Wide Right: How ISP Immunity and Current Laws Are Off the Mark in Protecting the Modern Athlete on Social Media
“[Y]our tranny looking dad is a disgrace to American football,” “I would rape the shit out of her,” and “[The] [B]ears are easier than you on prom night,” are just a sampling of some of the alarmingly harassing tweets received by Chloe Trestman between the night of November 9, 2014 and November 10, 2014. Who is Chloe Trestman, and what could she have possibly done to warrant such abuse? Chloe’s father is Marc Trestman, the head coach of the Chicago Bears. And the twitter vitriol, or “twitriol,” directed toward Chloe was in response to the Bears’ blowout loss to their longtime rivals, the Green Bay Packers, 55-14 on Sunday Night Football. So the question remains, what did Chloe do to garner such an abusive reaction from the disgruntled Chicago fan-base?
The answer, of course, is she did nothing to deserve this hate-inspired tweeter tirade, other than being the daughter of an NFL head coach and having a twitter account. In this generation of Facebook, Twitter and other social media outlets, it is commonplace for athletes, and unfortunately sometimes their family members, to become targets of harassing online misconduct and abuse. Arguably more alarming than the harassing component of social media websites, is the fact that the current laws governing Internet Service Providers lack the necessary teeth to provide any recourse to athletes victimized by online misconduct, which only perpetuates this type of behavior and leaves no recourse for the injured party. So Coach Trestman, Chloe Trestman and mostly any other internet targeted athlete are left with no legal remedy until the vast safeguards protecting ISPs are curtailed.
Starting in late 2012, and continuing into late 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York wreaked havoc on the traditional interpretation of the copyright infringement defense known as “fair use.” Two cases stemming from the advent of the Google Books Project are Author’s Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust and Author’s Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. These cases adopted a controversial interpretation of the fair use defense, codified in 17 U.S.C. § 107, when each case determined that the mass digitization of thousands of books constituted fair use merely because the digitization was what is known as “transformative use.”
This Comment will explore the background of the fair use defense, from its common law origins, to its codification in the 1976 Copyright Act, to its application in modern law. Keeping this background in mind will explain why the current legal state of the fair use defense, as propagated by the District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States Courts Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is inconsistent with traditional statutory construction principles.
Proposed recommendations to solve legal inconsistencies in Section 107 can come from clarification either from Congress by way of an amendment to this Section, or by a decision from the United States Supreme Court.
The Night is Dark and Full of . . . Family Law?: California Law and Marital Presumption in Game of Thrones
The television show Game of Thrones has developed a tremendous following in recent years. The show takes place primarily in the fictional state of Westeros, a feudal society that mirrors many of the legal structures of medieval England. As such, many of the laws and customs of Westeros seem antithetical to the beliefs and values of modern viewers. In an attempt to posit a more just outcome following the death of Westeros’ king (the action which springboards the primary power struggle), this Article applies California law to the disposition of King Robert’s property. Shockingly, this Article finds that California’s marital presumption laws are as unsettling as some of the laws found in Westeros itself.
This Article argues that the current marital presumption laws are outdated and badly in need of reform. Using the disposition of King Robert’s property as an example, this Article critiques the modern California Family Code’s approach to paternity disestablishment. Part I provides a description of the marital presumption rule. Part II applies it to situations such as King Robert’s where the father incorrectly believed that a child was his own. Part III concludes by suggesting how the law should be altered to create a more just outcome to situations of mistaken paternity.
While more information can be gleaned from A Song of Fire and Ice book series, this Article relies on the information obtained through the HBO series unless otherwise indicated. Additionally, this Article only addresses the disposition of property as it would occur under California law.
The staff of PIPSELF has worked diligently this year in selecting and preparing original and appealing articles concerning emerging issues in the fields of intellectual property, sports, and entertainment law for this issue. We welcome our readers to send comments and feedback: e-mail us at email@example.com, visit our Twitter @PIPSELF, or ‘like’ us on Facebook at “Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum.”