The new disruptor in technology and academia has been ChatGPT and similar AI. The programs provide answers to any question asked by users and as new models have come out, they have become more accurate. As a user, ChatGPT provides a one-stop solution to answers as opposed to pouring through links on the Google or Microsoft Edge. I have not used ChatGPT because I have not had a purpose for it. Most users have used it for answers to homework assignments, quizzes, or other assignments. This can be dangerous as programs are being developed to identify when AI was used to draft an answer. This is largely why I have avoided using ChatGPT. As a soon-to-be lawyer, I do not feel concerned about the growth of these AI programs because there typically is not a straightforward answer in the law. That is why there is two sides to a case. The law is also very relational, which can not be replaced with AI. However, it can be utilized to help conduct legal research and become more efficient at identifying case law. However, the actual arguments will still need to be drafted by a trained attorney, and I do not see that changing for at least a long time, if ever.

Applying only the Restatement (Second) of Torts (excerpted in the text), prior to the passage of Section 230. A reporter, Clark Kent, writes a false and injurious article accusing businessman Lex Luthor of involvement in criminal activity. The Daily Planet newspaper prints the article on its front page. Olsen Newsstands sells the papers to the public. Slow Lane Coffee has several copies set out for its patrons. At common law, which of them are liable to Luthor for defamation? What if Luthor notifies them of the article’s falsity? Do the answers change if the article appears on dailyplanet.com and patrons view it using Slow Lane’s free Wi-Fi?

Upon the passage of Section 230, liability for dailyplanet.com may change if it is considered an interactive computer service which is afforded protection under Sectio 230. dailyplanet.com may be an open forum that anybody can post to. However, if it is a website for a newspaper, and Clark Kent is a news reporter for that newspaper, they would not be afforded protection under Section 230. Additionally, under Section 230, the Slow Lane would not face liability for individual’s accessing the website using their free Wi-Fi.

Interpreting Section 230: Before you read further, what do you think Section 230 means? What kinds of entities qualify for the immunity, from what kinds of liability, and under what circumstances? Does it adopt the Restatement’s rules, or change them?

Section 230 means that interactive websites can not be held liable for third party content. These entities include any website that is interactive whereby other users can post onto the website. Examples include social media sites, Wikipedia, Google, etc. This protects them against defamation claims and negligence for third party content. It does not adopt the Restatement’s rules and instead provides a wider range of protection. Even if the website knows about defamatory posts or acts negligently in removing a post, it is still afforded protection.

Zeran is one of the most important texts in all of Internet law. It rewards careful reading. State the post-Zeran rule of Section 230 in your own words, in one sentence. Explain the distinction between “publisher” and “distributor” liability at common law. Then explain Zeran’s holding in terms of these categories. Now test yourself: After Zeran, if you find a defamatory post about you on AOL, can you sue AOL? What if you pick up the phone and call AOL and tell them, “There’s a defamatory post about me!” Your answers should be “no” and “no.” Explain why.

Under Section 230, Interactive computer services are immune from liability for posts made by third parties.

The distinction between publisher and distributor liability at common law is that the distributor has to have knowledge of the defamatory statements and the subsequent failure to remove the statement then creates liability whereas a publisher is liable for the negligent communication of a defamatory statement. However, in Zeran the Court states that distributors are often times publishers.

If I found a defamatory post on AOL, I could not sue AOL because that was expressly the issue in Zeran and the court held that AOL was not liable, even if I picked up the phone and called AOL to tell them. This is because Section 230 provides an immunity. In Zeran, the Court found that AOL is legally a publisher and thus falls under the protection of the Act. Zeran attempts to hold AOL liable as a distributor, rather than a publisher. However, the court finds that would be bad for public policy reasons. If an internet service provider were held liable as a distributor, it would face liability every time it received notice of defamation on the Internet. This would be unworkable because, unlike a traditional print publisher, “the sheer number of postings on interactive computer services would create an impossible burden in the Internet context.” It would also chill speech.

A reporter, Clark Kent, writes a false and injurious article accusing businessman Lex Luthor of involvement in criminal activity. The Daily Planet newspaper prints the article on its front page. Olsen Newsstands sells the papers to the public. Slow Lane Coffee has several copies set out for its patrons. At common law, which of them are liable to Luthor for defamation? What if Luthor notifies them of the article’s falsity? Do the answers change if the article appears on dailyplanet.com and patrons view it using Slow Lane’s free Wi-Fi?

Clark Kent is on the case… or at least out to make headlines. He has published a false and injurious article accusing businessman Lex Luthor of involvement in criminal activity.  Clark Kent is liable for defamation because he is the one that wrote the defamatory article. The Daily Planet prints it on the front page. Publication of defamatory matter means that a defamatory statement is communicated “intentionally or by a negligent act to one other than the person defamed.” Restatement § 577. If a person intentionally and unreasonably fails to remove defamatory matter that she knows is under her control, then that person is subject to liability for its continued publication. See Restatement § 577. Further “one who repeats or otherwise republishes defamatory matter is subject to liability as if he had originally published it.” § 578. Therefore, according to these rules, the Daily Planet would likely be liable because they communicated it to one other than the person defamed by posting it on the front page of the newspaper. Slow Lane Coffee would likely not be liable because under § 578, the rule states “except as to those who only deliver or transmit defamation published by a third person” and the coffee shop would likely fall under this category. They are merely transmitting the newspaper. It would be similar to the newspaper delivery person. However, if Luther notiffies them of the article’s falsity, then it is likely that the coffee shop would fall under § 577(2) and be subject to liability because the defamatory matter (the newspaper) is on their property and under their control to be removed.

The internet is famously capable of behaving like all sorts of different media: you can get movies, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, party invitations, and personal letters online. Does Twitter seem more like a letter, a telephone conversation, a newspaper, a public speech, or a television broadcast? What about email? The Web?

Twitter seems more like a public telephone conversation due to the public, informal, and quick dialogue users participate in. It’s like having a phone conversation in public on speaker phone. This is because when you are interacting with others on Twitter, by tweeting back to them or retweeting, everyone is able to see that interaction. However, it is still more of a conversation between the two individuals. Additionally, if the two people want more privacy, they can direct message each other, similar to going to a private location on a telephone conversation. Email is similar to an email, but it provides instantaneous delivery which in that sense, makes it similar to a telephone conversation. However, in an email, the sender may not be aware when the receiver looks at the contents. The Web is similar to a newspaper out of these options, but there are many differences that make the Web a unique entity of its own.

The Editor’s Note at the end of the article updates the facts to show that Essjay, a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor, was actually a twenty-four year old and holds no advanced degrees, and he has never taught. However, originally, the article stated that he was “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.” His responsibilities included handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and taking action against users who violate site policy. I think this calls into question the New Yorker’s credibility more so than Wikipedia’s. Most people understand that Wikipedia is not that reliable, in fact most of my professors and teachers I have had will not allow students to cite to Wikipedia because it is written by unaccredited individuals. However, the New Yorker should have done more research before posting the credentials of this individual. Especially since “Essjay” was a pseudonym anyways. Even if they could not verify his credentials, they should have at least acknowledged that in the original article.

1. Rebecca Black’s music video for “Friday” has been viewed over 120 million times on YouTube. But in June 2011, the official version of the video was removed from YouTube. Fans promptly rushed in to fill the gap. One of them, with a username of PinkDressGirl, uploaded a copy to YouTube, describing it as “Friday (Totally Unauthorized).”1.Suppose you work for ARK Music (Black’s record label) and you would like to have this unauthorized version removed from YouTube. What is the process you will need to go through to submit a takedown notice? What will the notice need to contain, and what will you need to do with it?

ARK would need to show that PinkDressGirl has uploaded material that is infringing on copyrighted material. Then they would need to issue a takedown notice. This would include a description of the material being infringed upon, the material that is infringing, information on how to contact the complaining part, a statement of good faith that the complainant knows the material is not authorized, and a statement that the notification is accurate.

1. Now, suppose you work for YouTube. You have just received the notice from ARK Music. What will happen if you ignore it? What will happen if you disable access to the video? What will you do?

Youtube is required to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to infringing content upon receiving a valid takedown notice. If you ignore the notice, you could be liable for infringing on copyright material.

1. Now, suppose you are PinkDressGirl. YouTube has just informed you that the video has been disabled due to a copyright complaint from ARK Music. What are your options? What are their advantages and disadvantages?

You could send a counter-notice and if ARK does not respond, then PinkDressGirl may be able to reupload their video. The disadvantage is that you are submitting to the jurisdiction by responding so you could be subject to a lawsuit.

1. Now, suppose you work for YouTube and you have just received PinkDressGirl’s counter-notice. What are your options and obligations? How quickly must you act? What will you do?

YouTube should notify ARK that there is a counternotice and that if ARK does not respond, YouTube can reactivate the video.

1. Finally, suppose you work for ARK Music again, and YouTube has just informed you of PinkDressGirl’s counter-notice. What are your options? Is the video online or offline while you deliberate? What will you do?

ARK should file a court order to enjoin PinkDressGirl from using the material. After 10 days, YouTube may put the video back online while you deliberate.

In 2012, the British tabloid The Sun (falsely) reported that actor Bruce Willis was planning to sue to establish his right to give his MP3 collection to his daughters in his will. If Bruce Willis buys a CD from Amazon, can he give it to his daughter Rumer? What if he rips the CD to MP3s on his computer first? If he buys the same album as a download from Amazon’s MP3 store, can he email a copy of the MP3s to Rumer? What if he deletes the MP3s from his computer after he sends her the email? Can he give Rumer his computer? Can he give her the password to his Amazon account so she can download a copy?

There should be no issue with Bruce Willis giving his daughter a CD that he purchased from Amazon because he is merely giving the actual CD to her and not changing anything about it.

Bruce may run into some trouble if he rips a CD to MP3 because he is transferring the files into a format he did not purchase. However, He would likely still be able to give that CD to his daughter.

Bruce will likely get in trouble for emailing a copy of the MP3 based off Amazon’s terms of use. In the terms it includes under rights granted, “We grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use Purchased Music, Music Service Content, Matched Music, and any additional Music Content we provide you access to through the Services only for your personal, non-commercial purposes, subject to the Agreement. Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, you may not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, repurpose, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer, or use Purchased Music or Music Service Content.” In addition, it states “You may not transfer or assign your subscription or any benefits from the Unlimited Plan, Prime Music, or Amazon Music (free with ads). You may only use your Individual Unlimited Plan, or Unlimited Single Device Plan in connection with one Amazon account.” Therefore, these last acts would likely not be permitted.

Photographer Daniel Morel uploaded to Twitpic his photographs of the devastation in Haiti following the January 2010 earthquake. Agence France-Presse (AFP), a news agency, distributed copies of the photographs to CBS, CNN, and other news outlets. Morel claims copyright infringement; AFP’s defense is that Morel’s act of uploading the photographs resulted in a license that authorized AFP’s uses. Twitpic’s terms of service read, in part: 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… Should the court rule for Morel or for AFP?

The court should rule in favor of AFP because of Twitpic’s terms of service that provides “By [uploading content], you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense)” Morel agreed to these terms when he uploaded the photographs and would be bound. However, there are more complicating factors that may give Morel claim to these photographs.