing what comes from these developments.

The post-Zeran rule of Section 230 protects internet providers from liability for tort offenses committed by third party users. A distributor would be liable for content it distributes only if it knows or should have known about illegal content. This is showcased in the notice element of distributor liability. Thus, a  publisher can be held liable if they have the knowledge, opportunity, and ability to exercise control over the content. Distributor liability is more limited and distributors are generally not held liable for the content of the material that they distribute because they do not exercise direct control over it. Zeran’s holding in this context then is basically that computer service providers are not subject to distributor liability.

I cannot sue AOL after finding a defamatory post about me as AOL is considered a interactive computer service under Section 230. Under Zeran they are considered a publisher and publishers have immunity in this case. I would need to sue the person directly here if I wanted to pursue legal action. I also cannot call AOL and tell them about the defamatory post and proceed that way because AOL is a publisher. They are not a distributors and as noted before, publishers are not subject to the notice element and still hold immunity under Section 230.

I think that Section 230 means protection. Section 230 provides interactive computer services and information content providers some protection from being held liable for potentially harmful posts on their servers. It provides an opportunity for keeping the internet safe but also fosters an open environment where people can openly create and share as technology and internet continues to grow and adapt. The entities that receive this protection are defined under § 230(f)(2) which describes an interactive computer service meaning a software provider that allows for access by multiple users to the server via internet. Most forefront today would probably be social media sites. I do not believe that Section 230 adopts the Restatement’s rules. I think that Section 230 and the Restatement work in conjunction and Section 230 has modernized the Restatements in a way to also include internet services.

Twitter: In my opinion, I think Twitter seems most like a telephone conversation. Whether they are calls or texts, Twitter is similar to posting a conversation with your targeted audience members. Tweets are short and to the point, much like my texts and phone calls with the people I need to communicate with.

Email: I think that email is most like a letter. Emails and letters tend to be longer and more thought out pieces of writing that are both intended for more professional communication. Both are more formal than a text, call, or tweet for example.

The Web: I think the web is most like a newspaper. Things posted on the web will be there until they are removed. It seems to me a more permanent form of sharing thoughts. Both of these forums can also reach a larger audience and are targeted towards the source’s viewers.

Based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, I believe that both Clark Kent and The Daily Planet are liable for defamation against Lex Luthor.

First, since Clark wrote the original article he is, and should be, liable. Second, The Daily Planet is liable based on § 577 and § 578. They could be liable because they negligently published the false article and could also be liable as the republisher for taking Clark’s article and putting it on the front page of their paper.

I do not initially think that either the Olsen Newsstands or Slow Lane Coffee should be held liable for the false article about Luthor. However, if both of these companies were to be notified of the defamatory nature of the article and continue to distribute it then they would become liable under § 577(2).

I do not believe the answer changes if the article appears on daileyplanet.com and then patrons view it using Slow Lane’s public Wi-Fi. The dailyplanet.org would still be liable just as they would be for the original article.

1. As ARK’s agent, I would need to submit a takedown notice as defined in 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). I would need to submit a written document that: (1) contained my signature, (2) included information about what work is being infringed, (3) included information that allows YouTube to identify the specific video I am claiming is infringing on a copyright, (4) information that allows YouTube to contact me, such as my phone number, address, and email address, (5) a statement stating that I have a good faith belief that the video is not authorized by the copyright owner, and (6) a statement that the information in this written notification is accurate under the penalty of perjury. Following those steps, I would then submit that to YouTube’s designated agent.
2.  Ignoring this notice would likely lead to YouTube being held liable for copyright infringement. Following notice, it is my duty to promptly and expeditiously remove access to the material alleged to be copyright infringement. I would not be held liable if I removed said material, so this would be the best legal course of action for YouTube.
3.  As PinkDress Girl, I could take a risk and upload another video, but this would open me up to another copyright infringement notice and possible following action. Another option I would have, that would be more likely to result in my video being allowed back up, is filing a counter-notice with YouTube. This would need to include (1) my signature, (2) information identifying the video that has been removed, (3) a statement under penalty of perjury that I have a good faith belief that the video was removed due to mistake or misidentification, and (4) my contact information such as my address, phone number, and email, and a statement that I consent to jurisdiction of the Federal District Court where I reside. Ultimately, though, this could lead to legal action against me.
4.  After receiving PinkDressGirl’s counter-notice, I would need to share this with ARK Music and then inform them that the video will be reposted to the site within 10 business days. I would then actually need to execute that step unless there is further legal action preventing that.
5. Following YouTube notifying me of PinkDressGirl’s counter-notice, as ARK’s agent I would need to deliberate within 10 business days in order to keep the video down. If I were to not begin a course of legal action, however, the video would go back up. I would personally begin further legal action.

Amazon MP3s:

When reading the fact pattern in the Amazon MP3 example, I think there are some helpful details missing, so maybe I am not entirely clear on the questions. However, when reading the Amazon Music Terms of Use, which is a subset of their terms and conditions, it is my belief that the following would be true:

Yes, Bruce would be able to give Rumer the CD he purchased. I do not see a reason this would not be permitted.

Yes, Bruce could still give Rumer the physical CD if he rips it to MP3 first. Whether or not he is able to rip it is another question, but there seems to be a program that Amazon has called AutoRip that automatically sends you a digital version of the CD you purchased making this allowable.

No, Bruce would not be able to email a copy of the MP3s to Rumer after purchasing the same album as a download as this would be violating the terms and conditions that state that you cannot “redistribute. transmit, assign, sell, …”.

No, Bruce would still not be able to send Rumer the email even if he deleted the MP3s after the fact. Due to the above fact, I do not think this would be allowed just because he deleted them afterwards.

Yes, Bruce would be able to give Rumer his computer, I do not think there is anything prohibiting this.

No, Bruce would not be able to give Rumer his password to his Amazon account so she could download a copy based on Amazon’s terms and conditions.

I think it is difficult to interpret what rule makers and lawmakers meant by this, which is why caselaw is so important. Here, it would be helpful to clarify the language of the Copyright Act so we know what constitutes being signed. It could be checking a box saying you agree to terms and conditions. In regard to this way of signing, I believe Zillow would be able to use their terms of service to obtain the copyright ownership. The terms of service could constitute a writing.

If checking a box would not count as signing, there are many ways to digitally sign things now. This is often done in legal documents nowadays. A company could easily change the way a user accepts the terms of service by clicking into a signature box where an individual can either type their name, or sign it using their mouse or trackpad, or you could type your initials even.

Advertising and accurately depicting homes would motivate Zillow to obtain ownership of the copyright for real-estate photos that are posted on it’s site. I could also see the company not wanting to have to deal with the worry of opening this up. Either way, I think it is important this be defined or clarified somewhere.

I think it the court would be better off ruling in favor of AFP in this situation based off of the information provided. The terms of service are what lead me to this conclusion.

The Twitpic terms of service that Morel agreed to stated “By [uploading content], you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such content in any and all media or distribution methods…” Based on this, there appears to be a license with the right to sublicense. Therefore, it seems that AFP’s use of the photos is authorized as they came from Twitpic.

This is similar to the McGucken case’s terms of service issue where the court stated that the terms “unequivocally grant” a license to sublicense the publicly posted content disputed in the case. As such, I think that the court should rule in favor of AFP.

I think the court would grant the motion for summary judgement in favor of National Air. The terms and conditions on their website are hyperlinked at the bottom of their website in blue. These terms specifically state that third parties cannot be used to check customers in online or attempt to obtain a boarding pass in a certain group. This is what LineJump is doing, which is why I do not believe the court would rule in their favor.

Dissimilar to the LinkedIn case, the information LineJump needs to check their customers in is not public information. This creates uneasiness for me and possibly an issue with authorization.

National, on the other hand, has a national security argument that presents why it would be problematic having third parties checking in for their customers online.

I lean towards thinking that the court should grant the motion for summary judgement in favor of National, rather than LineJump. There are a few reservations that I have not being able to visualize how conspicuous these terms and conditions are. I would be able to make a more informed decision at that point. Maybe a hearing would be beneficial so both sides can present their arguments.