Media Law Essay, Research Paper

I. The Internet And Its Effectss On Mass Media Law

In the 17th and 18th centuries, America went through what was known as the Industrial Revolution, where Western civilization as a whole went from utilizing hand-tools to utilizing machines that mass-produced the same points. What one time took a hebdomad to bring forth now took a twenty-four hours to bring forth. ( Kitano, 1999 ) Now, as we cross over into the twenty-first century, we have entered what has been called The Information Revolution, or the Information Age. We live in a clip where information is merely a mouse-click away for a big part of the state and the universe. Up until ten old ages ago, people had to travel to their local library or purchase an expensive encyclopaedia set for their place merely to obtain information. Now, information is free and easy accessible from the place. Why pay five hundred dollars for an encyclopaedia set when you can acquire on the Internet and obtain even more information for free? Besides, within the past twelvemonth, Internet service to the place has become available free of charge through certain suppliers that subsidize their service through advertizements. But with all these advantages, there decidedly has to be a impudent side of the coin. An old proverb says that everything comes with a monetary value, and that is decidedly true of the Internet. The intent of this paper is to discourse how this new engineering has affected Mass Media Law and society every bit good. For the interest of clip and infinite, I will give merely a brief overview of each act, measure, or instance that is presented so that I can concentrate more on the effects and deductions of each. With the Internet going more and more popular, the universe now faces many new legal and moral inquiries raised by this emerging engineering. I will turn to several of the more of import of these inquiries, including the followers: & # 8220 ; How do we maintain indecorous stuff from bush leagues? , & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; How do we protect writers of original stuff from holding their creative activity spread all over the universe for everyone to copy? , & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; How do we make a system where people that libel other persons anonymously on the Internet can be prosecuted for their offense? & # 8221 ; It is inquiries like these that our universe has had to face in the past two to three old ages since the Internet has come into the foreground. A work of this length would hold a great trouble seeking to thoroughly turn to every angle and issue involved in media jurisprudence and the effects that the cyberspace has upon it, and alternatively must give a cursory overview of several chief issues in the head of today & # 8217 ; s legal intelligence.

II. The Internet and Obscenity

A. Brief Overview Of The Communications Decency Act of 1996 and The Child Online Protection Act ( CDA 2 )

In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. ( Telecommunications Act, 1996 ) The intent of this act was To advance competition and cut down ordinance in order to procure lower monetary values and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and promote the rapid deployment of new telecommunications engineerings. ( Telecommunications Act, 1996 ) In and of itself, the act was intended to make healthy competition in the new, fast-emerging, unregulated market that the Internet, overseas telegram telecasting, and telephone companies had helped to make. It was besides to assist further just competition in this new market.

It is Section 5 of this act that gets the most attending, nevertheless. Section 5 is besides known as The Communications Decency Act of 1996. The CDA attempted to curtail all people, irrespective of age, from making, sing and conveying indecorous stuff via the Internet. Indecent address is defined as stuff that may be sexually in writing but is protected by the First Amendment. Indecent stuff is besides referred to as big stuff or sexually expressed stuff. ( Pember, 1999 ) This is a really obscure description of the term & # 8220 ; indecency, & # 8221 ; but so far, it has yet to be challenged in the Supreme Court. As District Judge, Dalzell said in his response to the CDA, & # 8220 ; The definition of indecency, like the definition of lewdness, is non a stiff expression. Rather it confers a big grade of liberty to single communities to put the bounds of decency for themselves. & # 8221 ; ( Dalzell, 1998 )

The term & # 8220 ; lewdness & # 8221 ; besides seems to pull attending in today s legal system. The definition of & # 8220 ; lewdness & # 8221 ; was agreed upon by a bulk of the Supreme Court after the instance Miller v. California in 1973. Chief Justice Warren Burger set the undermentioned criterions for specifying lewdness: & # 8220 ; 1 ) An mean individual, using modern-day local community criterions, finds that the work, taken as a whole, entreaties to prurient involvement. 2 ) The work depicts in a obviously violative manner sexual behavior specifically defined by applicable province jurisprudence. 3 ) The work in inquiry deficiencies serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. & # 8221 ; ( Dalzell, 1998 ) Before the CDA, the jurisprudence protected indecorous address, but non obscene address. The Telecommunications Act was passed in 1996, but Section 5, otherwise known as the CDA, was subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU, non because it presented high barriers to entry for bush leagues, but because it presented those same barriers to grownups, therefore conflicting on their constitutional right to see indecorous stuff.

Soon after the CDA was declared unconstitutional, Congress made another effort to assail indecency on the cyberspace by go throughing what was called The Child Online Protection Act or as it was so competently named, & # 8220 ; CDA 2 & # 8243 ; . The intent of COPA was the same as the original CDA, but it applied to commercial sites on the Internet. & # 8220 ; Whoever, in interstate or foreign commercialism, by agencies of the World Wide Web, wittingly makes any communicating for commercial intents that includes any stuff that is harmful to bush leagues without curtailing entree to such stuff by bush leagues pursuant to subdivision ( degree Celsius ) shall be fined non more than $ 50,000, imprisoned non more than 6 months, or both. & # 8221 ; ( Stuckey, 1999 ) COPA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court after the ACLU filed a suit against the Department of Justice instantly after the act was passed. ( ACLU v. Reno, 1998 ) This opinion was due to the fact that COPA was about indistinguishable to the CDA, and it still raised high barriers to entry for grownups. One positive consequence of COPA was the fact that Congress clarified itself on how it officially defines indecorous stuff: & # 8220 ; Any communicating, image, image, in writing image file, article, entering, composing, or other affair of any sort that is obscene or that ( A ) the mean individual, using modern-day community criterions, would happen, taking the stuff as a whole and with regard to bush leagues is designed to appeal to, or is designed to gratify to, the lubricious involvement ; ( B ) depicts, describes, or represents, in a mode obviously violative with regard to bush leagues, an existent or simulated normal or perverted sexual act or a obscene exhibition of the genitalias or station pubescent female chest ; and ( C ) taken as whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. & # 8221 ; ( ACLU v. Reno, 1998 ) Basically, this definition was a combination of the Miller trial ensuing from the aforesaid instance Miller v. California, and the definition of indecency given by the Supreme Court.

B. Children and the CDA: How Do We Keep Pornography From

Our Childs?

The inquiry remains: if the authorities can non maintain indecorous stuff on the Internet from bush leagues, so who can lawfully take up that undertaking? After holding searched the cyberspace for different methods of filtrating cyberspace sites, whether it be through the agencies of filtrating package or through the usage of a & # 8220 ; family-friendly cyberspace service supplier ( ISP ) , & # 8221 ; I have come to the decision that it is up to the parents. No filtrating package or ISP can barricade out all erotica successfully, because kids are more knowing about engineering today than of all time earlier. There are legion ways to besiege current filtering packages and Family-Friendly ISPs through the usage of certain web sites that provide a cloak for the Internet user. One such site is known as The Anonymizer. ( Anonymizer, 1999 ) This site allows the user to be anon. to anyone that is supervising their actions from a distant location. For case, if I want to see a web site that is non allowed by Web Sense on the Toccoa Falls College Internet waiter, I would merely surf over to www.anonymizer.com and come in the reference that I want to see anonymously. The awful portion is that this service is free of charge to anyone who has Internet entree. However, if parents take up the undertaking of supervising what their kids position on the cyberspace, non merely will they hold control over what they see, but this will besides coerce the parents to pass more clip with their kids, which is, to utilize an old clich, & # 8220 ; Killing two birds with one stone. & # 8221 ; This is a absolutely legal manner to command bush leagues & # 8217 ; entree to erotica. On the cyberspace today, all a minor demands to make in order to entree erotica is to snap on a disclaimer at the start of a adult web page, saying that they are 18 old ages of age or older, and that erotica is non illegal in their community. I liken this method to the current system that exists for maintaining intoxicant and baccy from bush leagues. It all rests upon the individual that is selling the intoxicant or baccy: it is up to them if they ask for proper designation or non. A survey done in 1997 by the University of Michigan found that & # 8220 ; 1 in 2 ( 46 % ) twelfth grade pupils study imbibing monthly. & # 8221 ; ( Johnson, 1997 ) Granted, the authorities does try to halt underage imbibing by checking down on retail merchants of intoxicant and baccy, but the authorities has its ain restrictions and can merely make so much. If we want to halt underage imbibing and smoke, we need to speak to our kids about the dangers involved and take an active function in their lives to guarantee that they make the right picks. The same construct applies to pornography on the web. However, there are two major differences between purchasing intoxicant and sing erotica on the cyberspace: First, there is no one individual & # 8220 ; behind the counter & # 8221 ; to look into designation ; 2nd, it does non be an grownup anything to demo designation for the purchase of intoxicant or baccy: A barrier that the CDA and COPA could non look to suppress.

Some have suggested doing statute law that would necessitate web site proprietors to register their sphere names with a & # 8220 ; xxx & # 8221 ; at the terminal of the sphere name, such as & # 8220 ; www.playboy.com.xxx & # 8221 ; which would automatically inform filtrating package or ISP & # 8217 ; s that the site contains erotica as defined by the criterions of the federal authorities. However, the biggest job with this suggestion is that it would necessitate web site proprietors to pass money on registering their sphere name. Presently, most adult web sites do non be anything because they are free due to the paid advertisement that runs in the background or through what are known as & # 8220 ; pop-up windows. & # 8221 ; This would make a barrier to entry for any grownups that wanted to make a adult web site, one of the chief grounds that both the CDA and COPA were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Again, the inquiry remains: how do we maintain erotica on the Internet from bush leagues? The reply is simple: parents must be the gatekeepers because the occupation does non belong to the authorities. This solution is non talked approximately much because a good figure of parents in America are excessively busy with work or other activities to take the clip to supervise their kids & # 8217 ; s behaviour. The secondary avenue for protecting bush leagues from Internet erotica is utilizing filtrating package or & # 8220 ; Family-friendly Internet Service Providers, & # 8221 ; which should be used in concurrence with parental monitoring. There is a bottom line for this issue: If parents do non desire their childs sing adult or other stuff that they deem inappropriate for bush leagues, so they must acquire involved. Involvement is a little monetary value to pay for tomorrow & # 8217 ; s hereafter.

C. How Do We Respond As Christians to Obscenity, the CDA

And COPA?

As Christians, we are more inclined to look at the CDA and see it as a positive measure in the right way for our state and particularly our kids. However, what most people do non recognize is that the CDA, had it been approved by the Supreme Court, would hold taken away cardinal rights provided to every American. The right to see indecorous stuff is protected by the same First Amendment that gives Christians the right to believe the manner we do and to be vocal about those beliefs. In making extended research for the intent of this paper, I was amazed at some of the straight-out ignorance on the portion of Christian organisations refering the issue of indecency on the Internet. The Family Research Council, in one of its legion paperss turn toing the issue of indecency on the cyberspace said,

& # 8220 ; But computing machines may besides convey into public libraries and the schoolroom non merely fresh ways to show or entree academic facts and recover articles, but besides character-corrupting images in the signifier of Internet lewdness every bit good as academic plagiarism on a antecedently impossible graduated table. The main supporters in this battle for the Black Marias, heads and psyches of America s kids and citizens are the American Library Association ( ALA ) and the American Civil Liberties Union ( ALCU ) two groups that have had great success in dissembling their nucleus docket of moral and societal nihilism in First Amendment garb. & # 8221 ; ( Marshall, 1999 )

I do non understand how Christians seem to bury that organisations like the ACLU and the ALA have been reformers for the First Amendment thereby protecting the right of free address for Christians every bit much as for purveyors of erotica on the cyberspace, even if their motivations may hold non been Christian in nature. With a name like & # 8220 ; The Family Research Council, & # 8221 ; one would be inclined to anticipate them to back up the thought of parental supervising and engagement when it comes to indecency and bush leagues. If we as Christians are non careful and we attempt to ban anything that does non hold with our philosophy and do non stand up for the First Amendment, the censurers may shortly go the censored.

The inquiry of what makes indecency and lewdness any worse than the word picture of force must besides be raised. Judge Sarokin best reflected this sentiment in E-Bru, Inc. v. Graves when he said & # 8220 ; They [ indecorous stuffs ] besides seem to elicit passions of an wholly different kind. If a merchandiser announced his purpose to open a shop dedicated to slay enigmas, no affair how violent or bloody, nary a lookout or protestor would look. But should one announce that sex is to be the chief subject, so organized resistance is inevitable. & # 8221 ; ( E-Bru v. Graves, 1983 ) How do we react to this sentiment as Christians? First, we must look at what Jesus said in Matthew: & # 8220 ; You have heard that it was said, & # 8216 ; Do non perpetrate adultery. & # 8217 ; But I tell you that anyone who looks at a adult female lustfully has already committed criminal conversation with her in his heart. & # 8221 ; ( NIV ) When looking at this from a Christian position, we see that when it comes to crave, mere purpose is iniquitous. This same warning is non used to turn to purposes of choler and force, instead merely the actions ensuing from those purposes. In Ephesians, Paul states, & # 8220 ; In your choler do non transgress: Do non allow the Sun go down while you are still angry & # 8220 ; ( NIV ) These poetries show a difference between indecency and force from a Christian position. However, since we live in a non-Christian universe, we must do our place known refering non merely indecency but force every bit good, yet at the same clip protecting the First Amendment and later free address.

III. The Internet and Libel Law

A. Brief Overview of Current Libel Law Involving The

Internet

Libel can be defined as & # 8220 ; Published or broadcast communicating that lowers the repute of an single by keeping him or her up to contempt, ridicule, or scorn. & # 8221 ; ( Pember, 1999 ) In order for a complainant to win a libel suit, there are five conditions that must be proven to be: ( A ) The libel was published. ( B ) The words were covering with the complainant involved in the suit. ( C ) The stuff contained in the publication is calumniatory. ( D ) The stuff contained in the publication is false. ( E ) The suspect in the suit is found to be at mistake. All five of these conditions must be for a complainant to win a libel suit. Libel is besides referred to as & # 8220 ; calumny, & # 8221 ; which is more narrowly defined as & # 8220 ; a communicating which exposes a individual to hatred, ridicule, or disdain, lowers him in the regard of his chaps, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his concern or calling. & # 8221 ; ( Pember, 1999 ) The Internet is considered to be a mass medium the same as wireless, telecasting, or newspaper, in respects to libel jurisprudence.

B. How Does Libel Affect On-Line Service Providers? ( OSP )

Before the transition of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, On-Line Service Providers ( OSP s ) would hold been held apt for any Acts of the Apostless of libel or calumny committed utilizing their services or equipment. Harmonizing to 509 of the jurisprudence, No supplier or user of an synergistic computing machine service shall be treated as the publishing house or talker of information provided by another information content supplier. ( Woody, 1996 ) This was finally put to the trial in the recent instance of Blumenthal v. Drudge. Matt Drudge is the writer and publishing house of The Drudge study which appears on the web at www.drudgereport.com It is a site that posts rumours and other types of chitchat that take topographic point chiefly on Capitol Hill. Matt Drudge is the individual who began go arounding the narrative refering the Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton sex dirt, taking to farther probe. Late at dark on the eventide of Sunday, August 10, 1997, suspect Drudge wrote and transmitted the edition of the Drudge Report that contained the alleged defamatory statement about the Blumenthals. Drudge transmitted the study from Los Angeles, California by electronic mail to his direct endorsers and by posting both a headline and the full text of the Blumenthal narrative on his universe broad web site. ( Blumenthal v. Drudge, 1998 ) The study contained calumniatory address aimed specifically at Mr. Blumenthal, saying that he had a history of spousal maltreatment. The streamer on the web site read, Charge: New White House Recruit Sidney Blumenthal Has Spousal Abuse Past. Not merely was Drudge seting himself in the manner of judicial proceeding, but he besides unwittingly brought his online service supplier, America Online ( AOL ) into the legal image. The Blumenthals filed suit against both Drudge and AOL, claiming that both were responsible for the calumniatory statement. AOL asked for a drumhead judgement and was granted one by a territory tribunal in the District of Columbia. Judge Friedman in his drumhead judgement for AOL stated:

AOL is non a inactive conduit like the telephone company, a

common bearer with no control and hence no

duty for what is said over the telephone wires.

Because it has the right to exert column control over

those with whom it contracts and whose words it

disseminates, it would look merely just to keep AOL to the

liability criterions applied to a publishing house or, at least,

like a book shop proprietor or library, to the liability

criterions applied to a distributer. But Congress has made a

different policy pick by supplying unsusceptibility even where

the synergistic service supplier has an active, even

aggressive function in doing available content prepared by

others. In some kind of tacit quid pro quo agreement with

the service supplier community, Congress has conferred

unsusceptibility from civil wrong liability as an inducement to Internet

service suppliers to self-police the Internet for lewdness

and other violative stuff, even where the self-policing

is unsuccessful or non even attempted. ( Blumenthal V.

Drudge, 1998 )

In talking about Congress supplying unsusceptibility, Judge Friedman was mentioning to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which removes liability on the portion of OSP s. Five old ages before the Telecommunications Act, CompuServe was sued for printing libel, but was subsequently found to non be apt for the discourtesy. CompuServe was considered to be a distributer, non a publishing house, and hence was non responsible because it did non cognize and had no ground to cognize of the statements. ( Cubby v. CompuServe, 1991 ) However, sing the addition in libel judicial proceeding affecting the Internet, if the legal system keeps heading in the same way that it is today this jurisprudence could alter. As for the OSP s, most of them, such as AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy will merely patrol web pages arising from their waiters when they are alerted to an discourtesy. Even sing the Footings of Use understanding signifiers created by AOL and CompuServe, these legal notices do non state much refering lewdness, allow entirely libel and calumny. CompuServe, for illustration ( which is owned by AOL and hence has the same legal notice ) , states the followers in its service understanding which every member who marks up for service must hold to and digitally mark:

Neither CompuServe nor any of its spouses, agents,

affiliates, providers or content suppliers shall be apt

for any direct, indirect, incidental, particular or

eventful amendss originating out of or associating to any usage

of compuserve.com ( CompuServe, 1999 )

While this legal notice may non specifically cover with lewdness or libel, other parts of it do earnestly turn to the issue of right of first publication, which will be discussed in more item in the following subdivision.

Even if it is granted that we could keep OSP s and ISP s apt for any and every offense that is committed utilizing their services, are we to disregard single duty? It is non Prodigy s mistake that person posts a calumniatory statement in one of their public forums or uses web infinite provided by Prodigy to make an obscene web site. The service supplier should hold a duty to take the violative stuffs and end the user s history. MindSpring, presently the state s largest ISP, does non turn to the issue of libel or calumny either. In their service understanding they province,

I understand that Mindspring militias the right to

end my history at any clip, for any ground,

including, but non limited to, my failure to stay by the

footings of this understanding I understand that misdemeanor of

certain by and large accepted guidelines on Internet use,

such as limitations on mass e-mailings and mass

advertisement, or posting to inappropriate newsgroups, may

cause terrible runing troubles for MindSpring, and

would be a likely cause for expiration of my

history. ( Mindspring, 1999 )

After researching these service understandings that most OSP s and ISP s station on their web sites, I noticed that none of them forbade the poster of lewdness or calumniatory address. This skip is perchance due to the fact that if they do non do a disclaimer refering libel, they will be able to claim ignorance if sued. If OSP s and ISP s were to do official claims that they prohibit certain actions such as libel, the tribunals could perchance happen them apt for the discourtesies. But, if service suppliers want to maintain their unsusceptibility that is granted to them by the Telecommunications Act, so they must successfully self-regulate and patrol their belongings without doing themselves available to judicial proceeding. If service suppliers police libel every bit earnestly as they police spamming ( the sending of unasked electronic mail messages ) , they would be good on the manner to efficaciously patroling themselves. Spamming, nevertheless, is another topic which will be discussed subsequently.

C. How Does Libel Affect The Internet User?

The best instance to discourse when speaking about libel and the Internet user would be the instance of Blumenthal v. Drudge, which I presented earlier. On his web site, The Drudge Report, Drudge posted a clearly calumniatory statement refering Sidney Blumenthal and an alleged history of spousal maltreatment. Two tribunal instances were involved in this process. In the first, the Blumenthals sued both Drudge and AOL. AOL moved to acquire a drumhead judgement, and was granted one by Judge Friedman. During the class of the first instance, Judge Friedman found that Drudge was guilty of libel. The lone staying inquiry was:

whether suspect Drudge ( 1 ) on a regular basis does or beg

concern in the District of Columbia, or ( 2 ) derives

significant gross from goods used or consumed or services

rendered in the District, or ( 3 ) engages in any other

relentless class of behavior ( Blumenthal v. Drudge,

1998 )

It was subsequently revealed that Drudge on a regular basis sent electronic mails to occupants of the District of Columbia, every bit good as received fiscal support from occupants of D.C. In the first tribunal instance, AOL was besides named as a suspect, but was subsequently granted a drumhead judgement, non being found apt for Drudge s actions due to protection for OSP s under subdivision 509 of the Telecommunications Act. Drudge had come face to confront with what is normally referred to as the long-arm legislative act of the District of Columbia, because

( 1 ) of the interactivity of the web site between suspect

Drudge and District occupants ; ( 2 ) the regular distribution

of the Drudge Report via AOL, electronic mail and the universe broad web

to District occupants ; ( 3 ) Drudge s solicitation and

reception of parts from District occupants ; ( 4 ) the

handiness of the web site to District occupants 24 hours

a twenty-four hours ; ( 5 ) suspect Drudge s interview with C-SPAN ; and

( 6 ) suspect Drudge s contacts with District occupants who

supply chitchat for the Drudge Report. The demands of

subdivision ( a ) ( 4 ) of the District of Columbia long-arm

legislative act have been satisfied. ( Blumenthal v. Drudge, 1998 )

So what does this mean for the mundane Internet user? Its chiefly deduction is this: even though the Internet is a planetary small town, the arm of the jurisprudence can still step in. Many have hypothesized that because of the planetary nature of the Internet, legal power as it is known in the existent universe, as opposed to internet, will be thrown out. Apparently, this is non true, at least in the United States. However, the authorities runs into a wall when it tries to prosecute wrongdoers outside its boundary lines. If each province wants to efficaciously prosecute Cyberspace wrongdoers, they must follow long-arm statues if they haven t already adopted them. Harmonizing to the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, provinces are allowed to enable a long-arm legislative act which allows local tribunals to obtain legal power over nonresident suspects when the cause of action is generated locally and effects local complainants. ( Cummings, 1998 ) The Global Village may stop up non being every bit planetary as we thought it was.

The one advantage that the every-day Internet user has is that unlike traditional media such as Television or Newspapers, the Internet allows the libellee to react immediately without any barriers to entry.

If you put on the Internet something that is false and calumniatory, anyone with entree can immediately, in kernel, broadcast a response. That ability to react is what enormously changes how the jurisprudence of libel is traveling to germinate Old libel jurisprudence treated people who were attacked as though they could non efficaciously respond and held that the lone manner to react was a case seeking money amendss. That s non needed now because the message can acquire out. ( Christensen, 1998 )

IV. The Internet and Copyright Law

A. Brief Overview of Copyright Law

Copyright is defined by Pember as that organic structure of jurisprudence which protects the plants created by authors, painters, lensmans, executing creative persons, discoverers, and other individuals who create intangible belongings. ( 1999 ) Not every point created may be copyrighted, nevertheless. Those that can be copyrighted include the followers: & # 8221 ;

+ Literary plants ( including computing machine package )

+ Musical plants, including any accompanying words

+ Dramatic plants, including any attendant music

+ Pantomimes and choreographic plants

+ Pictorial, in writing, and sculptural plants

+ Motion images and other audiovisual plants

+ Sound recordings & # 8221 ; ( Pember, 1999 )

Copyright was foremost created in Great Britain back in the 1500 s when the authorities was allowing privileges to pressmans who gave their trueness to assisting the authorities acquire rid of anti-establishment authors. However, writers rights were non protected until the eighteenth century when the British authorities made the state s foremost copyright jurisprudence. Subsequently, when the United States was officially formed and the Constitution was written, the establishing male parents included the same Copyright jurisprudence that had existed in Britain. In 1976, after about 200 old ages, the authorities changed Copyright Law to protect music, authorship, and the humanistic disciplines.

B. Internet Domain Names and Copyright

Did you of all time inquire how topographic points like Yahoo! acquire their ain web infinite called www.yahoo.com? This is known as sphere name enrollment. The sphere name in www.yahoo.com is yahoo.com. Geting a individualized sphere name is a really simple procedure, and it is comparatively the same monetary value for everyone. The current running monetary value is about $ 70 to register with InterNIC, the organisation that registers all the sphere names on the Internet, and this fee is renewed yearly. Then a apparatus fee is paid to the ISP that will be hosting the web page. Finally a monthly charge is paid to the ISP for the ability to utilize their waiter on a monthly footing. Mindspring, for illustration, charges $ 50 for a apparatus fee, $ 70 for enrollment with InterNIC, and so $ 30 a month thenceforth. However, if you are content with non holding your ain individualized sphere name, you can subscribe up at one of the many topographic points on the web that will supply free web infinite. These suppliers can offer free infinite because they run advertizements in the background whenever your web page appears on the screen. Basically, sphere names are like licence home bases for autos: you can pay a nominal fee for a random licence home base, or you can pay a big fee for a customized licence home base, either of which must be renewed yearly.

However, what happens when person registries www.gwbush.com and so efforts to sell it to Republican presidential campaigner George W. Bush for a big amount of money? This tactic is known as cyber knee bend. As of the authorship of this paper, the Senate had merely introduced the Domain Name Piracy Prevention Act of 1999. ( S. 1461, 1999 )

The anti-cyber squatting statute law approved by the House and Senate conferees would give persons, every bit good as hallmark and service grade holders, the ability to retrieve statutory amendss of up to $ 100,000 from those registering their names or Markss as sphere names in bad religion. ( Sandburg, 1999 )

The penalty does non halt at that place. The Senate measure besides creates condemnable punishments for repetition wrongdoers of cyber knee bend.

What happens when Domino s Pizza wants to get down a web page located at www.dominos.com and Domino s Sugar wants to make the same? Who gets to maintain the name? Presently, there is no statute law refering this, but there are some possible solutions that can be implemented without holding to come in into any type of judicial proceeding. For an illustration, we can look at what the Federal Communications Commission does when it has two wireless Stationss in the same country competing for the same channel. When this sort of state of affairs occurs, the FCC holds an auction and takes the highest bidder. This is one possible solution to the job. It does do a high barrier to entry, nevertheless, at least higher than normal. If some companies are willing to pay 1000s of dollars for their individualized sphere name, so it might be of value to them. As an option, Jonathan Bick, an Internet jurisprudence professor at Rutgers University, has suggested that alternatively of selling sphere names, the authorities or private establishments could get down to licence, non sell, Internet sphere names.

Internet sphere name proprietors should be advised of the hazard of leting the value of an Internet sphere name to wan because it is contractually tied to an disused e-enterprise. They should besides be advised of the possible revenue enhancement advantages licensing has over selling, such as income spreading. ( Bick, 1999 )

Income spreading, as mentioned in the old quotation mark, is a pattern in which a individual or company spreads their income out over a period of clip. A good illustration of this was given to me by my male parent, Charles Scaglione, who worked for IBM throughout the 1980 s as one of their comptrollers.

Back in 1960 s and 1970 s, IBM flourished and net incomes were high along with a enormous hard currency modesty. This was due to the rental base they developed from their mainframe computing machine gross revenues. The regulation in the industry was to rent your mainframe and pay a monthly/yearly rental fee and return the equipment for ascents or new machines when available. IBM s rental gross revenues were the enviousness of the industry as they had so much hard currency in the bank. The IRS threatened punishments if they did non pay extra dividends to their shareholders because they had such big hard currency militias. Subsequently, the industry changed, and people wanted to purchase their ain mainframes, non rent. Without its solid monthly rental base of income, it became of all time progressively vulnerable to the industry tendencies and ups and downs. ( Scaglione, 1999 )

The state of affairs could be the same for Internet sphere names. Alternatively of a company seting all its stock into a lasting name, they could licence the name for a short period of clip. With this solution, if they either travel out of concern or go disused, so they are non stuck with a sphere name, and another company can be free to utilize that name. Presently, when two companies want to utilize the same sphere name, InterNIC will suspend the user of that name until the difference is resolved in tribunal or by arbitration. While the sphere name is on clasp, it is unavailable for usage by any individual or entity. ( Bick, 1999 )

Although licensing may look to be a feasible alternate to selling sphere names, one must see whether or non this will ask for authorities ordinance. Before the Federal Radio Commission began modulating wireless, wireless was left to patrol itself. It was unsuccessful in this attempt, ensuing in the creative activity of the FRC and subsequently the FCC. Could Internet sphere name enrollment take the same way? I believe that if things get out of control, so the authorities will hold no pick but to step in.

C. Affect of Internet on Writers of Literary Works

Still another country that copyright jurisprudence on the Internet will impact is the rights of the writers of literary plants, scientific plant, and musical plants. What happens to the writer that publishes one of his or her narratives on their web page and person else comes along and & # 8220 ; cuts and pastes & # 8221 ; the narrative to his web page claiming that he wrote the narrative? What happens when a professor at MIT publishes his findings on cold merger, and a scientist at Los Alamos National Labs comes along and copies the findings and puts them in his study on cold merger? This is more normally known as the jurisprudence of embezzlement, or unjust competition. ( Pember, 1999 ) This is easy punishable here in the United States, but what about that Los Alamos scientist that merely copied the MIT scientist s findings on cold merger? One manner to forestall this job would be to follow the ASCAP ( American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ) licensing theoretical account. ASCAP is the organisation that protects writers, composers and publishing houses from copyright violation by selling and licencing the rights to copyrighted plants. Rutner suggests using this theoretical account to the Internet:

The manner in which public presentation rights organisations regulate transmittal of music over the wireless and telecasting provides a theoretical account solution to Internet right of first publication violation. Similar organisations could licence Internet Service Providers ( ISPs ) , the companies that provide entree to the Internet for persons, to let their users to convey different types of digital information, such as music, paperss, and computing machine plans over the Internet. Copyright holders could modulate the transmittal of information through these licensing companies the same manner music authors and publishing houses use public presentation rights organisations today. ( Rutner, 1998 )

This application would non merely use to literary plants, but besides to the new engineering known as MP3. MP3 s are sound files that are easy transmitted over the Internet due to their smaller size. These are referred to as & # 8220 ; smaller & # 8221 ; because before MP3 s, the most comparable files were.WAV files. For a five minute vocal, these.WAV files could run in size from 40 Ms to 70 Ms. These.WAV files were of CD quality ( 44,100Khz, 16-bit deepness ) therefore taking up big sums of infinite. The MP3 came along and reduced that file size to about 3 Ms through a new compaction method. MP3 s are non CD quality, but they are close plenty that most consumers will ne’er cognize the difference. Presently, in the thick of the MP3 fad, consumers and writers likewise have begun uploading and downloading their copyrighted plants of music over the Internet in literally no clip at all. The fact that the mean bandwidth of the Internet is increasing at exponential rates will merely function to farther intensify this job. Not excessively long ago, people were utilizing 33.6Kbps modems at place. Now those same people are utilizing at least a 56Kbps modem, or an ADSL ( Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line ) connexion, which is 50 times faster than a 56Kbps modem. This addition in velocity agencies that MP3 s that used to take 30 proceedingss to download will now take 30 seconds. At first, the music industry was non concerned about this new tendency. MP3 s, though they are smaller and are great for hive awaying 200 vocals on one compact phonograph record, will non play in a regular Cadmium participant ; they can merely be read by a computing machine. Then a new small appliance came along. Its name is the Diamond Rio. It is the entering industry s newest and greatest fright. The ground: it can hive away up to 60 proceedingss of MP3 music downloaded from the Internet. It is a portable device that is much kindred to the Walkman tape cassette participant, merely much smaller. Recently, the Recording Industry Association of America sued the shapers of the Diamond Rio, Diamond Multimedia Systems, reasoning that the device violated the Audio Home Recording Act ( AHRA ) because it did non incorporate a Consecutive Copyright Management System ( SCMS ) and because Diamond Multimedia had non paid the proper royalties. ( Toss offing & A ; Knight, 1999 ) However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, and declared that the device is non a digital sound entering device as defined by the Act chiefly because of a loophole that exempts computing machines. ( Toss offing & A ; Knight, 1999 ) I am certain that this is non the last that we will hear of this argument. Meanwhile, gross revenues of devices like the Rio are predicted to make 5.2 million cards for 1999. ( Business Editors, 1999 ) Presently, Diamond Multimedia Systems is in the procedure of developing a SCMS so that the Diamond Rio can non play music that is unauthorized by licencing bureaus:

The Secure Digital Music Initiative ( SDMI ) specification presently provides a default use regulation that will curtail the copying of bequest content, that is, bing transcripts of Cadmiums and digital music files. Each clip content without use regulations, like an bing Cadmium, is copied and stored in the local SDMI format, merely four transcripts can be made of that transcript. ( Toss offing & A ; Knight, 1999 )

These are merely a few of the solutions that could perchance cut down the sum of copyright violation on the Internet. Lone clip will state if the authorities will step in to modulate yet another trade good.

V. Unsolicited Email Messages ( SPAM )

The concluding topic that I will turn to is that of debris electronic mail, more normally known as Spam. Spam is unasked electronic mail on the Internet normally refering to commercial intents. Its physical equivalent is the same junk-mail that people receive through the United States Postal Service. Currently, merely three provinces have enacted statute law criminalizing the act of Spamming: the State of Virginia, the State of Washington, and the State of California. Though merely three provinces presently outlaw Spamming, the catch-22 is that most electronic mail and cyberspace traffic passes through either Virginia or Washington State, thereby leting Virginia to ordain its long-arm statute. ( S. 881, 1999 ) However, Church states that

even Virginia s jurisprudence is significantly restricted in its range and pertinence. It covers merely e-mail sent with the purpose to hammer or distort routing informations. Put another manner, the sending of unasked bulk electronic mail is unaffected by this jurisprudence if there is non disproof of routing or point of beginning. ( Church, 1999 )

Why have these three provinces taken such action? First, both Virginia and Washington have a big figure of Internet-based concerns every bit good as ISP s located within their boundary lines. Washington province is besides the place of the package giant, Microsoft. America Online ( AOL ) is based in Herndon, Virginia every bit good. Even if a individual in Florida Spams person in Chicago, opportunities are that that electronic mail passes through waiters located in Virginia, thereby giving Virginia the right to prosecute. Merely directing an unasked electronic mail message is non traveling to set down person in tribunal. Officially, the Computer Crimes Act

makes it the offense of computing machine trespass to ( a ) falsify or hammer e-mail message transmittal information in connexion with unasked majority electronic mail and ( B ) sell, give, administer, or possess package whose chief intent is to ease unasked bulk electronic mail. ( S. 881, 1999 )

Basically, these two provinces are after people that use false electronic mail addresses full of false promises and false hope. As usual, the remainder of the provinces are expected to follow. Certainly, no 1 enjoys acquiring Spam mail, allow entirely debris mail in the existent universe. Yet instead, how does this impact the privateness of the person? If one does non desire to read the Spam, he can merely cancel the offending message and allow that be the terminal of the issue. Personally, I receive about 30 Spam messages each twenty-four hours and I know precisely which 1s to cancel and which 1s to salvage. It merely requires a few excess seconds out of my twenty-four hours. Obviously, I am traveling to cancel a message with the topic that reads Viagra 50 % away at our Website! That is the type of message found in most Spams. Looking farther into Washington s Spam statute law, some serious privateness issues are raised. Miller gives us a good illustration of how privateness can be invaded through these new statute laws:

Samantha begins typing an electronic mail, or electronic mail, to

her concern spouse, Roger, sketching her latest thoughts

about their program to establish an Internet start up company that

would offer advanced new services over the World Wide

Web. She titles the message A few more ideas about our

new company. At the terminal of the message, Samantha rapidly

reminds Roger that she is in the market for a new computing machine

and that she would lief sell her old computing machine to him for

a nice monetary value. Samantha clicks the send button on her e-

mail browser and assumes that Roger will have the

message without hold or review. The message travels

across the Internet to Roger s Internet Service

Supplier ( ISP ) , but unknown to Samantha or Roger, the ISP

saves a transcript of the message for bringing. The ISP so

examines the contents of the saved message, including

Samantha s private statements about their new Internet

company. Based on Samantha s remark about selling her

computing machine, the ISP determines that the message constitutes

commercial electronic mail incorporating a false or deceptive topic

line. The ISP so directs the message into internet

oblivion. ( Miller, 1999 )

Though this scenario might look far-fetched, it is non far in the hereafter.

When I use the Internet at place I use MindSpring Internet Services. I have been one of their clients for the past two old ages, and they offer what is called The Spaminator+. & # 8221 ; This service blocks out Spam electronic mails, and talking from personal experience, this service works. I did non detect this service until after two months of being with MindSpring. Before turning on the Spaminator, I received Spam messages on a day-to-day footing. But since I started utilizing this service, I have non had a individual Spam message come across my Mindspring inbox. Apparently, this method of electronic mail filtering plants. Unlike the service mentioned in the article, the Spaminator filters email otherwise, without occupying anyone s privateness. MindSpring s Spaminator page describes the procedure of how it filters out Spam:

A list of good known Spam Godheads determine which mail

should be filtered. This maestro papers is created,

on a regular basis updated, and monitored by MindSpring s Maltreatment

section. Unfortunately, we can non custom-make Spam

filtrating on an single footing or history. The following

is an overview of the procedure in two chief stairss:

1. Electronic mail from certain known spammers references is non

delivered.

2. Electronic mail from known spamming plans is non delivered.

These are electronic mail plans which are designed to direct

messages in majority, while concealing the point of beginning

( burlesquing ) .

The particulars of our filtering processs will stay

unpublished. ( MindSpring, 1999 )

What I found even more interesting is that subsequently on the same web page, MindSpring even admitted that there is no fool-proof method of extinguishing unasked electronic mail ( MindSpring, 1999 ) I am forced to inquire the inquiry: How far will we travel to halt Spam? Will the authorities enact statute law doing it compulsory for ISP s to inspect every piece of mail, or at least filtrate them? This kind of review will finally, if it has non already, occupy each person s right to privacy if a better manner is non created. Personally, I believe that the Spaminator+ is a good thought and from experience, it has worked for me. Presently, the service is on a voluntary footing, but if ISP s want to contend Spam, they will follow MindSpring s lead and offer this service to all users. In the hereafter, nevertheless, this filtering service may go compulsory due to extended judicial proceeding affecting unasked electronic mail.

VI. Decision

In this paper, I have attempted to discourse the most current and most outstanding issues confronting both attorneies and the mean Internet user. Clearly, there are non adequate pages or adequate clip to discourse every individual issue that exists today. Rather I dealt with issues that either interested me or that were discussed in category. There is a new age upon us and it is the Information Revolution. What we do with it and how we choose to regulate it is up to us. I can retrieve a clip back before the Internet was at the popularity degree that it is at today. There were no artworks, merely text, and merely a few hundred thousand users that were dedicated and superb. Unfortunately today, many Internet users are merely utilizing it to & # 8220 ; play around. & # 8221 ; What was one time a serious medium has now become a plaything for 1000000s of people. In order to understand the hereafter of the Internet, we must understand its beginnings. The original purpose of the Internet was to make a computing machine web that could pass on even after a atomic onslaught on all major metropoliss in the U.S. ( Mayr, 1999 ) Alternatively, it grew to be a new engineering that can present information to anyone, anyplace in the universe that has entree to a computing machine. What one time took yearss now takes msecs. Is this a bad thing? Inherently, no it is non, but world does a fantastic occupation of corrupting good things when they are created. Granted, I am non stating that merely certain people should hold entree to the Internet. I merely believe that people should esteem the Internet because if we don t regard it, so pandemonium could break out, and the authorities will hold to step in. Certain, the Internet has many more pros than it does cons, but how long will that last? Of class, there is no 1 large solution that will work out all the ailments created by the Internet, but that is what the legal system is for. I do non claim to hold all the replies refering the inquiries posed by the Internet, but I have attempted to at least offer some feasible solutions and options to the current methods and processs.

On a personal note, this paper has brought me to a higher degree of understanding refering the Internet. I was one of those 100s of 1000s of people to utilize the Internet on a regular footing in the 1980 s, and I have learned that while proficient information is a must, legal cognition is non far behind. When I started out, it seemed like a dashing undertaking, and I thought that I would hold to reply every inquiry out at that place. I subsequently came to recognize that replying all the inquiries was non my intent. However, this was non merely a learning experience, but an gratifying acquisition experience.