The legal issues surrounding AI have to do with privacy and surveillance, bias, discrimination and more. I feel like it is an invasion of data privacy and security for consumers. The artificial intelligence can boost productivity by exploring new and innovative ways. However, I think there are quite a few disadvantages that scare me. For instance, doesn’t this take away the need for real humans in certain jobs? I also don’t think I want all my data to be accessed like health history, etc. Also, I recently saw AI pictures on twitter that looked insanely real and it was so weird to me how the computer can form the pictures. I think these photos digitalized will spread a lot of false narratives and informations. I don’t feel great about ChatGPT because it is strange that it allows you to have conversations with a bot. I think it will be something that law suits arise from and as a future law practictioner, I don’t think I want too much digitalization in my work.
Blog Post 24
Zeran holds that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. The distinction between publisher and distributor in Zeran is that AOL is a publisher. They were attempting to hold AOL as a distributor instead of a publisher however this fails. An internet provider would face too many liabilities if held as a distributor instead of publisher. The answers to those questions would be no and no because Section 230 and Zeran specifically state the service would not be liable for the content posted on the service. AOL is the publisher and not the distributor of information. They aren’t liable for this defamatory post about me.
I think that Section 230 is stating that internet users (people and providers) are not liable for illegal content posted by other people. The entitles that qualify for immunity are entirely different for the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Defamation.) Section 230 does not adapt the Restatement rules. The Restatement held forms of media subject to liability if they didn’t take down or stop distribution after being aware of the content. That isn’t stated anywhere in the Section 230 passage. Section 230 is much more specific in terms of internet usage rather than the Restatement being about determining liability for defamation. This appears to be new law rather for the internet instead of adopting the Restatement.
Blog Post 25
After reading section 230, I think that it is saying that Internet users will not be held liable for illegal content posted online by other people. Therefore, I do not think this would change anything with the common law. If anything, Clark Kent would still be held liable under common law but the others would not be if he posts it online. It didn’t seem to address newspapers or physical copy distributions in section 230. Therefore, they wouldn’t be liable for publishing. Now, if it was distributed all over online, section 230 would apply with the treatment of protecting private blocking and screening of offensive material.
Blog Post 22
Restatement (Second) of Torts (Defamation) states: Publication of defamatory matter is its communication intentionally or by a negligent act to one other than the person defamed. One who intentionally and unreasonably fails to remove defamatory matter that he knows to be exhibited on land or chattels in his possession or under his control is subject to liability for its continued publication.
I believe that Olson Newspaper and Daily Planet would be liable to Luthor because they intentionally and unreasonably failed to remove defamatory matter. I do not think that Slow Lane Coffee knew it was defamatory when putting the copies out for their patrons.
If Luthor notifies them of its falsity and they do not take them out then they would be violating Restatement (Second) of Torts (Defamation.) I also do not think they could be held liable if users were on dailyplanet.com on their wifi. That would be something out of Slow Lane Coffee’s control to be liable for things people do while they are on their laptops or phones at their location.
Blog Post 21
To me, I think that Twitter seems more like text conversations between the users on Twitter. The Twitter side that I am on is mostly about film, Harry Styles, and pop culture. Therefore, from what I see it is a bunch of fans constantly posting pictures and facts about those topics. It is almost like friends are communicating to me even though I have never met anyone. For the film updates on twitter, it does seem like a television broadcast sometimes when there are scenes from movies uploaded. As for the “trending” topics on twitter, it seems more like a newspaper where people find out what is going on day to day. Email seems like letters between one another. The Web seems like a newspaper and encyclopedia all in one. It is very convenient having the Internet which can do all of these different forms in one place.
Blog 20
- Presuming this is not in fair use, we need to get this unauthorized video off of YouTube. We will need to send a takedown notice as defined in 17 USC 512(c)(3.). The notice needs to state the infringement and how this is not authorized and in bad faith. We also need to send notice to Youtube.
- Once Youtube receives notice then there needs to be action taken by them to remove the video with the infringement of Friday. If not, there could be infringement suits with Youtube.
- As PinkDressGirl, I would see if I could get permission to reupload the post with their permission. I could also file a claim that it was not copyright infringement with a counter-notification back to Youtube.
- Youtube would have to tell PinkDressGirl that they aren’t in violation and do not want to be complicit in copyright infringement.
- We could send her another notice that it is in violation. She could be taken to court/litigation where she would have to deal with fines for violating.
Blog 19
I think this note by the New Yorker is trying to discredit Wikipedia. However, the way I see it is that it shows there is a community of people who make these edits on the websites and provide information on a vast majority of topics. I personally am one too often look up someone’s wikipedia to learn about their films, education, and personal life. I also have noticed sometimes when there are facts that have just been updated within minutes. For example, when the Queen of England passed earlier this year, I saw it on twitter immediately. I then saw that Wikipedia was already updated and had her date of death and age at death. Therefore, I think that the pros of Wikipedia outweigh the occasional few mishaps of facts. As for grammar and clarity, I do not think that is a big deal. A scholar could go through the New Yorker’s post and probably find errors with their grammar and clarity too. I think the New Yorker was trying to be informative while discrediting Wikipedia. However, it makes me wonder why the New Yorker did this deep dive on Wikipedia’s history, community, etc. I bet there is a wikipedia page for the New Yorker that someone could learn more about this magazine. Therefore, they are both talking about one another. As opposed to many being able to edit and change the facts on wikipedia, this post on the New Yorker is left to one author who seems to be impartial.
Blog Post 18
MP3 Problem:
I believe that Bruce can give the CD to Rumer when he buys it because it would be personal property that he is able to pass on. It can’t be illegally downloaded or anything but the physical copy is okay to give. It is hard once the CD is digitize. Bruce can’t rip the CD into MP3 and give it to his daughter. He also can’t download then copy the music and send it to her. Amazon’s terms specifically prohibit users from doing this as they don’t have the rights. He should stick to giving it to her on a hard copy because that is the only way without violating Amazon’s terms.
Blog Post 17
McGucken v. Newsweek considers the interpretation of explicit copyright licenses. While the Copyright Act does require a writing signed by the owner to transfer ownership of the copyright itself, the copyright license can be permitted use by others with agreement to Platform Policies. This means that others can use the license without formality online if agreeing to Platform Policies. I believe Zillow could try to argue that its terms of service allow them to obtain ownership of the copyright in user-uploaded real-estate photos. However, I don’t believe they could have ownership of the copyright be switched to them. I just believe the case extends the usage of copyrights but not the ownership. I don’t think Zillow would want to obtain ownership of every single photo on the website that is uploaded because of the mass amount of photos on the website.