The Fate of Section 230 vis-a-vis Gonzalez v. Google: A Case of Looming Legal Liability

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This article is authored by Harshitha Adari and Akarshi Narain, 2nd year students at the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. It analyses the arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that came before the United States Supreme Court, in the context of the judgment’s consequences on Internet free speech.]

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the pillar of internet free speech. It provides “interactive computer services” such as video platforms, social media networks, blogs, and other platforms hosting third-party speech- broad immunity from liability for the content posted by users. It states that “no user or provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the speaker or publisher of any information provided by another information content provider.” This protection promotes free internet speech and immunizes service providers and users for removing objectionable content. The drafters of this legislation recognize that an internet unfettered by government regulation is a non-negotiable for free speech to thrive online. However, two pending cases before the US Supreme Court, Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, challenged the scope of this law’s protections.

Read more

Paid News Conundrum – Right to fair dealing infringed?

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This article is authored by Tanmay Malik, a 4th year student at NALSAR University, Hyderabad. It analyses if the restrictions on paid news over search engines is violative of the fair use doctrine under the copyright law.]

News is a free information of the events around us. With the rise in enmeshing and expanse of world wide web, the news has multiple pathways to reach an individual. A report by Pew Research Center clearly shows that there has been a rise of solely-online media outlets and the sector has also witnessed the legacy paper-based news outlets broadcasting their news via all modes of digital means including apps, websites, podcasts, etc. A corresponding rise has been seen in the usage of the Big Tech giants, be it Google or Facebook. The two rises intersect and make these outlets the most likely source of news.

Read more

Chronicles of AI: Blurred Lines of Legality and Artists’ Right To Sue in Prospect of AI Copyright Infringement

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This article is authored by Jatin Yadav, a 2nd year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Hidayatullah National Law University. It discusses the prospect of artists’ legal standing to sue AIs that are trained on their productions for copyright infringement in respect of substantial similarity test and fair use doctrine. This is the second article in the series titled ‘AI Art,’ the first part can be found here.]

Introduction

Read more

Dali v. Dall-E: The Emerging Trend of AI-generated Art

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This article is authored by Tejaswini Kaushal, a 2nd year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. It elucidates the international and national status quo of AI-generated art and reflect on the ethical and legal standards. This is part of a series titled ‘AI Art,’ the second article of which can be found here.]

Introduction

Read more

BBC Documentary Ban: Yet Another Example of the Government’s Abuse of its Emergency Powers

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR
[This post by Paras Khetan and Anish Gupta, 2nd year students at NLSIU, Bangalore, explains how the  order blocking the BBC Documentary is violative of the IT Act and the rules thereunder. It also brings forth the larger problem of constant abuse of the government’s emergency powers under the IT Rules.]

Introduction

Recently, the government issued an order blocking the airing of the BBC documentary titled, ‘India: The Modi Question.’ The government invoked its emergency powers under Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021 (‘IT Rules’) to direct YouTube and Twitter to block URLs that enabled access to the documentary. The government in its order cited the impact of the documentary to “undermine the sovereignty and integrity of India” as the ground for banning the documentary. While the validity of the order is currently under challenge in the Supreme Court, the authors are writing this paper in anticipation of the judgement and suggest how the Court should decide the matter at hand. We argue that the government order is plagued with illegality for violating the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) and the rules thereunder. The order does away with the safeguards relied upon by the landmark judgement in Shreya Singhal v Union of India while upholding the constitutionality of Section 69A. We shall also conceptualise and situate the recent happenings into the larger paradigm of executive aggrandizement and the constant abuse of emergency powers by the government.

Read more