Internet Payment Blockades

Bridy, Annemarie

doi:10.31235/osf.io/fzb53

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the United States, a protest movement that originated domestically and then spread globally defeated proposed legislation that tried to impose content filtering obligations on domain name registrars and payment providers (Herman 2013). Subsequently, however, major US payment providers have acceded to a set of voluntary "best practices" that involves them more actively in private intellectual property enforcement (Bridy 2015). In Australia, a popular protest movement opposed a government proposal that would have required internet service providers to perform mandatory content filtering; the government eventually withdrew the proposal after political opposition proved firm, and after the major Australian ISPs voluntarily agreed to block 1,400 sites previously identified as child pornography purveyors.…”

Section: Transparency and Accountability Of Media Infrastructures Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media and Communications*

Couldry¹,

Rodríguez²,

Bolin³

et al.

Rethinking Society for the 21st Century

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

her huge support in managing the drafting process and bringing together the final version (with her skill and professionalism, the task would have been impossible!); Guy Berger of UNESCO and Anita Gurumurthy of ITforChange for their excellent comments on an earlier draft, as well as all those who contributed through IPSP's public comments process; and Emma Christina Montaña for her excellent work on the Spanish translation of the chapter.

show abstract

Section: Transparency and Accountability Of Media Infrastructures Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media and Communications*

Couldry¹,

Rodríguez²,

Bolin³

et al.

Rethinking Society for the 21st Century

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 But this question becomes a more difficult one when AI systems are more capable than in previous eras at yielding their own creative outputs without much human involvement at all. 23 -and-paper output copyrightability assumes that human authors remain the creative geniuses behind the works, even if that genius utilizes AI and other technologies in bringing about their creati some AI systems require very little creative input from human beings in order to generate highly creative outputs. 24 And in the not-too-distant future, it may be the case that AI systems are nearly entirely automated in generating their own creative outputs.…”

Section: The Copyrightability Of Ai Outputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Independent Creation in a World of AI

Asay¹

2020

lawreview

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have long debated whether the outputs of AI systems should be subject to copyright. On the one hand, the automated nature of many AI systems may make copyright unnecessary as an incentive for the creation of withholding copyright protections from them. On the other hand, those outputs often exhibit sufficient creativity to merit copyright protection, and without copyright, parties that use AI systems to create such outputs may lack the necessary incentives to do so. In this Essay, prepared as part of the Florida International University t, I argue that copyright ependent creation defense, as well as the widespread availability of AI systems for helping authors in their creative efforts, helps address some of the concerns embedded in these debates. Historically, the independent creation defense has rarely applied, simply because independent creation of similar expression is highly unusual. But as this Essay explores, AI increases the likelihood of multiple parties creating similar expression independently, meaning that the defense can help defuse worries that applying copyright to AI outputs will result in a copyright quagmire. Furthermore, the availability of AI systems for assisting authors in their creative efforts means that authors have tools for more readily creating unique works that avoid many of the remaining copyright landmines. Other copyright issues linger, however, and the last part of this Essay examines some of these concerns in brief. In particular, parties may wish to use specific AI outputs in their own creative efforts, and neither the independent creation defense nor the availability of AI tools for creating something unique helps defense may, however, and the Essay concludes by briefly examining how. * Professor of Law, BYU Law School. Many thanks to Stephanie Plamondon Bair and participants at the FIU Law Review Symposium for helpful comments on previous versions of this Article. [Vol. 14:201 copyright laws. 37 While the fixation requirement can cause the authors of certain types of works headaches, 38 the originality requirement is typically viewed as the more important of the two copyrightability standards. 39 Indeed, ock principle of copyright. . 40 What, exactly, does originality entail? According to the Supreme Court, 41 The creativity required for some work to qualify for copyright protection thus need not be much; even a mote will do. 42 Combined, these two requirements of originality thus mean that two or more parties can come up with the same or similar creative expression, so long as they do so independent of one another. 43 independent creation requirement simultaneously imposes a copyright limitation, commonly referred to as the independent creation defense to copyright infringement. 44 If successfully wielded, the defense provides multiple parties copyright protections in their respective creations, even if identical or similar, so long as each of the parties did not copy their creative expression from anyone else. 45 Consequently, if someone produced the Harry Potter se...

show abstract

“…New technologies can redistribute regulatory capacity to private actors or augment an existing capacity for governance, particularly if governments are perceived as ill equipped, unable, or unwilling to act (see Cafaggi 2012). PayPal is not new to policing its platform: it removes its payment services from actors involved in copyright infringement (Bridy 2015), child pornography (Laidlaw 2012), and those selling counterfeit goods (Lindenbaum and Ewen 2012;Tusikov 2016).…”

Section: Regulation Through Surveillancementioning

confidence: 99%

Defunding Hate: PayPal’s Regulation of Hate Groups

Tusikov

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The riot by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017, generated a public debate about the role of platforms in policing users involved in violent hate speech. PayPal’s efforts on this issue, in removing services from some designated hate groups while continuing to serve others, highlights the challenges payment platforms face when they act, whether formally or informally, as regulators. This article examines PayPal’s policies and enforcement efforts, both proactive and reactive, in removing its services from hate groups in the United States. It pays particular attention to the surveillance and screening practices that PayPal employs to proactively detect users who violate its policies. The article argues that public calls for PayPal to identify and remove its services from hate groups raise critical questions about ceding broad regulatory authority to platforms and reveal the serious challenges of relying upon commercial enterprises to address complex social problems.

show abstract

Internet Payment Blockades

Abstract: Internet payment blockades are an attempt

Cited by 18 publications

References 1 publication

Media and Communications*

Media and Communications*

Independent Creation in a World of AI

Defunding Hate: PayPal’s Regulation of Hate Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About