Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 28 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted alphabetically
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 15)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
GRUR International     Full-text available via subscription  
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
International Journal of Innovation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Invention Disclosure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 8)
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 29)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 22)
Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access  
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial     Open Access  
The Journal of World Intellectual Property     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal
Number of Followers: 17  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1079-9699
Published by Fordham University Homepage  [6 journals]
  • “Fair” in the Future' Long-Term Limitations of the Supreme
           Court’s Use of Incrementalism in Fair Use Jurisprudence

    • Authors: Jonathan Alexander Fisher
      Abstract: April 2021 marked the most recent instance of the Supreme Court discussing copyright law, and more specifically fair use, in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. The April 2021 decision notably resolved the case solely on fair use grounds, avoiding a difficult question as to the copyrightability of computer code that generates software user interfaces. By resolving this specific case in this manner, the Supreme Court’s actions seemingly confirm a pattern among fair use cases in which rulings made “narrowly” on the unique factual predicate often produce unclear applications within the “broader” context of fair use. Given the flexible, judge-made origins of the doctrine, each case acts as a guidepost within the “broader” doctrine.This Comment explores how the “narrow” rulings, likely made to account for the Court’s institutional ideals, including incrementalism, may lead to these later fair use limitations. By exploring three fair use cases, this Comment aims to opine on the purported pattern of limitations by highlighting both the soundness of the rulings at their then-present decisions, and within more modern contexts. This Comment also proposes how a conscious shift in an opinion’s scope to include more information on how to apply the then-present case as “broader” guideposts within fair use may solve the limitation issues. This Comment finally evaluates this expanding scope against other possible mechanisms of understanding both application of legal principles to novel scenarios and to other potential fair use solutions.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:21 PDT
       
  • Bad Publicity: The Diminished Right of Privacy in the Age of Social Media

    • Authors: Kirby Shilling
      Abstract: The “public disclosure of private facts” tort involves determining if and when publication of truthful, albeit embarrassing, facts warrant liability. Such liability inherently runs into First Amendment concerns. This Note analyzes the background of this tort, its status, and its application in different jurisdictions. Scholarship and jurisprudence have traditionally balanced the right to privacy with First Amendment guarantees by looking at different factors, including whether the disclosed information is properly described as “private” and whether it is newsworthy or a matter of legitimate public interest. However, the line between “public” and “private” has become increasingly blurred with new technology and social media. Additionally, determining what is “newsworthy” is especially difficult in a society obsessed with celebrities, gossip, and entertainment. The approaches used to dictate the actionability of the public disclosure of private facts tort are inconsistent, and thus require courts to determine which types of speech ought to be afforded more or less constitutional protection on a case-by-case basis. This Note discusses these issues and how they are exacerbated in the twenty-first century. It then proposes a statute-based, bright-line approach to protect privacy with minimal intrusion on the press while simultaneously providing more notice and guidance.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:19 PDT
       
  • Olympians as Laborers: How Unionizing Can Help Athletes Bargain for
           Compensation and Better Structural Support

    • Authors: Sherif Farrag
      Abstract: Team USA athletes suffer poor structural support and inadequate compensation despite constituting irreplaceable labor for the multi-billion-dollar Olympic sports industry. This poor support is evident in recent complaints made by Olympic stars of the poor mental health support provided by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee and in its failure to prevent nearly two decades of sexual abuse perpetrated on USA Gymnastics gymnasts. The inadequate compensation is apparent as athletes continue to receive no wages for their participation in the Olympics or Olympic-sanctioned events, generally struggle financially, and face restrictions on licensing their name, image, and likeness to partners during the Olympics. Theoretically, athletes can challenge some of these problems through antitrust or employment law claims. However, relevant case law makes those paths difficult, at best. Several circuits have found an antitrust exemption for the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee and similarly situated National Collegiate Athletic Associate athletes have failed thus far to hold the Association liable for wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The best path athletes can take to improve their lot comprehensively and holistically is labor law. Unionization can empower athletes to directly negotiate with the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee in search of better structural support and adequate wages. The unionization process, however, will most likely result in athletes of many, but not all, sports gaining the ability to unionize. Others will fail to qualify as employees under the National Labor Relations Act or will be exempt as “independent contractors.” Nonetheless, labor law is the most appropriate and efficient way to improve the lot of Team USA athletes as they pursue their dreams.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:16 PDT
       
  • The Public Square Has Eyes (or Cameras): Anonymous Speech Under the First
           and Fourth Amendments in the Age of Facial Recognition

    • Authors: Apratim Vidyarthi
      Abstract: Facial recognition technology (“FRT”)—once a futuristic fantasy—is more pervasive than ever and shows no signs of becoming less prevalent. While this technology has its upsides, it elicits the notion of an omnipresent being that is watching and tracking us all the time. FRTs encroach on the First Amendment right to anonymous speech by revealing the identity of speakers and chilling speech. Yet, First Amendment doctrine does not provide much solace, since the right to anonymous speech regulates the government’s ability to force disclosure of a speaker’s identity rather than preventing it from collecting publicly available facial data. The right to anonymous speech also clashes with private actors’ right to collect and disseminate information, which provides an avenue for private actors to destroy anonymity. And private actors’ First Amendment rights allow them to collect and develop FRT they can use in private spaces.In addition to inadequate speech rights, litigating FRTs’ impacts on the right to anonymous speech is likely to face significant barriers in court. Specifically, plaintiffs will find it hard to show they have been affected by these systems and that their speech has been chilled, giving them no standing. Further, courts’ deference to the legislative and executive branches on issues of crime control and national security might justify an encroachment on the right to anonymous speech. Finally, private parties’ rights to collect and disseminate information pose serious barriers to challenge privately-operated FRTs and provides the government an additional avenue to gather facial data and track individuals. Prophylactic legislation is a stronger solution to remedy the issues caused by FRT. Such legislation can regulate the government’s use of FRT, private actors’ implementations of FRT, and the very creation of FRTs themselves.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:14 PDT
       
  • Graffiti on Cities’ Forgotten Landscapes: An Application of Adverse
           Possession Law to the Visual Artists Rights Act

    • Authors: Minelli E. Manoukian
      Abstract: Artists use any surface available to them as a canvas. There is the common: cloth and paper; the modern: skin; and even the illegal: buildings and privately-owned property. However, today, the cultural value that artwork instills in its community has grown, regardless of its legal status. Examples can be found in artwork created by graffiti artist Banksy, or even the urban installations of Tyree Guyton, creator of the Heidelberg Project in Detroit. Artists create masterpieces placed in plain sight that enrich the surrounding communities but often interfere with others’ property rights. However, the illegal or encroaching nature of the artwork makes it vulnerable to destruction just as often as it brings it fame. What if the hard work that artists put into creating their urban artwork was not in vain' What if there was a way artists could consistently protect artistic moral rights against the property rights of building owners who have abandoned any upkeep or maintenance on the building, or who have not seen the building in years'
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:11 PDT
       
  • Speak Out: Verifying and Unmasking Cryptocurrency User Identity

    • Authors: Hadar Y. Jabotinsky et al.
      Abstract: Terror attacks pose a serious threat to public safety and national security. New technologies assist these attacks, magnify them, and render them deadlier. The more funding terrorist organizations manage to raise, the greater their capacity to recruit members, organize, and commit terror attacks. Since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, law enforcement agencies have increased their efforts to develop more anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulations, which are designed to block the flow of financing of terrorism and cut off its oxygen. However, at present, most regulatory measures focus on traditional currencies. As these restrictions become more successful, the likelihood that cryptocurrencies will be used as an alternative to fund illicit behaviors grows. Furthermore, the COVID-19 virus and subsequent social distancing guidelines have increased the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering, material support to terror, and other financial crimes.Cryptocurrencies are a game-changer, significantly affecting market functions like never before and making it easier to finance terrorism and other types of criminal activity. These decentralized and (usually) anonymous currencies facilitate a high volume of transactions, allowing terrorists to engage in extensive fundraising, management, transfer, and spending for illegal activities. As cryptocurrencies gain popularity, the issue of regulating them becomes more urgent. This Article proposes to reform cryptocurrency regulation. It advocates for mandatory obligations directed at cryptocurrency issuers, wallet providers, and exchanges to verify the identity of users on the blockchain. Thus, courts could grant warrants obligating cryptocurrency-issuing companies to unmask the identity of cryptocurrency users when there is probable cause that their activities support terrorism or other money laundering schemes. Such reforms would stifle terrorism and other types of criminal activity financed through cryptocurrencies, curbing harmful activities and promoting national security. In recognition of the legal challenges this solution poses, this Article also addresses substantial objections that might be raised regarding the proposed reforms, such as innovation concerns, First Amendment arguments, and Fourth Amendment protections. It concludes by addressing measures to efficiently promote application of the proposed reforms.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05:09 PDT
       
  • Laws in Conversation: What the First Amendment Can Teach Us About Section
           230

    • Authors: Haley Griffin
      Abstract: As the law surrounding regulation of online intermediaries developed, the First Amendment and Section 230 emerged as two central players. Though different bodies of law, their jurisprudence intersects at several points: both display procedural interactions, implicate free speech concerns, apply to intermediaries engaged in publisher and editorial behaviors, and consider good faith and scienter. However, despite these commonalities, discussion of the First Amendment and Section 230 has largely been siloed.This Note places First Amendment and Section 230 jurisprudence in conversation with one another to determine which specific intermediary behaviors are addressed by each law. Although many cases discuss “traditional editorial functions,” this Note articulates that the First Amendment is relevant in only a limited subset of cases.1 Further, what constitutes a “traditional editorial function” under Section 230 has expanded significantly since the statute was first enacted in 1996, creating a problematic paradox.2In response to the close relationship between the First Amendment and Section 230, this Note proposes courts return their attention to the seminal Section 230 case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. This Note explains how this shift in focus can prevent Section 230’s “traditional editorial” act formulation from swallowing Section 230’s intended scope (taking the First Amendment along with it). It further encourages courts to adopt the four traditional publisher functions identified by the Fourth Circuit in Zeran: publishing, editing, withdrawing from publication, and postponing publishing. Additionally, this Note suggests courts look to First Amendment law concerning editorial judgements to elucidate and characterize truly “traditional” editorial functions.
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:38 PST
       
  • The Ship of Theseus: The Lanham Act, Chanel and the Secondhand Luxury
           Goods Market

    • Authors: Julie Tamerler
      Abstract: The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phale- reus, for they took away the old planks as they de- cayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing ex- ample among the philosophers, for the logical ques- tion of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same. – Plutarch1
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:35 PST
       
  • Based on a True Story: The Ever-Expanding Progeny of Rogers v. Grimaldi

    • Authors: Zachary Shufro
      Abstract: Trademark law limits the extent and manner to which individuals can use a surprisingly large percentage of common words in the English language. Indeed, as one empirical study of trademark registrations revealed, “when we use our language, nearly three-quarters of the time we are using a word that someone has claimed as a trademark.” Because trademark law grants a negative right to the mark-holder—that is to say, a right to prevent others from using that trademarked word in certain manners and contexts—it inherently conflicts with the First Amendment. In assessing the resulting discord from such a conflict, courts have several measures to determine the metes and bounds of the First Amendment’s priority over trademark law. In the case of an expressive or artistic work which uses the trademark of another (or the name of an individual), one such test that has developed is the Rogers test, named for a 1989 lawsuit involving the actress and dancer Ginger Rogers. Over the past thirty years, this test has outgrown the relatively narrow confines in which it was originally envisioned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and particularly in the Ninth Circuit, its progeny has taken on a life of its own. This Article examines the most recent development in the ever-expanding ambit of the Rogers test: the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. As one Ninth Circuit panel stated in a recent opinion, “[i]t is said that bad facts make bad law”;1 however, VIP Products proves that the inverse can also be true, and that bad legal analysis can defeat a strong factual scenario. The implications of this decision in future cases remains unclear, but this Article considers the pernicious consequences of an even-broader application of the Rogers test in the Ninth Circuit moving forward.
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:32 PST
       
  • Culture and Fair Use

    • Authors: Michael P. Goodyear
      Abstract: The intersections of race and copyright have been underexamined in legal scholarship, despite repeated calls for further scrutiny. The scholarship has so far focused primarily on identifying where copyright has fallen short in protecting the creative works of artists of color. This Article, instead, hopes to offer one viable solution for creating more inclusivity of different cultures in copyright: the approval of cultural adaptations under fair use.Cultural adaptations—the transformation of preexisting works to reflect the cultural and social mores and norms of a different group—would appear at first glance to be prohibited as derivative works, which, under the Copyright Act, can only be created by copyright owners. A culture-centered approach to fair use, however, offers the possibility of permitting at least certain cultural adaptations. While this question would be one of first impression for courts, cultural adaptations can—and should—be understood to constitute fair use. Cultural adaptations comment on and transform the original work by recontextualizing it for different cultural markets. In addition, permitting cultural adaptations advances the goal of copyright and the public policy goal of diversity in expression and representation by fostering the creation of more works, and especially more works for and by minority artists.
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:29 PST
       
  • IP Interrupted: Diverse Voices in Intellectual Property

    • Authors: Fordham IPLJ
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:01:26 PST
       
  • Bringing Clout to the Masses: An In-Depth Look at the “Legal
           Fake” Phenomenon

    • Authors: Nicole Kim
      Abstract: A snaking line of customers that wraps around the block leading to a minimalist, yet iconoclastic store can only mean one thing: drop day. Rain or shine, devoted fans of brands such as Supreme, Palace, and Off-White, among others, are willing to spend their time and money for the opportunity to cop the latest and most exclusive items. In recent years, the rise of streetwear has projected once-underground skater labels to the forefront of youth culture, mainstream society, and high fashion. Not only has this movement affected niche designers and traditional luxury names, but streetwear has also reshaped the consumer experience. However, the continued evolution and globalization of fashion, fueled by the near-instantaneous speed of the internet and social media, has brought the seemingly novel issue of legal fakes to the forefront. In reality, legal fakes are a face- lifted version of counterfeiting and traditional trademark squatting. By “legally” registering a stolen trademark, impostor companies run their entire business under the guise of a well-known brand. To address this threat, this Note examines the intricacies of a typical legal fake scheme, from its shady origins, to widespread distribution of fake products, to its eventual demise in litigation. This Note further proposes a solution requiring multinational cooperation in order to seal the cracks in international trademark law through which legal fakes have slipped.
      PubDate: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 05:54:48 PST
       
  • Cartouches, Catalogs, & Courtrooms: Using a Recent Legal Challenge in
           Egyptian Court to Examine Unanswered Questions in Cultural Heritage

    • Authors: Lawrence Keating
      Abstract: Ancient Egypt is known to the world for its rich culture steeped in arcane mysticism and for the dazzling treasures it left behind, which now populate the world’s most prominent cultural institutions. These and other cultural heritage objects, which capture and inspire masses as easily today as they did in their own time, are subject to growing controversy over their protection and utilization. As this debate moves from academic circles to the arena of public discourse, the need to revise legislation controlling cultural heritage objects is becoming increasingly clear. This Note uses a recent law- suit concerning an international exhibition of artifacts from the tomb of King Tutankhamun as a case study to explore this discussion and draw conclusions about how to best serve the aims of cultural heritage law. This Note then recommends adopting the Egyptian government’s approach in amending its patrimony law to provide specialists with increased discretion to manage the wealth of cultural heritage objects under its control.
      PubDate: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 05:54:45 PST
       
  • The Author and the Other: Reexamining the Doctrine of Joint Authorship in
           Copyright Law

    • Authors: Tehila Rozencwaig-Feldman
      Abstract: Over the years, there has been an increase in the importance and prevalence of the joint authorship doctrine resulting from the internet evolution and globalization processes which allow quick sharing of content and information among various creators from around the world. The collaborations that increased and intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred across a wide variety of creative areas. Today, many types of works such as songs, movies, software, and computer games are created regularly through joint authorship. However, current copyright law regimes relate to this complex and fascinating phenomenon in a limited way, leading to courts’ inconsistent interpretation of the doctrine’s tests.The joint authorship doctrine relies on one primary collaborative model, the “all-or-nothing” model, which conditions the granting of joint authorship on authors making similar contributions to a work. In the beginning of the twenty-first century, the English legal system began recognizing asymmetrical contributions of joint authors and responded by rewarding them proportionally on the basis of each author’s contribution to the work. However, both models ignore other types of contributions, such as those of ideas, participation in mass collaborative models, and the contribution of experts’ technical knowledge. Disregarding these types of contributions may reduce the incentive of creators to collaborate—one of the central challenges of the joint authorship doctrine. This disincentive to collaborate requires reexamination of the joint authorship doctrine. Despite the extensive legal literature suggesting it is essential to comprehensively modify the joint authorship doctrine, there is a great need to introduce a better model for determining joint authorship.This article introduces a new approach to joint authorship, employing theoretical and empirical tools, in an attempt to better address the joint authors’ expectations from the collaborative process and the allocation of rights. The theoretical discussion will include a doctrinal analysis of joint authorship and the different requirements necessary to recognize this doctrine in the English and US legal systems. The empirical portion will explore individuals’ perceptions regarding joint authorship using quantitative tools. For the first time, the empirical research will test the allocation of rights in the “all-or-nothing” model as compared to the “proportional” model. The results demonstrate that a proportional allocation of rights, as sorted by the English legal system, will grant economic rights to joint authors in a greater number of cases. Additionally, the empirical research will show that, in some cases, remuneration should be divided proportionally between joint authors, even when the contribution is not copyrightable, such as with ideas or technical assistance.The primary goal of this Article is to suggest an innovative model that provides a comprehensive normative solution to the challenges raised by existing models of the joint authorship doctrine. In addition, this Article seeks to provide greater certainty regarding the reward distribution among authors within the joint authorship context. Grounded in theoretical and empirical results, this model aspires to provide joint authors with rights and royalties in a proportionate and just manner—namely, by accurately accounting for each author’s contributions to the final work.This model, which is based on a structured scale, will assist courts and joint authors in accurately assigning the relative portion of the work that each author contributed. In general, this scale helps to divide the joint authors’ world into three main categories: the “primary joint author,” the “secondary joint author,” and the “de minimis contributor.” The primary joint author appears at the top of the scale and would be entitled to an equal share of the rights in the joint work. The secondary joint author, whose contribution is copyrightable yet relatively smaller than that of the primary joint authors, should be entitled to a relative share of the rights. Finally, the de minimis contributor, whose contribution is not copyrightable, may be granted only a moral right (credit or acknowledgment) in the joint work.In summary, by focusing on preserving the incentive of joint authors to create collaborative works, this Article aspires to propose a new, innovative model that promotes a distinct and feasible way to allocate joint authorship rights to better reward such authors.
      PubDate: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 05:54:42 PST
       
  • Targeting Exceptions

    • Authors: Michal Lavi
      Abstract: On May 26, 2020, the forty-fifth President of the United States, Donald Trump, tweeted: “There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed.” Later that same day, Twitter appended an addendum to the President’s tweets so viewers could “get the facts” about California’s mail-in ballot plans and provided a link. In contrast, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg refused to take ac- tion on President Trump’s posts. Only when it came to Trump’s support of the Capitol riot did both Facebook and Twitter suspend his account. Differences in attitude between platforms are reflected in their policies toward political advertisements. While Twitter bans such ads, Facebook generally neither bans nor fact-checks them.The dissemination of fake news increases the likelihood of users believing it and passing it on, consequently causing tremendous reputational harm to public representatives, impairing the general public interest, and eroding long-term democracy. Such dissemination depends on online intermediaries that operate platforms, facilitate dissemination, and govern the flow of information by moderating, providing algorithmic recommendations, and targeting third-party advertisers. Should intermediaries bear liability for moderating or failing to moderate' And what about providing algorithmic recommendations and allowing data-driven advertisements directed toward susceptible users'In A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow introduced the concept of internet exceptionalism, differentiating it from other existing media. Internet exceptionalism is at the heart of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides intermediaries immunity from civil liability for content created by other content providers. Intermediaries like Facebook and Twitter are thereby immune from liability for content created by users and advertisers. However, Section 230 is currently under attack. In 2020, Trump issued an “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship” that aimed to limit platforms protections against liability for intermediary-moderated content. Legislative bills seeking to narrow Section 230’s scope soon followed. From another direction, attacks on the overall immunity provided by Section 230 emerged alongside the transition from an internet society to a data- driven algorithmic society—one that changed intermediaries’ scope and role in information dissemination. The changes in the utility of intermediaries requires reevaluation of their duties; that is where this Article steps in.This Article focuses on dissemination of fake news stories as a test case. It maps the roles intermediaries play in the dissemination of fake news by hosting and moderating content, deploying algorithmically personalized recommendations, and using data-driven targeted advertising. The first step toward developing a legal policy for intermediary liability is identifying the different roles intermediaries play in the dissemination of fake news stories. After mapping these roles, this Article examines intermediary liability case law and reflects on internet exceptionalism’s current approach and recent developments. It further examines normative free speech considerations regarding intermediary liability within the context of the different roles they play in fake news dissemination and argues that the liability regime must correspond with the intermediary’s role in dissemination. By targeting exceptions to internet exceptionalism, this Article outlines a nuanced framework for intermediary liability. Finally, it proposes subjecting intermediaries to transparency obligations regarding moderation practices and imposing duties to conduct algorithmic impact assessments as part of consumer protection regulation.
      PubDate: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 05:54:39 PST
       
  • Algorithmic Parenting

    • Authors: Eldar Haber et al.
      Abstract: Growing up in today’s world involves an increasing amount of interaction with technology. The rise in availability, accessibility, and use of the internet, along with social norms that encourage internet connection, make it nearly impossible for children to avoid online engagement. The internet undoubtedly benefits children socially and academically and mastering technological tools at a young age is indispensable for opening doors to valuable opportunities. However, the internet is risky for children in myriad ways. Parents and lawmakers are especially concerned with the tension between important advantages and risks technology bestows on children.New technological developments in artificial intelligence are beginning to alter the ways parents might choose to safeguard their children from online risks. Recently, emerging AI-based devices and services can automatically detect when a child’s online behavior indicates that their well-being might be compromised or when they are engaging in inappropriate online communication. This technology can notify parents or immediately block harmful content in extreme cases. Referred to as algorithmic parenting in this Article, this new form of parental control has the potential to cheaply and effectively protect children against digital harms. If designed properly, algorithmic parenting would also ensure children’s liberties by neither excessively infringing their privacy nor limiting their freedom of speech and access to information.This Article offers a balanced solution to the parenting dilemma that allows parents and children to maintain a relationship grounded in trust and respect, while simultaneously providing a safety net in extreme cases of risk. In doing so, it addresses the following questions: What laws should govern platforms with respect to algorithms and data aggregation' Who, if anyone, should be liable when risky behavior goes undetected' Perhaps most fundamentally, relative to the physical world, do parents have a duty to protect their children from online harm' Finally, assuming that algorithmic parenting is a beneficial measure for protecting children from online risks, should legislators and policymakers use laws and regulations to encourage or even mandate the use of such algorithms to protect children' This Article offers a taxonomy of current online threats to children, an examination of the potential shift toward algorithmic parenting, and a regulatory toolkit to guide policymakers in making such a transition.
      PubDate: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 05:54:37 PST
       
  • Designing Dupes: A Legislative Proposal for Holding Online Marketplaces
           Contributorily Liable for Counterfeit Goods

    • Authors: Gina Boone
      Abstract: With a simple click on your favorite online marketplace, any consumer can unknowingly buy counterfeit goods. Counterfeits are no longer limited to fake luxury bags on the streets of Chinatown. These dupes can be roller skates, children’s toys, and even car tires. However, counterfeit products’ impact reaches far beyond just consumer health and safety. Counterfeiting negatively affects small businesses, imposes financial burdens, and causes reputational damage. Online marketplaces are aware of the increase of counterfeit products on their websites. Yet, they continue to facilitate its growth because it is unlikely the online platforms will be held liable for the sale of counterfeit goods. Left with very little options, rightsholders often suffer and consumers are unaware of the dangers. In light of these growing concerns, Congress recognizes the need for anti-counterfeiting legislation. Expanding contributory trademark liability could be the most effective way to address this need, but representatives have left anti-counterfeiting law vulnerable. This Note addresses the tension between rightsholders and online marketplaces and proposes regulatory solutions to provide more guidance for anti-counterfeiting legislation.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:32 PDT
       
  • Should They Stay or Should They Go' African Cultural Goods in
           France’s Public Domain, Between Inalienability, Transfers, and
           Circulations

    • Authors: Clara Cassan
      Abstract: France’s colonialism over Subsharan Africa until the 1960s has had persistant psychological and material consequences. Amongst them is the lingering presence of a significant amount of African objects in French museum collections. In the last five years, Subsaharan African countries have reiterated their desire to receive parts of these collections. Through their “restitution requests,” they identify themselves as the objects’ legitimate owners and claim to have been robbed of their cultural property during colonialism.The exact conditions under which each Subsaharan artifact arrived on French grounds—whether through theft, donations, sales, or looting—remain unsettled. Even where thefts can be proven, they occurred at a time where colonialism was approved by international law. The French government’s recent favorable responses to African restitution requests might have concluded this debate had France’s national heritage not been protected by the five-century old inalienability principle, which prohibits the transfer of any property out of France’s public domain, including the Subsaharan objects in its public museum collections.This Note studies these legal difficulties and proposes a solution based on France’s international duty to promote African culture as a human right. Rather than amending the fundamental inalienability rule, this Note calls for the creation of a legislative commission that will study individual requests in the respect of French legislations, international conventions, national objectives, and world heritage.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:29 PDT
       
  • Taxing Big Data: A Proposal to Benefit Society for the Use of Private
           Information

    • Authors: Ziva Rubinstein
      Abstract: Artificial intelligence, the technology that is currently shaping our world, relies on the data that each individual supplies. In 2017, the Economist magazine asserted that “the world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data.” This assertion is supported by the current data market, which became a hundred-billion-dollar industry in the data broker market alone. However, despite its immense value, individuals are not compensated when their data is collected, shared, or when that data is used to replace them in the job market. Further, companies are legally avoiding taxes on this resource, both during its collection and on the profits it creates.Prior to the widespread use of AI, society expected their private information to be respected. Before the internet boom, companies were willing to pay the public for their information. When information was supplied, people expected some form of payment in return. Now, payment is unnecessary because our phones automatically give companies all of the data they need to know, and then some. Companies have become more reliant on our information and are constantly collecting it at higher rates, but no longer pay us because they no longer need our consent.Currently, no legal regime provides solutions or safeguards for this exploitation. This allows companies to accumulate and share mass amounts of personal information, while financially harming individuals in the process. Recognizing the importance of the legislature to combat the resulting harms of emerging innovation, this Note proposes a unique solution which addresses both the exploitation of our data and corporate tax avoidance: a tax on the data itself
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:25 PDT
       
  • Abridging the Fifth Amendment: Compelled Decryption, Passwords, &
           Biometrics

    • Authors: Raila Cinda Brejt
      Abstract: Technological developments change the way we perform tasks by creating more efficient solutions to old problems and giving rise to opportunities not previously possible. Advances in communications technology have made the world feel smaller and more accessible. These changes also affect the methodology of both criminal activity and the investigative procedures of law enforcement. Our fundamental rights are challenged as judges and state actors try to strike the perfect balance between longstanding values and contemporary problems. This Note considers the Fifth Amendment challenges that arise when law enforcement attempts to obtain evidence from a criminal defendant’s encrypted device. This Note will argue that the application of the foregone conclusion doctrine of the Fifth Amendment should require the government to show independent knowledge of the contents of the device that they seek prior to courts granting decryption compulsion orders of the criminal defendant’s personal device. Biometric decryption should be considered the same as password encryption and distinguished from the physical act exceptions to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. To preserve the protections of the Fifth Amendment, we must resist the development of ambiguous and abridged doctrines that carry the potential to swallow our fundamental rights.
      PubDate: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:21 PDT
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 34.204.174.110
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-