Stay Tuned: Whether Cloud-Based Service Providers Can Have Their Copyrighted Cake and Eat It Too

Copyright owners have the exclusive right to perform their works publicly and the ability to license their work to others who want to share that right. Subsections 106(4) and (5) of the Copyright Act govern this exclusive public performance right, but neither subsection elaborates on what constitutes a performance made “to the public” versus one that remains private. This lack of clarity has made it difficult for courts to apply the Copyright Act consistently, especially in the face of changing technology. Companies like Aereo, Inc. and AereoKiller, Inc. developed novel ways to transmit content over the internet to be viewed instantly by their subscribers and declined to procure the licenses that would have been required if these transmissions were being made “to the public.” However, while these companies claimed that their activities were outside of the purview of § 106(4) and (5), their rivals, copyright owners, and the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Likening Aereo to a cable company for purposes of § 106(4) and (5), the Supreme Court determined that the company would need to pay for the material it streamed. Perhaps more problematic for Aereo (and other similar companies) is the fact that the Court declined to categorize Aereo as an actual cable company, such that it would qualify to pay compulsory licensing fees—the more affordable option given to cable companies under § 111—to copyright holders. This Comment shows that, while the Court correctly ruled that companies like Aereo and AereoKiller should pay for the content transmitted, its failure to address whether Aereo is a cable company could frustrate innovation to the detriment of the public. It suggests, therefore, that these companies should be required to pay for the content that they transmit in the same way that cable companies do until Congress develops another system

Should we welcome robot teachers?

Abstract Current uses of robots in classrooms are reviewed and used to characterise four scenarios: (s1) Robot as Classroom Teacher; (s2) Robot as Companion and Peer; (s3) Robot as Care-eliciting Companion; and (s4) Telepresence Robot Teacher. The main ethical concerns associated with robot teachers are identified as: privacy; attachment, deception, and loss of human contact; and control and accountability. These are discussed in terms of the four identified scenarios. It is argued that classroom robots are likely to impact children’s’ privacy, especially when they masquerade as their friends and companions, when sensors are used to measure children’s responses, and when records are kept. Social robots designed to appear as if they understand and care for humans necessarily involve some deception (itself a complex notion), and could increase the risk of reduced human contact. Children could form attachments to robot companions (s2 and s3), or robot teachers (s1) and this could have a deleterious effect on their social development. There are also concerns about the ability, and use of robots to control or make decisions about children’s behaviour in the classroom. It is concluded that there are good reasons not to welcome fully fledged robot teachers (s1), and that robot companions (s2 and 3) should be given a cautious welcome at best. The limited circumstances in which robots could be used in the classroom to improve the human condition by offering otherwise unavailable educational experiences are discussed

Autonomous weapons systems, killer robots and human dignity

One of the several reasons given in calls for the prohibition of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) is that they are against human dignity (Asaro in Int Rev Red Cross 94(886):687–709, 2012; Docherty in Shaking the foundations: the human rights implications of killer robots, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2014; Heyns in S Afr J Hum Rights 33(1):46–71, 2017; Ulgen in Human dignity in an age of autonomous weapons: are we in danger of losing an ‘elementary consideration of humanity’? 2016). However there have been criticisms of the reliance on human dignity in arguments against AWS (Birnbacher in Autonomous weapons systems: law, ethics, policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016; Pop in Autonomous weapons systems: a threat to human dignity? 2018; Saxton in (Un)dignified killer robots? The problem with the human dignity argument, 2016). This paper critically examines the relationship between human dignity and AWS. Three main types of objection to AWS are identified; (i) arguments based on technology and the ability of AWS to conform to international humanitarian law; (ii) deontological arguments based on the need for human judgement and meaningful human control, including arguments based on human dignity; (iii) consequentialist reasons about their effects on global stability and the likelihood of going to war. An account is provided of the claims made about human dignity and AWS, of the criticisms of these claims, and of the several meanings of ‘dignity’. It is concluded that although there are several ways in which AWS can be said to be against human dignity, they are not unique in this respect. There are other weapons, and other technologies, that also compromise human dignity. Given this, and the ambiguities inherent in the concept, it is wiser to draw on several types of objections in arguments against AWS, and not to rely exclusively on human dignity

Stay Tuned: Whether Cloud-Based Service Providers Can Have Their Copyrighted Cake and Eat It Too

Copyright owners have the exclusive right to perform their works publicly and the ability to license their work to others who want to share that right. Subsections 106(4) and (5) of the Copyright Act govern this exclusive public performance right, but neither subsection elaborates on what constitutes a performance made “to the public” versus one that remains private. This lack of clarity has made it difficult for courts to apply the Copyright Act consistently, especially in the face of changing technology. Companies like Aereo, Inc. and AereoKiller, Inc. developed novel ways to transmit content over the internet to be viewed instantly by their subscribers and declined to procure the licenses that would have been required if these transmissions were being made “to the public.” However, while these companies claimed that their activities were outside of the purview of § 106(4) and (5), their rivals, copyright owners, and the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Likening Aereo to a cable company for purposes of § 106(4) and (5), the Supreme Court determined that the company would need to pay for the material it streamed. Perhaps more problematic for Aereo (and other similar companies) is the fact that the Court declined to categorize Aereo as an actual cable company, such that it would qualify to pay compulsory licensing fees—the more affordable option given to cable companies under § 111—to copyright holders. This Comment shows that, while the Court correctly ruled that companies like Aereo and AereoKiller should pay for the content transmitted, its failure to address whether Aereo is a cable company could frustrate innovation to the detriment of the public. It suggests, therefore, that these companies should be required to pay for the content that they transmit in the same way that cable companies do until Congress develops another system

Stair falls: caregiver's "missed steps" a source of childhood fractures

"Background The purpose of this study was to describe fractures sustained by children and to analyze the associated costs when a caretaker falls down stairs while holding a child. Materials and methods Between 2004 and 2012, 16 children who sustained a fracture after a fall down stairs while being carried by a caregiver were identified. Parents/caregivers were interviewed to see how the fall occurred, and a cost analysis was performed. Results The average age of the patients was 14.5 months (7–51 months). The lower extremity was involved in 15 of 16 fractures, with 8 involving the femur. The majority were buckle fractures, but all diaphyseal femur fractures were spiral. Three patients required a reduction in the operating room. All fractures healed with cast immobilization. Five patients underwent skeletal surveys, as the treating physicians were concerned about potential child abuse. The average cost of treatment was $6785 (range$948–45,876). Detailed histories from the caregivers showed that they “missed a step†due to the child being carried in front of the caregiver, obscuring their vision. Conclusions A fall in a caregiver’s arms while going down stairs can result in multiple orthopedic injuries. The costs of treating these injuries are not insignificant, and the suspicion of child abuse can be both costly and unnecessary in the case of a true accident. While descending the stairs with a child in their arms, the caregiver should hold the child to the side so as not to obscure their vision of the step with one arm, ideally holding the handrail with the other. Level of evidence IV case series.

Stair falls: caregiver’s “missed stepâ€? as a source of childhood fractures

Background The purpose of this study was to describe fractures sustained by children and to analyze the associated costs when a caretaker falls down stairs while holding a child. Materials and methods Between 2004 and 2012, 16 children who sustained a fracture after a fall down stairs while being carried by a caregiver were identified. Parents/caregivers were interviewed to see how the fall occurred, and a cost analysis was performed. Results The average age of the patients was 14.5 months (7–51 months). The lower extremity was involved in 15 of 16 fractures, with 8 involving the femur. The majority were buckle fractures, but all diaphyseal femur fractures were spiral. Three patients required a reduction in the operating room. All fractures healed with cast immobilization. Five patients underwent skeletal surveys, as the treating physicians were concerned about potential child abuse. The average cost of treatment was $6785 (range$948–45,876). Detailed histories from the caregivers showed that they “missed a step� due to the child being carried in front of the caregiver, obscuring their vision. Conclusions A fall in a caregiver’s arms while going down stairs can result in multiple orthopedic injuries. The costs of treating these injuries are not insignificant, and the suspicion of child abuse can be both costly and unnecessary in the case of a true accident. While descending the stairs with a child in their arms, the caregiver should hold the child to the side so as not to obscure their vision of the step with one arm, ideally holding the handrail with the other. Level of evidence IV case series

Stair falls: caregiver’s “missed step� as a source of childhood fractures

Background The purpose of this study was to describe fractures sustained by children and to analyze the associated costs when a caretaker falls down stairs while holding a child. Materials and methods Between 2004 and 2012, 16 children who sustained a fracture after a fall down stairs while being carried by a caregiver were identified. Parents/caregivers were interviewed to see how the fall occurred, and a cost analysis was performed. Results The average age of the patients was 14.5 months (7–51 months). The lower extremity was involved in 15 of 16 fractures, with 8 involving the femur. The majority were buckle fractures, but all diaphyseal femur fractures were spiral. Three patients required a reduction in the operating room. All fractures healed with cast immobilization. Five patients underwent skeletal surveys, as the treating physicians were concerned about potential child abuse. The average cost of treatment was $6785 (range$948–45,876). Detailed histories from the caregivers showed that they “missed a step” due to the child being carried in front of the caregiver, obscuring their vision. Conclusions A fall in a caregiver’s arms while going down stairs can result in multiple orthopedic injuries. The costs of treating these injuries are not insignificant, and the suspicion of child abuse can be both costly and unnecessary in the case of a true accident. While descending the stairs with a child in their arms, the caregiver should hold the child to the side so as not to obscure their vision of the step with one arm, ideally holding the handrail with the other. Level of evidence IV case series

Markers of Cardiovascular Dysfunction in Adolescents With Anorexia Nervosa

Background . Cardiovascular complications contribute to the high morbidity and mortality rate among children with anorexia nervosa (AN). Advances in cardiac imaging permit a more comprehensive assessment of myocardial performance in children that could not be previously obtained with conventional imaging. Myocardial strain analysis is an emerging quantitative echocardiographic technique to characterize global and regional ventricular function in children. Objective . To assess global and regional left ventricular (LV0 function in children newly diagnosed with AN with conventional and quantitative 2-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiographic (2DSTE)–derived strain imaging. Materials . In a cross-sectional study of 30 patients with AN ( DSM-5 ) and 14 age-, sex-, and race-matched healthy children, markers of cardiovascular risk, conventional and 2DSTE measures of LV function, and structure were evaluated and compared. The AN cohort was further stratified by behavioral patterns (restrict, exercise, or purge). Results . Conventional measures and LV global strain were similar between controls and children with AN. A subgroup of AN children with purging behavior had LV remodeling characterized by significantly decreased LV mass index. Regional ventricular function at the apex, as measured by strain, was also decreased in all AN patients. Percent change from ideal body weight, body mass index Z -score, electrolyte profiles, heart rate, and blood pressure were similar. Conclusions . Subclinical regional ventricular dysfunction is present in children with AN. Ventricular remodeling exists in a subgroup of children with AN in association with purging behavior. Future studies may utilize strain imaging to identify those AN patients who are at an increased risk for developing significant cardiac dysfunction