Main Content

Casebook Credits History

Content from the following sources has been used in the creation of this casebook:

    • 1: University of Geneva Digital Law, June 2021 -- "Practicing Cyberlaw: Litigating Internet Disputes" (General Overview) original
    • 1.1: Kevin Granville, "Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: What You Need to Know as Fallout Widens," The New York Times (March 19, 2018) original
    • 1.2: WestOrange.info Dispute: Stephen B. Kaplitt, June 17, 2013 response to cease and desist letter, read all original
    • 1.3: Shepard Fairey v. The Associated Press, No. 09-01123 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.) (1 of 2): Complaint, (February 9, 2009), read paragraphs 1-2, 9-40, skim the exhibits original
    • 1.4: Shepard Fairey v. The Associated Press, No. 09-01123 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.) (2 of 2): Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, (March 11, 2009), read paragraphs 53-64, 69-134, 158-162 original
    • 1.5: Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc., No. C 07-6076 SI (N.D. Cal.) (1 of 2): Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, read pp. 1-12 (stop at "B. Savage's RICO Claims . . .") (be sure to use the printed page numbers at the bottom, not the pdf numbers or PACER numbers at the top) original
    • 1.6: David Streitfeld, "European Court Lets Users Erase Records on Web," NYTimes.com (May 13, 2014) original
    • 1.7: A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., No. CV99-05183 (MHP), 2000 WL 1170106 (N.D.Cal. 2000), district court decision on Daubert motions, read pp 1-4 (legal standard, Jay report), 10-12 (Tygar report and Conclusion) original
    • 1.8: Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu and Lauren Kirchner, "Machine Bias," ProPublica (May 23, 2016) original
    • 2: University of Geneva Digital Law, June 2021 -- "Practicing Cyberlaw: Litigating Internet Disputes" (Problem #1) original
    • 2.1: Digital Media Law Project Legal Guide, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, "Immunity for Online Publishers Under the Communications Decency Act," skim all and linked resources as needed original
    • 2.2: Digital Media Law Project Legal Guide, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, “Defamation,” skim all and linked resources as needed original
    • 2.3: Blockowicz v. Williams, No. 09-C-3955 (N.D.Ill.) (1 of 3): District Court's order denying injunction, filed December 21, 2009, read all original
    • 2.4: Blockowicz v. Williams, No. 09-C-3955 (N.D.Ill.) (2 of 3): Eric Goldman, "Ripoff Report Not Bound by Takedown Injunction Against User -- Blockowicz v. Williams," Technology & Marketing Blog, December 22, 2009, read all (main post only, not comments) original
    • 2.5: Blockowicz v. Williams, No. 09-C-3955 (N.D.Ill.) (3 of 3): Paul Levy, "Courts Address a Section 230 Question That Seems Hard at First Blush– What Happens After a Defamation Plaintiff Wins Against the Poster?," Consumer Law & Policy blog, December 30, 2010, read all original
    • 2.6: Dave Lee, "What is the 'right to be forgotten'?," BBC.com (May 13, 2014) original
    • 3: University of Geneva Digital Law, June 2021 -- "Practicing Cyberlaw: Litigating Internet Disputes" (Problem #2) original
    • 3.1: Internet Law Treatise, “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA),” EFF.org, skim all and linked resources as needed original
    • 3.2: Clinic Staff, "Third Circuit Vacates Andrew Auernheimer's CFAA Conviction," Cyberlaw Clinic Blog (April 12, 2014), read all; skim linked resources as needed original
    • 3.3: MBTA v. Anderson, et al., Civ. No. 08-11364-GAO (D.Mass) (1 of 4): Complaint (filed 8/8/08), read paragraphs 1-4, 33-75, pages 16-17 (Requested Relief); skim paras 15-32 original
    • 3.4: MBTA v. Anderson, et al., Civ. No. 08-11364-GAO (D.Mass) (2 of 4): Memo in Support of Motion for TRO (filed 8/8/08), read all original
    • 3.5: MBTA v. Anderson, et al., Civ. No. 08-11364-GAO (D.Mass) (3 of 4): Court's TRO (issued 8/9/08), read all original
    • 3.6: MBTA v. Anderson, et al., Civ. No. 08-11364-GAO (D.Mass) (4 of 4): Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of TRO, read pp. 1-12; skim pp. 13-18 original
    • 4: University of Geneva Digital Law, June 2021 -- "Practicing Cyberlaw: Litigating Internet Disputes" (Problem #3) original
    • 4.1: Andy Sellars, “The Right of Publicity and Free Speech: DMLP Joins Amicus Brief in Hart v. Electronic Arts,” DMLP Blog (May 31, 2012) original
    • 4.2: United States Copyright Office, "Online Service Providers," Copyright.gov original
    • 4.3: Viacom v. YouTube, No. 1:07-cv-02130 (LLS) (FM) (S.D.N.Y.) (1 of 4): YouTube Memo of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 11, 2010, read pp. 1-11, 16-19 (The DMCA Safe-Harbor Provisions), 96-99 (use printed page numbers, not the PDF page numbers) original
    • 4.4: Viacom v. YouTube, No. 1:07-cv-02130 (LLS) (FM) (S.D.N.Y.) (2 of 4): Google/YouTube's Summary Judgment Motion information page, skim all original
    • 4.5: Viacom v. YouTube, No. 1:07-cv-02130 (LLS) (FM) (S.D.N.Y.) (3 of 4): Viacom's Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, read pp. 1-10 original
    • 4.6: Viacom v. YouTube, 940 F.Supp.2d 110 (SDNY 2013), skim all original
    • 5: University of Geneva Digital Law, June 2021 -- "Practicing Cyberlaw: Litigating Internet Disputes" (Problem #4) original
    • 5.1: December 6, 2011 letter from Facebook (counsel: Joseph Cutler, Perkins Coie) to Hunter Moore, read all original
    • 5.2: Matthew Rosenberg, Nicholas Confessore and Carole Cadwalladr, "How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions," The New York Times (March 17, 2017) original
    • 5.3: Ethan Zuckerman, "This Is So Much Bigger Than Facebook," The Atlantic (March 23, 2018) original
    • 5.4: Eric Goldman, "Another Court Significantly Limits the Scope of Criminal CFAA–Sandvig v. Barr," Technology & Marketing Law Blog (April 14, 2020) original
    • 5.5: Jamie Williams, "‘Scraping’ Is Just Automated Access, and Everyone Does It," EFF (April 17, 2018) original