The first exclusively online law review.

Tag: JOLT Page 2 of 3

NFL and UFC Mobilize the Feds Against Illegal Streams

NFL and UFC Mobilize the Feds Against Illegal Streams

By: Donovan Sbiroli

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)

Image via Homeland Security Investigations *HSI) and WIBX.

For fans of the National Football League (NFL) to have access to most out-of-market games throughout a season, they need to purchase “NFL Sunday Ticket.” The product, which is sold by Alphabet, Inc. under its YouTube TV service, costs $479 at the start of the season.[1] In lieu of paying the base price of $479, millions of fans have turned to piracy and illegal streams.

Domain names of such illegal streams can be seized, however. Section 2323 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides for civil asset forfeiture and seizure. Paragraph (a) of the section reads:

“The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government: any article, the making or trafficking of which is prohibited under section 506 of title 17… any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A)…For seizures made under this section, the court shall enter an appropriate protective order with respect to discovery and use of any records or information that has been seized . . . the court shall order that any property forfeited under paragraph (1) be destroyed.”[2]

Artificial Intelligence in the Law Classroom: Good? Bad? Or Maybe Both?

Artificial Intelligence in the Law Classroom: Good? Bad? Or Maybe Both?

By: Nadia Farashahi

Whether we like it or not, artificial intelligence has taken its place in our society. Law schools are no exception.[1] With the rise in artificial intelligence, law schools are faced with the challenge of adapting to this new technology.

Bloomberg Law’s Spring 2024 Path to Practice survey encompassed data from more than 150 U.S. Law schools.[2] This survey reflected that the status quo is changing: “technological advancements have pushed law schools to address longstanding gaps in tech skill development, specifically by embracing and offering more AI-focused courses.”[3] Faculty respondents were asked whether their law schools “asked or encouraged them” to update their courses to reflect these new technological advancements in the legal field, and more than a third of the respondents said “yes.”[4] The survey also inquired about AI specific courses that are available to law students. Around 40% of respondents indicated that the courses give students “practical experiences using AI for legal work.”[5]

The American Bar Association Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence conducted a similar survey.[6] The survey, completed by 29 law school deans or faculty members in 2023 to 2024, showed that AI is steadily establishing a firm presence in the law school classroom. Around 55% of the law school respondents reported that they have classes centered around teaching students about AI, and around 83% reported having curricular opportunities that allowed students to learn to use AI effectively.[7]

AI in Contract Drafting: Transforming Legal Practice

AI in Contract Drafting: Transforming Legal Practice

By: Audrey Zhang Yang

Woman typing on laptop with one organic hand and one robot hand.

 

Introduction

The legal profession is experiencing an unprecedented transformation driven by the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into various aspects of legal practice. Among these changes, the evolution of contract drafting and management stands as a particularly significant development. As law firms and legal departments navigate the opportunities and challenges presented by evolving legal technologies, understanding how AI is reshaping contract drafting becomes crucial for legal practitioners and law school students. This paper examines the current state of AI in contract drafting, its practical applications, and its implications for the legal profession.

Google’s Geofencing Stance: an Ode to Apple in 2016

Google’s Geofencing Stance: an Ode to Apple in 2016

By Michael Mellon

 

 

In 2016 Apple faced off with the federal government, who had obtained an order to compel Apple to create software which would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to unlock a cellphone used by a suspected terrorist.[1]  The software was needed because Apple had recently redesigned its operating system, making it impossible for anyone to access information stored on one of their devices.[2]  The government maintained that the All Writs Act justified the compulsion because it “empower[s] judges to order that something be done, even if the legislative body (here, Congress) hasn’t officially said that it should be.”[3]  It further relied on a test established in United States v. New York Telephone Co. concerning the same.[4]  Apple was prepared to challenge this, but the issue became moot when the United States Attorney’s Office indicated it had found another means of entry into the phone.[5]  This situation may very well have been the inspiration for Google’s recent stance related to mobile devices.

Can AI-Generated Output Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?

Can AI-Generated Output Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?

By Audrey Zhang Yang

Introduction

AI-generated output represents a groundbreaking integration of technology and creativity that increasingly challenges established norms in the legal world. Inevitably, it raises the question on whether law and policy on intellectual property protection should evolve and adapt to recognize this changing innovation trend. The Progress Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science…by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writing.”[i] Pursuant to this authorization, the Copyright Act extends copyright protection for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”[ii] The Copyright Act neither defined “authorship” not “works of authorship.”[iii] Traditionally, courts assigns authorship to individuals who create original works. However, determining authorship is more challenging in the case of artificial intelligence (AI). Some believe that since AI systems are tools programmed by humans, the programmers are entitled to authorship rights.[iv] Also, when someone instructs AI to solve a problem, that person might qualify as an investor if she formulates a problem in a manner that requires inventive skill.[v] However, laws on intellectual property, patent, and copyright were not originally passed with AI in mind. Therefore, there is no law specifically addressing AI-generated invention in any jurisdiction.

Whose DNA is It Anyway? Legal Challenges that Arise from the Use of Genetic Genealogy in Criminal Investigations

Whose DNA is It Anyway? Legal Challenges that Arise from the Use of Genetic Genealogy in Criminal Investigations

By Kim Lo

Since 2018, law enforcement’s use of genetic genealogy to identify and apprehend suspects has been growing [2], especially in high profile cases like the Golden State Killer case and the recent University of Idaho student murders. However, it is not without its critics.

Navigating Big Tech in Today’s Age of Antitrust Enforcement

Navigating Big Tech in Today’s Age of Antitrust Enforcement

By: Allen Masi

In the last year, the United States government has brought antitrust cases against multiple large technology companies.[1] Google, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft have all been under the lens of the federal government.[2] Experts have predicted that 2024 could be a very active year for antitrust enforcers.[3] It is clear that the U.S. government has been paying particular attention to these big technology companies recently. What does this mean for these technology companies and how could possible future action have an impact on consumers?

AI Attorneys – Why Bother Going to Law School?

AI Attorneys – Why Bother Going to Law School?

By: L. Michelle Ugalde

 

With the rapid advancement and integration of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) across all career fields, the fear of virtual replacement is becoming all the more omnipresent. But is this fear justified? For attorneys, the consensus is split. While all recognize that AI is undoubtedly entering the legal field, the divide is between those who are embracing this new incorporation, and those who reject it. It seems that as time progresses, the feelings of the latter are becoming stronger.

Joan Is Awful: A Petition for Federal Personality Rights Legislation

Joan Is Awful: A Petition for Federal Personality Rights Legislation

By Kathryn Threatt

Background:

In June of 2023, Netflix premiered season 6 of the beloved and haunting series, Black Mirror.[1] The star-filled first episode entitled, Joan Is Awful, is the tale of an everyday woman, Joan, whose life will soon be streamed by millions of viewers on the fictionalized version of Netflix, Streamberry. So, you might be wondering how such a thing happens. Well Joan, unbeknownst to her, signs away her personality rights.[2]

Page 2 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén