Well before Pokémon Go burst onto the mobile gaming scene in July, we had written about some of the pitfalls associated with AR gaming. When the game netted some 45 million daily users in just a few weeks, we talked about Pokémon Go some more (potential liabilities and clickwrap enforcement challenges). But while the game’s popularity has begun to wane, the enthusiasm for augmented reality has likely just begun.
Tweet nicely to the Twitter bot, “LnH: The Band”—a newcomer in artificial intelligence music generation—and the bot will automatically compose melodies for you. The AI-based band is “currently working on their first album,” according to LnH Music, but who will own the rights and royalties to the album? Or what about Mubert, which is touted by its creators as the world’s first online music composer, and which “continuously produces music in real-time … based on the laws of musical theory, mathematics and creative experience?” In other words, if a computer program generates a creative work—be it a song, book or other creation—is there a copyright to be owned? If so, who owns and gets to collect on the copyright?
In this political season, much has been made about late-night Twitter rants targeting women and other social media attacks on individuals and celebrities. Although these harsh online critiques create a more hostile cyber community, more imminent danger may arise from the safety risks that accompany online activity in general. Law-enforcement officials have long warned users against disclosing travel plans on social media to would-be thieves by, for example, posting pictures of a boarding pass from that long-awaited trip to Barcelona. But what about apps and services like Find My Friends, where users can share their location with up to 50 friends, or Snapchat, which shows a user’s location when posting an image or video? With a culture focused on sharing and instant access to information via social media feeds, it bears considering if location-revealing apps engender some inherent danger, whether the app developers disclose potential risks, and what steps can be taken to protect personal safety.
Political campaigns have increasingly turned to social media as a channel to reach voters. Social media not only has the power to reach audiences numbering in the billions, but it also has the power to change the behavior of its users. This far-reaching influence is nothing new—advertisers pay lots of money to use these channels to sell and market their products to targeted audiences. But, could this power be used to sway voters, and is there anything that prevents social media companies from getting into the game of politics?
Today’s online world is all about engaging and staying connected with others via social media. For businesses, establishing a presence on various social media platforms is an enticing way to connect with current customers as well as foster new business.
Yet the immense popularity of social media sites can also draw unwanted attention to its users. Just as businesses are drawn to popular social medial sites to market their brands and products, so, too, are potential cybercriminals interested in targeting those who engage with these sites. On many of these platforms, user engagement is public. In other words, when a user chooses to “follow” a company or leave a comment, not only does the business take notice of the user, but everyone else on the platform can, as well, including those who are not themselves following the business. This provides a would-be cybercriminal a target-rich group upon whom to practice new (and old) scams.
Social media has become a must-have medium for most companies and celebrities. The medium provides an easy, inexpensive and instantaneous connection to customers and fans. However, as social media marketing continues to expand and evolve, so do concerns about deceptive advertising.
Social media is quickly becoming the way that companies present and market themselves to the world. Companies are also realizing the value social media provides in an easy conduit to communicate with customers. But the same qualities that make social media valuable can also lead to negative consequences. While information can be shared easily and instantaneously through social media, retracting such information is another story. Furthermore, the audience is not easily limited. So when it comes to the context of mergers and acquisitions, should social media have a role?
What are the privacy limits when users give permission for an app to access their smartphone’s microphone? A purported class action filed last week by LaTisha Satchell (a New York resident) against the Golden State Warriors (the first NBA franchise employing such an app), Signal360 (the New York-based licensor of the relevant technology) and Yinzcam (the Pennsylvania-based app developer) tackles this issue. Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Northern District of California, asserting violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 for the class that downloaded the Android version of the Warriors app and for a broader class of those using any Android app with the Signal360 technology.
Since my last post on the subject (“LinkedIn Grapples with the Ripples of a 2012 Data Breach”), there have been several developments related to LinkedIn’s 2012 data breach. First, in May, LinkedIn announced it has finished the process of invalidating passwords at risk, specifically LinkedIn accounts that had not reset their passwords since the 2012 breach:
Even as the initial furor surrounding the release of developer Niantic’s Pokémon-themed ap has subsided, the issues raised by the mass embrace of the augmented reality-flavored game continue to merit attention from lawmakers, games makers and players alike. Here are a few of the recent stories involving Pikachu, Charizard and company.