(by Galen Marston Pospisil, Colorado Law 3L)
Private companies like SpaceX have
dramatically changed the market for space launch services, bringing prices down
and flexibility up. New satellite operators, both commercial and non-commercial
have begun to take advantage of lower costs to orbit. From multi-ton telecommunications
satellites to cubesats weighing only a few pounds, growth in non-governmental
satellite missions has exploded. However, satellite operators must deal with a
maze of regulatory oversight dating back to the earliest days of spaceflight.
Continue reading “First Amendment and Satellite Remote Sensing”
(by Angel Antkers & Susan Miller, Colorado Law 2Ls—cross-posted from the Authors Alliance blog)
The fair use doctrine allows the unlicensed, unpermissioned use of a copyrighted work in certain situations. It functions, in part, to safeguard First Amendment interests in freedom of speech. But as the world moves toward more digital authorship and online content, fair use is encountering various obstacles.
Continue reading “Fair Use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act”
(by John Schoppert, Colorado Law 3L)
On Friday, February 16th, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced the indictment of 13 Russian nationals on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States. The announcement serves as the latest development in Mueller’s investigation into potential collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election. More concretely, it provides further evidence that Russian operatives played a critical role in disrupting the 2016 election atop near-unanimous consensus among American intelligence agencies.
The indictments track the work of a so-called “troll factory” located in St. Petersburg, which designed and deployed divisive content over social media platforms to encourage collaboration within extreme groups online. More specifically, Russian operatives stole the identities of American citizens, posed as political activists, created posts affiliated with extreme ideologies and paid individuals to locally organize protests and rallies. While many debate over whether the Russians pushed for any one candidate over the other—as opposed to creating chaos more generally—based on internal documents, it appears that disruptive efforts were aimed at supporting the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and undermining that of Hillary Clinton.
Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #65: Fake News, Real Concerns”
Today, TLPC student attorneys filed three long form comments with the Copyright Office as part of the seventh triennial Section 1201 proceeding. Under Section 1201 of the DMCA, parties may petition the Copyright Office every three years to create or update exemptions when the DMCA adversely affects noninfringing activities.
Sophia Galleher filed a comment to enable better access to films and other copyrighted works for people with disabilities. Susan Miller and Angel Antkers, along with colleagues at the UC Irvine Intellectual Property, Art, and Technology (IPAT) Clinic, filed a comment to enable artistic expressions like fan fiction by expanding the allowed uses of multimedia e-books. Elizabeth Field and Justin Manusov filed a comment to better protect good faith security researchers.
Continue reading “TLPC Files Three DMCA Comments for Disability Services, Multimedia E-Books, and Security Research”
(by Kristine Roach, Colorado Law 2L)
After the Unite the Right rally and associated violence in Charlottesville, NC on the weekend of Aug 11th, internet platforms and domain name providers responded by taking down content from The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that had encouraged some of the weekend’s events, raising a complicated debate over the responsibility that online platforms bear for hate speech, harassment, and violence, the concentration of power online, and free speech.
Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #51: Internet Platforms and Violent Content”
(by Andi Wilt, Colorado Law 3L)
When is the last time you Googled someone’s name? There are many reasons why you might have done that. You could have been trying to learn more about someone who was about to interview you for a position, or maybe you were about to interview them, or even deciding whom you were going to interview in the first place. An applicant’s online presence is important to many employers, as one source indicates that 90% of executive recruiters say they do online research on applicants; up to 70% of employers who have used LinkedIn say they have decided not to hire someone based on something they learn about the applicant online.
So what’s the problem with a little online research about a person? Professor Latanya Sweeney found that a Google search for a black identifying name is 25 percent more likely to be accompanied by an arrest-related ad. Professor Sweeney explored the connection between “[b]lack-identifying” and “[w]hite-identifying” first names, which are “those for which a significant number of people have the name and the frequency is sufficiently higher in one race than another.” Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Law & Policy, Vol. 39: First Amendment Protection For Discriminatory Ads?”