Ownership of a valid license to use a copyrighted work is generally a defense to copyright infringement. The Terms and Use grants Twitpic to sublicense his publicly posted content. This is seen in the McGucken v. Newsweek LLC case. In that case, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgement on his claim of copyright infringement. The facts are very similar here. Daniel’s uploading of photos is reasonably interpreted as the grant of a license to Twitpic to use his photos. However, it doesn’t grant AFP to use the photos. Therefore, the court should rule in favor for Daniel.
Blog Post 15
First off, blue font with the terms and service agreement is hard to argue that it is conspicuous. Secondly, the National homepage having in small black font is not exactly conspicuous either. The users aren’t in a clickwrap or browsewrap agreement with National’s terms and agreements as users aren’t clicking “I agree” or “I accept” anywhere. It is a hyperlink that hardly anyone would click. Therefore, it is hard to state that this is creating a binding agreement between National, LineJump, and its users. Therefore, breach of contract might fail for National if they can’t prove the terms and agreements were conspicuous and created a binding agreement that forbids LineJumps use of securing A seats for people.
I think this could be a show of misappropriation with trespass to chattel. Although, I am not exactly positive as I haven’t learned about trespass to chattel prior to the readings.
I believe they could win for Computer Fraud and Abuse Act too. Also, why did LineJump not acknowledge the cease and desist letter. They are intentionally accessing National’s information without authorization and obtaining information that is not prohibited. They are committing fraud by acting as if they have approval to be doing this from National when in fact they do not.
Blog Post 14
When the router receives a message, it examines the IP address on the message. Each router has its own routing table. The large database being intruded with is a big problem for FixPoint corporation. This is because the router shouldn’t be overloaded with incoming traffic. The bug is causing it to be programed wrongly. The liability on FixPoint is fair as University of Helsinki is reasonably expecting there to be no bug in the routers or outages with the internet access. I would ask if it will cost more to lose the University of Helsinki as a client, more to fix the issue and get rid of the bug, or more to continue with litigation to prevent them from dropping out of the time server entirely. It also might take too long to figure out the bug issues too.
Blog Post 13
Smurfberry Problem:
I do not believe Lois’ and Stewart’s lawsuit can stand or be successful for Apple. I think the terms of service and privacy policy would be hard to show that Apple’s text wasn’t conspicuous. This is because she specifically had to click “I agree” which is a clickwrap. While many people just click this without reading, it is still a binding agreement if Apple reasonably communicates to its customers the binding information. This was also not an unauthorized use of her account as it was her son and she willingly gave him access to her iPad and password.
I think that there could be an argument against Capcom with their lawsuit. This could be compared to Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc. because this case held that the terms and agreement were not reasonably communicated to the plaintiffs. The two could argue that there wasn’t any conspicuous terms and agreements about payments being binding on the app. It also could be argued if the wagon didn’t conspicuously state it was 100 dollars instead of 2-5 dollars. The payments go through iTunes though so this could also be hard to argue potentially if it is expressly statement visibly for consumers to agree with. I’m not up to date but I don’t believe apps have people agree with a clickwrap or browsewrap agreement to their terms and agreements.
Blog Post 12
This seems as though it is a Terms of Service agreement where they expect users on twitter who use the hashtag to acknowledge and agree to their terms. This doesn’t seem as though it could be a binding agreement or contract between twitter users and Disney Plus. It is not a click-wrap agreement as there is not box to check to agree to the terms. This could be compared to a browsewrap agreement because no affirmative agreement is required by the website user to agree to the terms. Twitter could argue that users were put on notice when they tweeted this. However, I think it can’t be sufficent as many users on twitter tweet things without seeing what the hashtag means or derives from. People who use the hashtag before seeing this tweet by Disney would be unfairly binded into an agreement without ever having knowledge of this tweet stating the terms by Disney. Additionally, the text states terms of service available only by hyperlink do not preclude a determination of reasonable notice. Therefore, this is not sufficient to bind twitter users.
Blog 11
Consumer’s have a right to privacy as consumers and users on the internet. This is why it might be difficult to track down the person without a court order which would mean the FBI need to be contacted. The FBI would have to put exactly what they are trying to find for the warrant that would allow them to access the data. It could be denied since stored communications is well protected. It would be best to try to get the IP address and then who it is registered to and then the name. It would have to be listed for each step to access the info. If it is an ameatuer there could be other ways to lure them out like emailing back asking for bank info?
Blog 10: The Zipper Problem
I think that as someone who believes in keeping the Internet safe, open, and free, I feel pretty mixed emotions. This is because the Zipper could be pretty useful to keep the Internet safe and open. However, I think there would be problems with the free aspect as this seems to be something that is restricting people on the internet. It also seems to be something for the government to be able to close in on people’s internet privacy. I don’t necessarily think it is too different than right now in that the government would need a court order in able to get the personal exact details of users on the Zipper. So we could possibly support the bill but also not be sad if it doesn’t get passed. I would argue that there should be comparisons in what this is changing from what we have now to what would be under the Zipper. I expect Senator’s staff to reject this idea because it would probably expose the big differences/changes in which people might not be ready to jump to.
Post 8
The police cannot search through the psychiatric papers as it is confidential between the doctor and patient. The police did not get authority from anyone in order to read the classified information. HIs emails are probably open for fair grab from the police as they are not classified information like attorney client privilege or doctor client patient information. I am not sure about the tax records as they could be classified but also open to the police to read as they are open for the government. The police need to be careful in order to not over step their boundaries and read things they would not be able to do ordinarily. I think they could look at your taxes because the government is included in the privilege of who can know. They cannot have the laptop for every long but they can have it if they have probable cause. The warrant needs to be exclusive and specific.
Blog Post 7
I believe the car needs to have a warrant in order to obtain the information to the cable inserted in the car. In order to put the cable in the car, there needs to be probable cause to put the cable in someone’s car. There would have to be reasonable suspicion that the police would find something when they insert the cable and obtain the information like the GPS. The internet is able to access a lot of information for people to gather but it can’t be done without cause. This is why people why have to have probable cause in order to bug someone’s car or gather their information like where they are going and when they went there. The government needs to be very careful and strategic when they do this or else people will be very untrustworthy of the government. This is just one of the many causes of people who become suspicious of the government interfering in people’s life. By getting information from the car, this could explain the extensive injuries during the collision. As stated in Riley v. California, cell phones are not just technological convenience. This is how people can find out many things in order to prove a case for the government/prosecutors.
Blog Post 6
I think that Section 230 would not bar Mandy Cohen’s suit. Section 230 has changed numerous times with the internet to protect people from bad acts occurring on the internet. For example, it changed with the 2018 passage of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) of 2017. This declared in 18 USC 2421A that anyone who owns/manages a computer and who has the intent to promote or facilitate prostitution of another shall be punished. Advertising could however be an affirmative defense. Additionally, 18 USC 2339(B)(a)(1) makes it a crime to “knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.” I think that the People’s Front of Judea has been using Brightside to spread information between one another and others to aid in their terrorist activities. I don’t exactly understand what “you may use Brightside only if you are not barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States” even means. Is this saying that you can’t use this social media if you are getting information from the US? If it means you can’t use this if you are barred to in the US, then it might counteract Section 230. However, I think that it would still be argued since the bomber who killed her son had pledged his loyalty online and others helped him carry out this violent activity.