This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
In the course of a few short decades, the Internet has become integral to significant swaths of human experience. It has radically altered modes of interpersonal engagement, democratized access to tools of mass communication, and changed the role of gatekeepers that traditionally controlled access to music, video, and other media. Given the breadth of its impact, it is not surprising that the Internet has pushed the bounds of legal doctrines that govern speech, privacy, and the creation and exploitation of content. Mass-scale online distribution of copyrighted works tests the limits of legal doctrines developed in an era of physical copies. Age-old tensions between privacy and the right to free expression have been exacerbated in cases where one’s right to speak bumps up against the desire of another to keep information private. And, the ability to share—and, thus, to consume—extraordinary amounts of personal data has impacted government (which collects and uses data for purposes of law enforcement) and private companies (which collect and use data for purposes of advertising and monetization).
This seminar will provide an overview of legal doctrines that govern the online conduct of individuals and institutional actors. It will address the rights and responsibilities of the intermediaries that mediate many of our online activities – social networks, cloud-based storage services, email providers, and the like. Students will consider old and new legal frameworks and the ways in which the law informs strategic decisions for those that operate online. The seminar will address some of the most important and complex policy debates of our day—regarding the proper scope of intellectual property protection; the balance between a robust environment for online free expression and a desire to protect against harmful speech; and the ways in which the law addresses privacy vis-à-vis both government and private actors.
Readings and in-class conversations will cover legal cases and case studies, offering students a high-level view of the technical, legal, and business landscape and allowing them to delve deeply into particularly difficult sets of problems concerning the regulation of online conduct.
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (12/12 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/12 playlist item notes are private)
|1||Show/Hide More||Introduction and Overview: Mapping the Online Landscape|
|1.7||Show/Hide More||47 U.S. Code § 230 — Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material (commonly referred to as "CDA 230"), read Subsection (c) (~1 page)|
|2||Show/Hide More||Copyright (1 of 2): Basic Scope of Protection and Fair Use|
|2.1||Show/Hide More||17 U.S. Code § 102 — Subject matter of copyright: In general (~1 page)|
|2.2||Show/Hide More||17 U.S. Code § 106 — Exclusive rights in copyrighted works (~1 page)|
|2.3||Show/Hide More||17 U.S. Code § 107 — Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use (~1 page)|
|2.4||Show/Hide More||Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), read excerpts (~7 pages)|
|2.7||Show/Hide More||Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2nd Cir. 2013), read excerpts (~10 pages)|
|2.9||Show/Hide More||Kutiman, "Give It Up," Through You Too (YouTube, September 12, 2014) (video) (4:24)|
|3||Show/Hide More||Copyright (2 of 2): Online Liability and the DMCA Safe Harbor|
|3.2||Show/Hide More||Annemarie Birdy, "BMG v. Cox: The High Cost of Losing Safe Harbor," The Center for Internet & Society at Stanford Law School (December 5, 2015) , read all (~2 pages)|
|3.4||Show/Hide More||Section 512 Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment, Docket No. 2015-7, Comment of Google, Inc. (April 1, 2016), read Responses to Questions 1, 2, and 7, pages 1 - 5 and page 8 (~6 pages)|
|4.6||Show/Hide More||Jones Day - Kevynorr.com Controversy (1 of 2): Daniel Nazer, "EFF to Jones Day: Don't Be a Trademark Bully” (June 24, 2014), read all (~2 pages)|
|7||Show/Hide More||Privacy (2 of 2): Law Enforcement and Government Surveillance|
|8||Show/Hide More||Computer Crimes and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act|
|9||Show/Hide More||Technology, Human Rights, and Corporate Social Responsibility|
|9.3||Michael A Samway, "The Global Network Initiative: how can companies in the information and communications technology industry respect human rights?," in Business and Human Rights: From Principles to Practice (eds. Dorothee Baumann-Pauly and Justine Nolan, Routledge, London and New York, 2016), read all|
|10||Show/Hide More||AI, Algorithms, and Machine Learning: Law, Ethics, and Governance|
|10.3||Doshi-Velez, Finale and Kortz, Mason and Budish, Ryan and Bavitz, Christopher and Gershman, Samuel J. and O'Brien, David and Shieber, Stuart and Waldo, Jim and Weinberger, David and Wood, Alexandra, "Accountability of AI Under the Law: The Role of Explanation" (November 3, 2017), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3064761, read all|
July 24, 2017
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.