It may shock some people, but I may have gone through a rather “large” science fiction phase as a kid that some people may see as “obsessive.” I don’t see it that way, but, you know, it’s fine. But I vividly remember hating sci-fi movies about AI. The concept terrified me as a kid, especially after watching movies such as I, Robot; 2001: A Space Odyssey, and possibly the most traumatizing of all, the Disney Channel Original, Smart House. Young Elisa fully believed that if AI became a regular part of our society, it would definitely take over civilization. Do I still believe that? Not necessarily.

The older and more tech-savvy I’ve gotten throughout the years, the more I’ve seen that AI can do a lot of good. Even in the past year, the advancement made in AI (such as Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT, etc.) has been unbelievable to watch. It has transformed multiple industries, including the legal profession and made them more accessible to the public, which is always a good thing!

However, with all of the benefits of AI, it also raises significant legal, ethical, and social challenges. For example, if an attorney or law firm were to use ChatGPT in its practice and the system made an error or omission in legal advice to a client, who could be held responsible? How far of a net could be cast? Would only the attorney or law firm who used the AI be held liable? Or could it even include the AI developer and the website hosting the program? 

For the first part of the assignment, we focused on who would be liable under common law before the passage of Section 230. However, for this assignment, we will focus on who would be liable for defamation under Section 230.

Under Section 230, none of the parties involved in publishing the false and injurious article can be held liable for defamation if they weren’t the actual author of the defamatory article. For that reason, the only person who can be held liable for defamation would be the article’s author, Clark Kent. On the other hand, Olsen Newsstands, The Daily Planet, and Slow Lane Coffee would only be seen as merely distributors of the article instead of publishers. Even if these three parties were notified by Lex Luthor of the article’s defamatory nature, this wouldn’t change the answer. You see, Section 230 still shields parties from liability even if they’re given notice unless they willingly participate in creating the article or refuse to remove it once receiving a proper takedown notice. The same rules would apply if the article was on dailyplanet.com and patrons viewed it using Slow Lane’s free Wi-Fi. Slow Lane would still be a distributor of the content and shielded from liability.

The post-Zeran rule of Section 230 holds that online platforms (i.e., Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc.) are not liable for content posted by users or third parties, treating them more as “distributors” than publishers.

At common law, a publisher is defined as someone liable for the content they publish, even if there’s no proof that they had specific knowledge of the statement’s falsity. Distributors, on the hand, aren’t held liable for what they distribute unless they’re aware of the defamatory nature of the content and fail to retract, correct, or remove the defamatory statements.

In Zeran, the court held that AOL is legally a publisher and thus falls under the protection of Section 230. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for a defamatory post that a third party had made about Zeran. After Zeran, if you find a defamatory post about you on AOL, you cannot sue AOL because it is immune from liability under Section 230. Further, even if you were to contact AOL about the post, they would still be immune from liability unless they have actual knowledge of the post’s defamatory nature.

Shame shame shame, Clark Kent. I think Superman would be so disappointed if he knew of the lies and slander you were spreading about his arch-enemy.

As noted in the assignment, this analysis only applied to common law before the existence and passage of Section 230. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a plaintiff in a defamation case must prove the following: (1) that a defamatory statement was published to a third party, (2) that the statement was false, and (3) that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result. §558. In the case of Clark Kent’s article, Clark Kent and The Daily Plant will be held liable for defamation.  § 577. The same can’t be said for Slow Lane Coffee and Olsen Newsstands. While, yes, the coffee shop had copies of the newspaper available to the public and Olsen Newsstands sold the newspaper, that’s all they did. §578.

However, let’s say that Luthor notifies the parties that the article is defamatory. Then can Slow Lanes Coffee and Olsen Newsstand be held liable? Well, the answer is yes, as now they are knowingly selling and providing copies of the newspaper to their patrons. But this liability can be negated if the parties take reasonable steps to retract or correct the statements. Contrarily, if the parties were informed of the article’s falsity and continued to print or distribute it, they may be in even more trouble or held even more liable than before!

Continuing with the hypo, I have to give the generic lawyer answer: “It depends.” If the article appeared on dailyplanet.com and patrons viewed it using Slow Lane’s free wifi, the liability would depend on the parties’ active participation in the distribution of the article. So, for example, The Daily Planet and daleyplanet.com would still be held liable, seeing that they are the publishers of the defamatory article. However, as for Slow Lane, it would depend on if they were actively promoting the article (i.e., directing patrons to the website once signing into the wifi.) And for Olsen Newsstand, it would also depend on a couple of factors including if Olsen Newsstands also owned a website, if Olsen Newsstand only sold physical newspapers, and if the article was exclusively online.

Honestly, I think the internet that keeps me going in life. I genuinely can’t comprehend how people functioned before the creation of the internet (especially social media.) But, before turning this into a “Gen-Z” love letter to modern technology, let me give my thoughts on the question at hand: “Does Twitter seem more like a letter, a telephone conversation, a newspaper, a public speech, or a television broadcast?”

Without coming off a cliche with a typical lawyer/law student answer, I think it’s a mixture of things. I believe it’s a combination of a newspaper, a public speech, and a television broadcast. Like a newspaper, Twitter users can enter the app and instantly receive an update on everything happening in the world, both locally and abroad. It’s a public speech because the platform allows pretty much everyone (unless banned) to broadcast their thoughts and beliefs through their tweets to a vast audience. And it’s a television broadcast because, unlike a typical newspaper, you can get rapid updates on ongoing events in real-time, like that of a news broadcast. The same could be said for the Web for the same reasons.

Email, on the other hand, is just like a letter, the only difference being that it is electronic instead of handwritten and cannot be destroyed. It’s a communication between two or more people that go back and forth without the general public knowing.

I can’t lie. I am sort of a Wikipedia “stan,” not only do I use it close to every day, but I have also added and edited Wikipedia pages for years. So, the fact that the New Yorker dedicated an entire article to the website doesn’t surprise me. In the article “Know It All” by Stacy Schiff, she discusses her experience while navigating Wikipedia and speaks about one of the website’s regular users, Essjay. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.” At the end of the article, there is an Editors’ Note meant to clarify some discrepancies in Essjay’s alleged credentials. After the article went live, Essjay, whose real name is “Ryan Jordan, revealed that he is twenty-four, holds no advanced degrees, and has never taught.” As he was a significant part of the article, I’m not surprised that the Editors felt the need to offer a correction after the fact.

However, I don’t believe the note necessarily affects the credibility of Wikipedia or The New Yorker. While, yes, the New Yorker should have conducted a more thorough background check, I think that reflects more poorly on Schiff than it does the New Yorker. To be completely frank, there were so many avenues she could have taken to try and cover all of her bases. For example, she could have tried to track down Essjay’s real name to make sure he was who he said he was, or she could have tracked down another Wikipedia user who took on the same duties but was willing to provide her with their real name and credentials.

Additionally, I don’t believe this reflects poorly on Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia encourages its editors and users to be honest, but that doesn’t mean the website has to enforce it. If Wikipedia were to conduct background checks on all its 27 million registered users, the website would never have flourished the way it has. 

As a whole, this serves as a reminder that (1) even newspapers and their authors are capable of mistakes and (2) that in moments of error or inaccuracy, it is their duty to correct it. That is how these websites and newspaper retain their creditability. It also serves as a reminder to readers to approach any information with a healthy level of skepticism before blindly taking everything as fact.

Hearing the “smash hit” from 2011, Friday, in 2023, was not something I expected and it definitely threw me back to middle school.

1. To have this unauthorized version of our client’s song taken off of YouTube, first, we must decide whether this would fall under Fair Use. For the sake of brevity and without going into a Fair Use analysis, we will assume that it does not fall under fair Use, and we can submit a takedown notice. To submit the notice, we have to follow the guidelines set by the Digitial Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which include the following:
   1. Send written notice to YouTube, including the specific URL of the infringing content;
   2. Include a statement that the copyright owner has a good faith belief that the Use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
   3. Include a statement that the information in the notification is accurate and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party has the authority to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed; and
   4. Sign the notice electronically or physically. 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3).
2. Continuing with the hypo, if YouTube receives the takedown notice and ignores it, ARK can pursue legal action against YoutTube for failing to comply with the DMCA. If YouTube responds to the notice and removes the video. Then the problem is solved, and neither party has to go to court. However, PinkDressGirl will be notified of the takedown.
3. As PinkDressGirl, we have two options: (1) we accept the takedown and leave the matter alone, or (2) we can challenge the takedown by filing a counter-notice. While I personally would leave the issue alone, for the sake of argument, let’s say we filed a counter-notice. The advantage of this would be that the video is restored if ARK Music doesn’t pursue legal action within fourteen (14) days. However, we would need to have a “good faith” belief that the video was taken down due to a mistake. Which may be hard to prove. The disadvantage to filing a counter-notice would, of course, be that Ark Music may choose to pursue legal action against us and we would be subject to a lawsuit.
4. Should we continue with the counter-notice, YouTube must (1) forward the notice to Ark Music and (2) if ARK Music doesn’t respond, then re-upload the video on its platform.
5. Once the counter-notice is forwarded to ARK Music, they can either let the video be restored or pursue legal action against PinkDressGirl for infringement. But we must respond within 10 days. During this time, the video will remain down; however, if we don’t respond after those 10 days, the video will be put back on the platform.

I wonder what kind of music Bruce Willis listens to. Part of me likes to think it’s something along the lines of Beyonce and Doja Cat. But, anyway, that’s the beyond that point.

Generally, when you purchase music physically or digitally, you have a license to listen to the music. That’s it. You don’t own it, you can’t make unauthorized copies, you can share them with others, and you certainly can’t sell them without permission. This rule extends to music through Amazon as its terms and conditions for music downloads explicitly prohibit you from “selling, distributing, or making any commercial use of” the music files.”

Going through the examples, nothing stops Willis from buying a physical copy of the CD and giving it to his daughter. That’s totally fine as long as he gives her the copy he bought and not a copy he made illegally. That is the only example where Willis can legally give his daughter access to the music. However, when the music turns from a physical CD to a digital file is where it can get messy.

For example, Willis cannot rip the CD into MP3s and give it to his daughter. Nor can he simply buys a digital album from Amazon’s store and send it to his daughter via email. As this is also explicitly barred by Amazon’s terms of service. Further, Amazon’s terms would prohibit him from giving Rumer the password to his Amazon account to download a copy herself.

It’s also worth noting that Willis deleting the MP3s from his computer after sending them to Rumer does not negate any legal responsibility he may have for sharing the music, as he has already violated Amazon’s terms.

All in all, while Willis is allowed to give his daughter his physical CD copy, that is where it stops. He is severely limited in what he can legally do to share the music with his daughter. He cannot make physical or digital copies of the CD or give her his Amazon password without violating Amazon’s terms of service.

The Copyright Act requires a “writing … signed by the owner” to transfer ownership of the copyright itself. 17 U.S.C. § 204. This means the copyright owner must provide written consent and a signature to transfer ownership to another party regardless of the medium. Which leads me to ask: what counts as a signature? Is it only when we sign our full name in a little box on a website, or do we provide a signature whenever we create an account on the site? I believe it’s the former; transferring ownership over to a piece of art requires a signature every time one wishes to transfer said ownership.

In its current state, I believe Zillow’s terms may allow them to obtain some sort of license to use real estate photos uploaded by its users. However, I don’t believe it would grant them complete ownership of the copyright of the photo because the copyright owner, the user, has not provided the company with explicit and written consent and a signature. And while I could see why Zillow would want to obtain ownership of the copyrighted photos, I don’t believe it is worth the trouble. Not only could it lead to a plethora of legal issues, but it may also direct traffic away from their site because copyright owners refuse to sign away their copyright