Preface 4 results
- This book will be helpful to business lawyers as well as litigators confronted with Internet-related legal issues. I have provided a concise yet systematic examination of UCITA, the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts, and other law reform projects to devise online contracting law. This nutshell is comprehensive in its coverage of global Internet issues that practitioners and students will encounter but will also serve as a useful introduction for non-lawyers and graduate as well as undergraduate students in diverse disciplines such as computer science, business, nursing, sociology, law and society and criminology. My hope is that the business community will also find this nutshell to be a useful introduction to legal issues on the global Internet.
- The Internet has transformed every branch of procedural and substantive law and thus every lawyer needs a basic understanding of Internet Law. For those lawyers, law students, policymakers, and members of the business community who are or will be involved in e-commerce, information security, or high technology law, it is important to have some basic understanding of the relevant cases and statutes relevant to Internet Law. This Third Edition, like the early editions, distills the main contours of settled Internet law as well as areas that are still evolving. The book focused upon the legal rules that govern the development of U.S. law but nearly every chapter also covers foreign and international law developments. The goal is to provide the reader with a succinct exposition of basic concepts and method for each procedural and substantive branch of law including foreign and international law developments. This Third Edition of the
- In contrast, foreign websites may be required to appear in U.S. courts if they infringe the rights of U.S. companies. The Internet is interconnected and transnational, challenging traditional sovereignty based upon geographic borders. No transnational sovereign devises uniform rules for Internet jurisdiction and the enforcement of online judgments. The lack of certainty about the law of cyberspace requires cross-border treaties and conventions. To date, the countries connected to the Internet have not agreed to cede their sovereignty in order to harmonize cyberjurisdictional rules. Instead, courts adapt their own national rules to determine jurisdiction. Many of the chapters address European Commission regulations, directives and conventions as well as domestic Internet law developments from foreign jurisdictions. The organization of the book summarizes many of the cases and statutes taught in e-commerce, Internet law, or cyberspace law courses.
- As e-businesses use the border-defying Internet, they will increasingly become subject to foreign procedural and substantive law. The U.S. business community, for example, needs legal audits for its websites sales and services whenever it targets European consumers. Websites that collect personally identifiable information need to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation even if they are not physically headquartered in Europe.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Overview of the Global Internet 73 results (showing 5 best matches)
- To date, most law school classes concerning the Internet spend a disproportionate amount of time on U.S. cases and statutory developments to the exclusion of global and foreign-law developments. This nutshell presents leading U.S. cases and statutory developments but also includes an analysis of foreign law developments at the end of each chapter. Chapter 7, for example will examine the consequences of ubiquitous computing on privacy covering topics such as the proposed General Data Protection Regulation. Chapter 2 examines the problems of governance and how multi-stakeholder models have evolved to create today’s open Internet. The path of Global Internet law will be explored in the chapters ahead.
- Where can one begin explaining a topic as vast as global Internet law? There is an inherent problem in writing about the omnipresent Internet, which is continuously in the process of becoming—a moving stream, not a stagnant pond. Courts and legislatures must continually update the law as the Internet creates new legal dilemmas. The Second Circuit explained the unique issues of Internet-related trademark law as “attempting to apply established trademark law in the fast-developing world of the Internet is somewhat like trying to board a moving bus.”
- The Internet Society (ISOC) is a “cause-driven voluntary organization that supports the IETF and the IAB to ensure that the Internet remains open and transparent.” Internet Society (ISOC), https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/isoc. html. “ISOC is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet standards body responsible for developing the Internet’s technical foundations through its open global forum.” The Internet evolved rapidly in large part because of the role of nonhierarchical, open standards-setting organizations such as ISOC.
- The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) are two of the most important global standards-setters for the Internet. The IETF identifies and proposes solutions for technical problems on the Internet. The IETF is an example of the generativity of collaborative community described by Jonathan Zittrain in his 2009 book,
- Cisco estimates that almost a half billion mobile devices and connections were made in 2014. “Global mobile devices and connections in 2014 grew to 7.4 billion, up from 6.9 billion in 2013. Smartphones accounted for 88 percent of that growth, with 439 million net additions in 2014.” Cisco, (Feb. 3, 2015). Global mobile data traffic grew 69 percent in 2014. Mobile Applications running on these devices allow the user to connect to other computers on the internet.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Perspectives on Global Internet 74 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Courts and legislatures are increasingly scrambling to update the law to account for the global Internet. Internet law can no longer be a U.S. centric subject of study either.
- The Internet, by definition, is a global institution. “The fact that much Internet content can be accessed simultaneously in most countries raises jurisdictional challenges along with the specter of differing cultural norms that may come into conflict in terms of attitudes to appropriate regulation.” Jacqueline Lipton identified three important features of cyberspace: “(a) global reach of the Internet, (b) differing norms of behavior that occur online as compared with those in the physical world and (c) kinds of harms suffered as the result of undesirable behavior online.”
- The functions of architecture or real-space code are not a matter of technological necessity but rather a human-created mechanism for controlling access on the global Internet. In Lessig’s view, the software code infrastructure is, in effect, a form of law. The Internet, for example, creates new copyright wars that influence the future of the public domain of ideas because of conscious decisions to encrypt or protect code.
- Internet theories of governance classically have not focused on intermediate or meso-governance. Instead, Internet macro-theorists fall into five camps: (1) self-governance or libertarian, (2) global transnational, (3) code and Internet architecture, (4) national governments and law, and (5) market-based or economic-based regulation. The chart below provides the basic attributes of the five grand theories identified by Lawrence Solum in Models of Internet Governance, Chapter 2 in M 48–55 (Lee A. Bygrave ed. 2009).
- From the libertarian perspective, this new media of communication creates an entirely new “global village,” that is beyond the reach of law. John Perry Barlow, in his 1996 essay, “A Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace,” argued that governments have no business repressing content in the flattened world of the Internet: “In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits.” Barlow stated,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Global Internet Jurisdiction 74 results (showing 5 best matches)
- in rem
- To date, no international convention addresses how to resolve Internet jurisdiction, choice of law, or forum disputes. A growing number of U.S. courts are exercising jurisdiction over website activity occurring outside of the country’s territorial boundaries. Conversely, U.S. companies are increasingly being sued in foreign venues for activities occurring on Web servers located in the United States. Presently, almost no case law covers international Internet jurisdiction, and no statutory solutions exist to answer the question of cross-border Internet jurisdiction.
- The European Union (EU) updated its cross-border jurisdiction rules in March 2002 when it replaced the 1968 Brussels Convention with the Brussels Regulation. The Brussels Regulation provides uniform rules for jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments throughout the European Union. This cross-national agreement is a possible model for developing global Internet jurisdiction solutions. The purpose of the EU is to create a seamless body of consumer protection, providing certainty for consumers and predictability for the business community.
- An Internet presence automatically creates an international presence, triggering the potential for cross-border litigation. Clearly, Internet law requires harmonized jurisdictional rules, as there is no sovereign or any international treaty establishing rules for cyberspace. It is theoretically possible for a U.S. business to be sued in hundreds of foreign countries for the same course of online conduct, but this has not yet happened due to the jurisdictional barriers to filing cross-border lawsuits—a topic explored throughout this book.
- The plaintiff in Zippo.com was the manufacturer of the well-known manufacturer of “Zippo” tobacco lighters that sued Zippo Dot Com, Inc., the operator of a California Internet news service corporation and operator of an Internet news service, alleging trademark infringement and among other causes of action. Zippo.com had obtained the exclusive right to use the Internet domain names “zippo.com”, “zippo.net”, and “zipponews.com.” and Zippo.com also frequently also used the word “zippo” in numerous locations on its website and in the heading of newsgroup messages posted by its subscribers on its website. Approximately 140,000 people worldwide subscribed to defendant’s service by filling out an online application and then making a credit card payment by credit card either over the Internet or by telephone. Each Zippo.com subscriber was assigned a password, which gave the subscriber permission to view and/or download newsgroup messages stored on the defendant’s server in California....
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Internet-Related Crimes 93 results (showing 5 best matches)
- At present, there is no Internet wide treaty addressing cybercrimes or even the procedural aspects of policing cybercrime. Not all countries connected to the Internet regard computer attacks as crimes. Many countries connected to the global Internet do not embrace U.S. style free expression and have no equivalent to U.S. constitutionally based legal norms and values. The Convention on Cybercrime, sponsored by the Council of Europe (COE), is the first international treaty addressing computer crime and Internet-related crime. The Cybercrime Convention, concluded in Budapest in 2001, is an international treaty to improve cooperation between nation states in the fight against cybercrime, harmonize the law, and improve investigative techniques. The United States became a signatory country in 2006.
- In the new millennium, cybercrime encompasses violations of criminal law perpetrated online or using the Internet as an instrumentality. Cybercrime respects no national borders and is often difficult to detect because although online criminals sometimes leave digital footprints, there is no traditional crime scene. Internet crimes, unlike traditional crimes, do not involve face-to-face criminality, although traditional crimes may be enabled by careless behavior in cyberspace. The Internet has lowered the barrier of perpetuating bricks and mortar crimes because victim’s personal information is posted on websites. For example, the BBC reported that an Australian teenager posted a picture of a massive cache of cash that she was helping to count. Within hours, masked men appeared at the door and demanded the money at gunpoint.
- The first computer crime statutes were enacted in the 1980s at both the U.S. state and federal level. Orin Kerr divides computer crime into two categories: computer misuse crimes and traditional crimes. O 1 (2d ed. 2009). Computer misuse is a relatively new category of computer crime, involving deliberate interference with the functioning of the computer. Traditional computer crimes, which use the computer to facilitate long-established crimes such as child pornography, trade secret misappropriation, and stalking, take on new forms in the Internet age. For example, online stalking does not fit neatly into the traditional tort of assault because it lacks the element of imminence except perhaps in the case of a live chat. Orin Kerr identifies three major legal controversies in computer crime: (1) Fourth Amendment search and seizure (procedural computer crime law), (2) Statutory Privacy Law, which includes the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) or federal wiretap act) and the...
- The CFAA refers to “exceed[ing] authorized access” and accessing a computer “without authorization” but there is some question as to whether these terms are interchangeable or have different meanings. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1); § 1030(a)(5)(A)(I). Prosecutors in Internet crime cases deploy the CFAA to punish the release of viruses, worms or malware to penetrate a computer’s firewall in order to steal or destroy data. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5). Section 1030(a)(5) criminalizes those who deliberately attack computers or infect data with harmful code. The CFAA sanctions the following actions:
- The USA Patriot Act amended the ECPA to list crimes for which investigators may get a wiretap order for wire communications. The Act permits federal government agents to intercept e-mail and monitor other Internet activities in order to battle terrorism. The FBI can seek National Security Letters (NSL) that enables it to gain access to subscriber information in order to investigate terrorism. A NSL is defined as an administrative subpoena that allows the FBI to gain access to, among other things, subscriber information, or electronic communication transactional records held by Internet service providers when this information is relevant to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Patent Law and the Internet 76 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Internet law must become a moving stream rather than a stagnant pool, evolving to meet the new risks and dangers in the twenty-first century’s age of information. Further global coordination is essential to surmount the growing substantive and procedural barriers to cross-border Internet-related development. Travelers on the World Wide Web require uniform procedural and substantive remedies for cross-border civil rights and wrongs, which is a very difficult achievement in light of national rivalries and cultural differences.
- “Harmonization has proven difficult enough even in relatively uncontroversial areas like trademark law, however. It may well be impossible to harmonize laws where there is less agreement on principles among nations—laws relating to free speech…. The prospect of being subject to litigation in a number of different countries is likely to be extremely daunting to individuals and even small and medium-sized businesses.” M goal in writing this book is not only to show where Internet law is today, but also to explain the global conflicts over legal principles as a guide toward illuminating the path that this global harmonization needs to take.
- Patent law, like the other branches of the law, is constantly evolving in response to the development of the Internet. Justice Holmes’s classic essay on the path of the law drew upon six centuries of case reports and statutes. In less than twenty-five years, the Internet has created a huge number of new legal dilemmas and challenges in accommodating this new information technology. As this book has shown, the Internet transforms basic assumptions about the nature of communication, knowledge, invention, information, sovereignty, identity, commerce, human rights and community. The Internet is fundamentally reshaping intellectual property law as it shatters existing precedent by redefining distance, time, privacy and the meaning of territoriality. The phenomenal growth in traffic on the World Wide Web requires established legal principles for all branches of the law be adapted to cyberspace.
- Injunctive relief is critically imperative in Internet-related patent litigation because of the rapidity with which online businesses can attain or lose market share. In the Internet-based economy, the earliest mover has enormous advantages. Some businesses use patent law strategically as a method for excluding potential rivals.
- The goal of this chapter is to present the basic concepts and methods of Internet-related patent law. This chapter will explore the Internet-related foundations of patent protection, patentability, and the patenting process. A patent grants the patent holder the right to exclude others from making, using, or commercially exploiting an invention. Though patent law is somewhat coordinated amongst those countries connected to the Internet, there are still variations in practices from country to country. Since the last edition, the U.S. Supreme Court and the USPTO have limited the scope of business method patents.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Internet-Related Contract Law 111 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Internet, by its very nature, is international, yet there is no uniform legal infrastructure for commercial transactions harmonized for the global marketplace. In the absence of international conventions, domestic law applies to license agreements and terms of service. There is great uncertainty as to whose law will govern online commerce, which knows no international borders. Uniform rules for safeguarding commercial information transfers would be a desirable international development.
- Contract law in cyberspace must take into account radically different social, economic, and legal systems. A growing number of companies are engaged in cross-border electronic commerce. The movement to devise uniform rules to be used in private international law has evolved rapidly over the past century. Many Internet-related contracts are mass-market agreements such as terms of service agreements or software license agreements.
- The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) is a state statute that develops the ground rules for contracting in cyberspace. UCITA harmonizes legal infrastructure for Web-site linking agreements, affiliate agreements, legal notices, license agreements, access contracts, clickwrap agreements, end-user agreements, online shopping, auction bidding agreements, terms of services agreements, and online licenses of all kinds. The concepts and methods for attribution procedures, authentication, computer information, electronic agents, electronic events, electronic messages, and online contracting update contract law for the age of the Internet.
- The greatest story never told about Internet-related contract law is how license agreements protect intangible assets such as software, data, and other intangibles. The software industry invented the shrinkwrap license agreement, the earliest form of mass-market license, in the 1970s, and vendors began using this contracting form by the early 1980s. Licensing is beginning to displace sales and leases as the chief means of transferring value in the information-based society already the third ranked segment of the American economy.
- The first paragraph of a shrinkwrap license typically provides that the opening of the package indicates acceptance of the license terms because a licensor needs to reference the fact that the software is licensed. Internet related shrinkwrap rarely provides meaningful warranties and limits remedies by choice of forum clauses that often require the user to litigate in their licensor’s home court.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Content Regulation on the 55 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This chapter examines the controversial issue of Internet content regulation covering leading developments around the world. The Internet is, by definition a cross-border legal environment linking hundreds of countries. As of May 25, 2015 at 6 pm, there were 947,770,000 websites. The blurring of national boundaries creates a variety of new dilemmas in regulating content on hundreds of millions of websites originated in radically different cultures. “We’re in Marshall McLuhan’s ‘Global Village’ and we’re inventing the roadmap.”
- A large number of countries connected to the Internet do not have a strong tradition of the right of expression. A traditional Islamic jurist would likely find an unveiled female face on a social media site to be shameful. Not just Islamic republics have blasphemy laws. The Republic of Ireland outlaws cyberspace incitement including “blasphemous Internet statements in defiance of the law.” D
- On August 7, 2014, China’s state Internet Information Office issued regulation on instant messaging apps, which also requires real name registration similar to the “Microblogging Rules.” To date, it is unclear when the real name registration will be fully implemented by social media providers. The Beijing Municipal Law on microblogging enacted in 2011 specifically addresses what conduct on social media violates national security. This language was prefigured in a 1997 PRC computer law statute and likely evolved from a 1994 computer law statute.
- Perhaps, the most challenging issue is to determine how to handle content regulation in a cross-border legal environment. Billions of Internet users around the world, who come from radically different legal cultures, interact in cyberspace. An effective response to content regulation requires a comprehensive approach that considers differences in legal cultures. Significant gaps and differences in countries’ law of content regulation will complicate the problem of harmonization.
- The global Internet’s legal environment makes it inevitable that there will be conflict as one country’s content regulation will clash with another country’s content regulations. Jihadists employ ISIS digital propaganda as a recruitment bulletin board for radical Islam. The National Security Agency manipulates content by constructing “ ‘victim blog posts,’ ‘false flag operations,’ ‘honey traps’ and psychological manipulation to target online activists, monitor visitors to WikiLeaks, and spy on YouTube and Facebook users” according to Edward Snowden’s revelations. Jon Gueally,
- Open Chapter
Outline 139 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 11. Trademarks on the Global Internet 212 results (showing 5 best matches)
- It is now difficult to imagine the contours of trademark infringement without considering new methods of infringement enabled by bandwidth, browsers, and digital data. Beginning in the mid-1990s, entrepreneurs registered thousands of domain names containing the trademarks of famous companies in the hopes of selling them back for a ransom price. In the past two decades, global trademark law has been reworked to address challenges posed by domain names and cybersquatting. The UDRP rules for deciding domain name disputes are drafted to bridge disparate legal cultures and thus help resolve disputes that cross national borders. Without Internet websites, no court would need to decide issues such as whether a pop-up ad infringed a company’s trademark or constituted an unfair business practice in cyberspace.
- New goods and services are promoted online at “Internet speed,” creating strains in trademark law. The Internet’s disregard of geographic borders creates conflicts between concurrent users, which would never have arisen between distant companies in the purely brick-and-mortar world. Courts have come to recognize an “Internet trio” of confusion factors: (1) similarity of the marks, (2) relatedness of the goods and services, and (3) simultaneous use of the Internet for marketing.
- Service marks and trademarks are governed by identical standards and thus like with trademarks, common law rights are acquired in a service mark by adopting and using the mark in connection with services rendered. The USPTO refers to the term, “trademark” to include both trademarks and service marks. The USPTO has registered Internet Domain Names as trademarks since 1997.
- Many Internet-related cases turn on the element of “use in commerce,” which is essential in a trademark infringement claim. In , 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 2006), the federal court held that the defendant’s use of the Internet satisfied the “in commerce” requirement when the defendant registered a domain name identical to the plaintiff’s trademark name and used it on the Internet.
- While trademark law traditionally works well in product counterfeiting cases, it is increasingly ill fitted to the Internet. The Internet marketplace is built upon bedrock of trademarks and owners must develop new strategies for the enforcement of trademark rights against online infringers and counterfeiters. U.S. courts have largely resolved the issues arising out of Google’s AdWords by rejecting claims for trademark infringement.
- Open Chapter
Index 155 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 12. Trade Secrets in Cyberspace 49 results (showing 5 best matches)
- § 12-5. Trade Secrets in a Global Internet
- Once an individual or company has revealed a trade secret on the Internet, it is reasonably certain that it can no longer be classified as a trade secret. “A trade secret once lost, is lost forever, its loss cannot be measured in money damages.” , 71 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D. N.Y. 1999). In contrast to other branches of intellectual property, the state law of torts protects trade secrets. “Trade secrets are also fundamentally different from other forms of property in that the owner of a trade secret must take reasonable measures under the circumstances to keep the information confidential.” 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A). This chapter examines Internet-related trade secret issues. Trade secrets are perilous in a networked world, where intangible assets may be lost at the click of a mouse.
- Trade secret laws require companies to take reasonable steps to prevent public disclosure. Accidental or other public disclosure of a trade secret destroys its status as a trade secret. Trade secrets in software derive their economic values from their secrecy. For example, trade secret protection lasts indefinitely so long as the software vendor is able to keep its source code secret. At a minimum, an Internet company must label source code, plans, and other documents with a legend that proclaims these materials are confidential and proprietary.
- In , No. 112109895, 2013 WL 3835973 (Wash. Super. Feb. 1, 2013), a state court found that a licensee of a digital ad media network was not excused from the breach of a non-compete provision. However, client lists, marketing materials, and licensing information posted on a website were not classifiable as trade secrets under the state’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. This type of information was available on the Internet and therefore was not protectable. , No. 14SC626, 2013 WL 5508454 (Colo. Dist. Ct. Mar. 12, 2013) (noting plaintiffs’ failure to prove information available on the Internet was a trade secret).
- In , No. 116914/97, 1997 WL 731413 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007), several employees planned to leave the Internet advertising mogul in order to start a dot-com startup. DoubleClick confiscated one of the employee’s laptops and found information on the hard drive, including emails and future business plans that suggested he was engaged in economic espionage. DoubleClick summarily fired the employees and sought an injunction to enjoin them from sharing trade secrets with competitors.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Chapter 10. Copyrights in Cyberspace 126 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This chapter will focus on the unique copyright issues posed by Internet-related transmission and distribution. The law governing copyright protection was once a sleepy backwater but today Internet copyright disputes are the subject of weekly front-page stories in the The Internet is the world’s largest copyright infringement enabler. It is now difficult to imagine the contours of copyright law outside the context of bandwidth, browsers, and digital data.
- Peer-to-Peer (P2P) sharing of video and music files is an Internet-related development that has shaped the law of secondary copyright infringement. Sharing music or video files on BitTorrent, for example, is an infringement of the copyright owner’s distribution right if unauthorized. BitTorrent technology, a P2P technology, enables users to find and share film, games, music and other materials over the Internet but does not store files in a central repository, thus enabling any user to find and share material with others over the Internet, with no access to a centralized repository of files necessary to do so. BitTorrent permits users to download different pieces of a file from different peers at the same time.
- In the past two decades, courts have generated a distinct body of copyright law to accommodate cyberspace. The discussion of direct and secondary infringement cases demonstrates how the Internet shapes and will continue to shape copyright law for the foreseeable future.
- Contributory infringement is a doctrine drawn in large part from tort law. To prevail in a contributory copyright infringement lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove: (1) direct copyright infringement by a third party, (2) knowledge by the defendant, the third party, of direct infringement, and (3) defendant’s material contribution to the infringement. In an Internet case, plaintiffs will have a claim for contributory copyright infringement if a third-party website hosts and distributes infringing content while contributing to this infringing conduct. In P2P copyright infringement cases, the meaning of the secondary infringer’s “knowledge” and the definition of materially contribute is unsettled doctrine.
- “Whether in the virtual or real world, the legal standards are the same regarding: (1) the definition of a copyright and the purpose underlying copyright protection; (2) the requirements for a work to be protected by copyright; and (3) what constitutes infringement of a copyright.” Courts have extended copyright law through cases and statutes that preserve the idea of property interests in cyberspace. While the World Wide Web did not become part of mainstream American culture until the mid-1990s, the widespread use of the Internet dramatically changed the course of copyright law. The requirements for copyright protection are the same in cyberspace as they are in the brick-and-mortar world. Copyright comprises the brick-and-mortar of the knowledge economy. Courts have had little difficulty in applying well-worn groves of intellectual property law to cyberspace.
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 5 results
- Nutshell Series, In a Nutshell
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Printed in the United States of America
- © 2013 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic Publishing
- © 2016 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments (Third Edition) 1 result
- Great thanks are due to Suffolk University Law School’s reference librarians Diane D’Angelo and Rick Buckingham. I greatly appreciate the editorial and research of Suffolk University Law School research assistants Eunice D Aikins-Afful, John H. Brainard, Matthew Carey, Samantha Lynne Cannon, Krista Fales, Jeremy Kennelly, Darcy Kohls, Emily Lacy, Patrick Nichols, Nicole Maruzzi, Harel Talasazan, Gamze Yalcin, and Elmira Cancan Zenger. I appreciate editing by Keyur Parikh, a Patent Agent and Principal Software Engineer, a candidate for the J.D. from Suffolk University Law School, Class of 2018. Rick Buckingham and Diane D’Angelo provided me with expert assistance and resources for Global Internet Law. Finally, as always, I appreciate the editorial work and good company of my wife, Chryss J. Knowles.
- Open Chapter
Table of Authorities 63 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Jankowski, Simona, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research, The IoT as the Third Wave of the Internet (Sept. 2014)----------------------------------22
- Solum, Lawrence, Models of Internet Governance, Chapter 2 in Models of Internet Governance Infrastructure and Institutions (Lee A. Bygrave ed. 2009)----------------------------------32
- Cross, John, et al., Global Issues in Intellectual Property Law (2010)----------------------------------411
- Lipton, Jacqueline, Rethinking Cyberlaw: A New Vision for Internet Law (2015)----------------------------------28, 29, 31
- Lemley, Mark, et al., Software & Internet Law (2003)----------------------------------461
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Global Internet Torts 140 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Under the law of defamation, truth is a complete defense. In U.S. defamation actions, the defense of truth is constitutionally required where the subject of the publication is a public official or public figure. The courts require only that the defendant establish that the gist of an Internet-related posting is true.
- “Limited purpose” public figures are only public figures on issues where they inject themselves into a public controversy. The U.S. Supreme Court created the “limited purpose” public figure classification to accommodate tort law to the First Amendment. It is unclear what level of Internet articulation turns a blogger or other Internet speaker into a limited purpose public figure. The Georgia Supreme Court in , 573 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. 2002) held that a poster to a Yahoo! message board qualified as a limited-purpose public figure in a controversy involving the county’s recycling facility.
- Torts in cyberspace are referred to as e-torts, cybertorts, or Internet torts. Internet-related torts arise on Twitter, blogs, e-mail transmissions, and website postings. Cybertort law must once again be fundamentally reshaped because the Internet is shattering existing precedent by redefining distance, time, privacy and the meaning of territoriality. The phenomenal growth in traffic on the World Wide Web requires established legal principles for torts be adapted to cyberspace. In this chapter, the term “cybertort” is used to describe civil litigation arising out of e-mail, social media sites, and other computer related injuries.
- Among the subjects covered in this chapter are intentional torts, personal property torts, information-based torts, privacy, negligent security, information products liability, foreign Internet torts or , common law defenses, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) discussed later in the chapter.
- The Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition treats the appropriation of another company’s intangible assets as unfair competition. Courts subdivide state unfair competition claims arising out of the defendant’s misuse of trademarks into two general types: (1) consumer confusion as to the source of products, and (2) unfair trade practices, a residual category of unfair competition laws. Historically, trademark infringement was a tort; today the 1946 Lanham Act as well as state statutes govern trademarks. Chapter 11 will cover trademark-related unfair competition causes of action in addition. Misstatements in advertisements and palming off are regarded as frauds against the consuming public. The FTC may prosecute unfair competition cases, a topic covered in Chapter 5 of this nutshell.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Consumer Law in Cyberspace 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
- FTC’s enforcers have identified the top ten dot cons: (1) Internet Auctions, (2) Internet Access Services, (3) Credit Card Fraud, (4) International Modem Dialing, (5) Web Cramming, (6) Multilevel Marketing Plans/Pyramids, (7) Travel and Vacation Schemes, (8) Business Opportunities, (9) Investments, and (10) Health Care Products/Services. In addition, social media sites must comply with Section 5 and other consumer laws governing Internet advertisements, sales of securities, taxation, unfair and deceptive trade practices, pricing laws, and general state and federal consumer statutes.
- Internet contracts violate European mandatory consumer law. European courts take the position that even if a consumer assents to an abusive term, it is unenforceable as a matter of law and European consumers, unlike their American counterparts, cannot be hauled into distant forums and be divested of mandatory consumer protection. The purpose of the EU was to create a seamless body of consumer protection, providing certainty for consumers and predictability for the business community. U.S. companies targeting foreign countries on the Internet must localize their contracts to avoid enforcement actions by public
- § 5-1. FTC’s Role in Internet Consumer Law
- The U.S. market-based approach is antithetical to European consumer law, which provides consumers with uniform procedural and substantive rights across borders. Chapter 3 introduced the Brussels Regulation governing cross-border transactions in the EU. Chapter 4 examined the substantive provisions of mass-market licenses. The table below demonstrates the U.S. style mass-market licenses will frequently violate multiple provision of EU consumer law. Provisions in consumer transactions such as choice of law, choice of forum, mandatory arbitration clauses and the elimination of warranties and meaningful remedies violate the Unfair Contract Terms Directive as well as other national law throughout the European Union. The lesson for Internet businesses is that they must adjust their contracting practices to comply with mandatory, non-waivable consumer protection.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Internet-Related Privacy Internet 87 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Court noted it would be unusual to punish a law-abiding journalist for the criminal act of an anonymous third party interceptor. The U.S. Supreme Court in held the First Amendment prohibited imposition of civil liability for the journalist’s disclosure of an illegally intercepted cell-phone call. This case “has significant implications for Internet law because of the vast opportunities for republication of information enabled by the Internet.” M 955 (3rd ed. 2006). Notably, Chief Justice William Rehnquist commented, “We are placed in the uncomfortable position of not knowing who might have access to our personal and business e-mails, our medical and financial records, or our cordless and cellular telephone conversations.”
- Cyberspace privacy laws are in flux as legislatures attempt to accommodate to an ever-changing Internet. Private litigants have filed a number of high profile privacy lawsuits against Facebook, Google, Apple, and other Internet powerhouses. Apple was the target of a large number of class action lawsuits arising out of Apple-approved apps that collected personally identifiable information from iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch users. The class action charged that Apple violated users’ privacy by transmitting this information to third parties.
- Finally, Article 17(3) sets forth a general standard that data controllers can retain personal data if retention accords with EU or member state law, which inevitably requires balancing a data subject’s request against the public interest, “respect[ing] the essence” of the right to data protection, and remaining “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” However, the Commission has yet to formulate a template for how search engines should weigh or balance these factors in making the decision to grant or reject a data subject’s demand to delink. At present, the right to be forgotten is not a global right, but applies only to data subjects in the EU.
- In the U.S., Section 230 immunizes websites for postings by third parties even if they invade the privacy of users. In the U.S., no court has ordered a website to remove third party content that invades privacy or is otherwise tortious. In contrast, in , Ref. 55181/98, No. 1/JP (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 1998), a French court found an ISP liable for publishing erotic images of the plaintiff on its Web site. “Under French law, an Internet Service Provider is responsible for the morality of the content distributed via the client-operated Web sites it hosts, and may be liable for violations of privacy.” The French plaintiff contended that the ISP violated her privacy and damaged her professional reputation by allowing a subscriber to publish nude photographs of her on a website. The French court ordered the offending website be shut down under the threat of a fine of 100,000 francs per day.
- , data subjects in Europe gained a right to demand that Google delete links to websites that appear when searching for their names unless there are legitimate reasons not to remove them, even if the original website has not taken down the content and the data is truthful and otherwise lawful. However, the original information about González will not be scrubbed from the Internet; it is only removed from a Google search of his name. Thus, requiring a search engine to provide Internet users with a right to be forgotten is
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 22 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Entm’t Group, Ltd.----------------------------------370
- Kroneymer v. Internet Movie Database Inc.----------------------------------188
- Michaels v. Internet Ent. Group Inc.----------------------------------190
- National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services----------------------------------144
- Alappat, In re----------------------------------448
- Open Chapter
Advisory Board 11 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Distinguished University Professor, Frank R. Strong Chair in LawMichael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- Robert A. Sullivan Professor of Law Emeritus,
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Open Chapter
Table of Statutes 55 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Mass. Gen. Laws § 93H–1 et seq.-----------------------------214
- 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)----------------------------------353, 374
- 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A)----------------------------------------318
- 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A)----------------------------------------318
- 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)----------------------------------------241
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: November 20th, 2015
- ISBN: 9781634596848
- Subject: Internet Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews