Law Commons^™

From The Myth Of Babel To Google Translate: Confronting Malicious Use Of Artificial Intelligence—Copyright And Algorithmic Biases In Online Translation Systems, Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Cynthia Martens

Seattle University Law Review

Many of us rely on Google Translate and other Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI) online translation daily for personal or commercial use. These AI systems have become ubiquitous and are poised to revolutionize human communication across the globe. Promising increased fluency across cultures by breaking down linguistic barriers and promoting cross-cultural relationships in a way that many civilizations have historically sought and struggled to achieve, AI translation affords users the means to turn any text—from phrases to books—into cognizable expression. This Article discusses the burgeoning possibilities in the 3A Era (Advanced, Autonomous, AI systems) of AI online translation as …

Who Decides Fair Use -- Judge Or Jury?, Ned Snow

Faculty Publications

For more than two-hundred years, the issue of fair use has been the province of the jury. That recently changed when the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decided Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC. At issue was whether Google fairly used portions of Oracle’s computer software when Google created an operating system for smartphones. The jury found Google’s use to be fair, but the Federal Circuit reversed. Importantly, the Federal Circuit applied a de novo standard of review to reach its conclusion, departing from centuries of precedent.

Oracle raises a fundamental question in jurisprudence: Who should decide an issue …

The Warren Campaign’S Antitrust Proposals, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Antitrust policy promises to be an important issue in the 2020 presidential election, and for good reason. Market power measured by price-cost margins has been on the rise since the 1980s. Presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren has two proposals directed at large tech platforms. One would designate large platform markets such as Amazon “platform utilities,” and prohibit them from selling their own merchandise on the platform in competition with other retailers. The other proposes more aggressive enforcement against large platform acquisitions of smaller companies.

This paper concludes that the first proposal is anticompetitive, leading to reduced output and higher prices …

Privacy In Gaming, N. Cameron Russell, Joel R. Reidenberg, Sumyung Moon

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

Video game platforms and business models are increasingly built on collection, use, and sharing of personal information for purposes of both functionality and revenue. This paper examines privacy issues and explores data practices, technical specifications, and policy statements of the most popular games and gaming platforms to provide an overview of the current privacy legal landscape for mobile gaming, console gaming, and virtual reality devices. The research observes how modern gaming aligns with information privacy notions and norms and how data practices and technologies specific to gaming may affect users and, in particular, child gamers.

After objectively selecting and analyzing …

Privacy And Legal Automation: The Dmca As A Case Study, Jonathon Penney

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, computing capacity, and big data analytics are creating exciting new possibilities for legal automation. At the same time, these changes pose serious risks for civil liberties and other societal interests. Yet, existing scholarship is narrow, leaving uncertainty on a range of issues, including a glaring lack of systematic empirical work as to how legal automation may impact people’s privacy and freedom. This article addresses this gap with an original empirical analysis of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which today sits at the forefront of algorithmic law due to its automated enforcement of copyright …

Infracompetitive Privacy, Greg Day, Abbey R. Stemler

Scholarly Works

One of the chief anticompetitive effects of modern business lies in antitrust’s blind spot. Platform-based companies (“platforms”) have innovated a business model whereby they offer consumers “free" and low-priced services in exchange for their personal information. With this data, platforms can design products, target consumers, and sell such information to third parties. The problem is that platforms can inflict greater costs on users and markets in the form of lost privacy than efficiencies generated from their low prices. Consumers, as examples, spend billions of dollars annually to remedy privacy breaches and, alarmingly, participate unwittingly in experiments designed to manipulate their …

From Innovation To Abuse: Does The Internet Still Need Section 230 Immunity?, Benjamin Volpe

Catholic University Law Review

In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act to allow the screening of offensive material from the internet, while preserving the continued development of the internet economy without burdensome regulation. However, for years, online intermediaries have successfully used the Act as a shield from liability when third parties use their online services to commit tortious or criminal acts. This Comment argues that a wholly-unregulated internet is no longer necessary to preserve the once-fledgling internet economy. After evaluating various approaches to intermediary liability, this Comment also argues that Congress should take a more comprehensive look at consumer protection online and establish …

Face Off: An Examination Of State Biometric Privacy Statutes & Data Harm Remedies, Maya E. Rivera

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

As biometric authentication becomes an increasingly popular method of security among consumers, only three states currently have statutes detailing how such data may be collected, used, retained, and released. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is the only statute of the three that enshrines a private right of action for those who fail to properly handle biometric data. Both the Texas Capture or Use Biometric Identifier Act Information Act and the Washington Biometric Privacy Act allow for state Attorneys General to bring suit on behalf of aggrieved consumers. This Note examines these three statutes in the context of data security …