Internet & Society: The
Technologies and Politics of
Home | Course Logistics | Syllabus | WebBoard | Questions & Feedback | Additional Resources
Class 1: The ICANN Story: the battle over public turf and internet governance – Thursday, 1/2
John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace
Microsoft is the ultimate technology company success story, from start-up to the company with the largest market capitalization of any company in the world within less than two decades. If any company has succeeded in cornering the markets for control, it's Microsoft. Indeed, according to the United States Department of Justice and at least one federal judge, they succeeded too well. The Microsoft case continues to unfold with enormous potential implications for the law of cyberspace as well as antitrust law in general.
In this class we ask whether the Microsoft case is just another antitrust case - or whether it illustrates the ways in which one can't just apply old laws to the Net by adding an e- in front. We'll also look at Microsoft's .NET initiative, and the Cassandra-like worries already coalescing around it.
from Philip J. Weiser, Internet
Governance, Standard Setting and Self-Regulation, 28
Excerpt from Dean Ringel, Monopolies and Joint Ventures, 1311 PLI/Corp 11 (May 2002)
Memorandum Opinion, State of New York et al. v. Microsoft: read pp. 1-10, 25-32, 93-110, 186-190 and skim the rest (numbers refer to page numbers that appear in the document at the bottom of each page). This is not included in the Course Pack; it can be found online at
Jonathan Zittrain, , 31
II. THE LEADING STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL: THE ARC OF DIGITAL PROPERTY
Napster started a revolution. A couple of guys, a cool
idea, and a simple technology awakened the lazy, sleeping giants of the music
publishing business and made them very, very afraid. The legal battle was
joined, and some of
Our starting point in class will be what Napster's story - and the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) movement in general - means for the law related to the Internet. The notion of file sharing persists, in many formats and many business models. Some of the thorny intellectual property issues raised in the Napster case (and in the Sony case before it) remain unresolved.
John Perry Barlow,
Corporation v. Universal Studios, 464
A & M Records et al. v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
The Latest Debate: Which of these services is not like the other?
MGM v. Grokster: Motions for Summary Judgment. Read EITHER Plaintiffs’ Motion or Defendants’ Motions; DO NOT read the other party’s motion.
Plaintiffs’ Motions available online at
Defendants’ Motions (2) available online at
TV file-sharing: Salon, “”
MGM v. Grokster documents (skim complaint, briefs, responses)
Hints at Trouble for Kazaa,
Okays Suit Against Kazaa Parent,
Kazaa, Morpheus Legal Case
Judge Puts File
Swappers in Hot Seat,
CNET, Suit Hits Popular Post-Napster Network, Oct. 2001
Sharing: Guilty as Charged?
Last class we saw how the digital music revolution swept the web. Today, we explore the proposition that another shoe will drop: technology backed up by law can beat back P2P and lock music up tight. This session will address the technological advances related to so-called trusted systems and the legal mechanisms set in place by the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The first piece tries to answer the question you may be asking yourself at this moment ("What's a trusted system?") and explores what the advent of these technologies means for content control. We'll explore the drawbacks of these technologies, and the possibility that trusted systems that aren't perfect may still be good enough for their creators' purposes.
“Technological Counterparts to Copyright” chapter of forthcoming Internet Law casebook
Amy Harmon, Studios
Using Digital Armor (NYTimes Online,
Doug Mellgren, Norwegian
Teen Acquitted of DVD Piracy (Salon.com,
“Alternatives to IP” module excerpts
Excerpts from Eldred v. Ashcroft, Petitioner’s Brief
Excerpts from “”
Jonathan Zittrain, Calling Off
the Copyright War, The
Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, (The Digital Moment: The End of Copyright?).
17 U.S.C.A. § 512 (Section 202 of Digital Millennium Copyright Act)
Aaron Koller letter
CNet article “Anti-piracy group bills for downloads”
News articles on Berman P2P “vigilantism” bill:
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (M.D. Fla. 1993)
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, 991 F.Supp. 543 (N.D. Tex. 1997), aff’d, 168 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 1999)
Excerpts from Eric Raymond,
Excerpts from the Microsoft Halloween Memos
Excerpts from Yochai Benkler, Coase’s Penguin
Skim Part I: examples of peer production
Read Part II, pp. 31-51: Peer Production in a Networked Environment
Eben Moglen, The dotCommunist Manifesto
History of Open Source Initiative
Free Software Foundation Overview: scan links at , including:
Richard Stallman, Why Software Should be Free
III. SMALLER BATTLEGROUNDS: COPYRIGHT’S LITTLE SIBLINGS
PowerPoint slides created in class
In re Doubleclick, Inc. Privacy Litigation - read the first 7 pages then skim
read the Background,
P3P and Privacy on the Web FAQ,
Skim FTC, "Online Profiling: A Report to Congress,"
Excerpt from Jeffrey B. Ritter, Benjamin S. Hayes, Henry L. Judy, Emerging Trends in International Privacy Law, 15 Emory Int'l. L. Rev. 87 (2001).
Select (altering § 2702)
Reactions to Homeland Security Act:
· CNet News.com,
Michael Adler, , 105 Yale L.J. 1093 (1996)
· Skim “Law” section, then read
Orin Kerr, Post to Cyberprof list: “Net-wide Search”
· Read chapters 1-3
· Note: this is a large PDF file and it may take a few moments to load.
NY Times, ,
The Web and the Internet significantly shifted two of the boundaries that used to constrain speech: the ability to speak anonymously and the ease of making oneself heard. With the increasing popularity of the web and email, people with something to say could easily get their message out (whether or not others would choose to read it) and without making their identities known (at least to the average computer user). These two changes encouraged a relative proliferation of speech of a sort that used to exist at a more or less stable level of hard-to-find-unless-you-knew-where-to-look.
For some this change was liberating: it allowed those who were marginalized in their local environments to find others like them on the net, or gave them access to information on touchy subjects without forcing them to reveal their identity. It allowed those with unpopular ideas to publish them more aggressively and to increase their strength in spite of their small numbers. For others the change appeared dangerous: it allowed children to gain access to pornography and other material their parents didn't want them to see, and allowed pornographers and perverts to contact them; it allowed people to publish hate speech anonymously without fear of accountability or reprisal. Technical means, such as filters, have been used to try to make the net safe for kids.
How effective are they? Are they a good thing? How should
the law handle this? How can
Excerpts from Reno v. ACLU, 521
Excerpts from the ACLU’s Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?
Zittrain and Edelman, Empirical Analysis of Filtering in China
IV. FROM TREES TO
This session takes on the issue of jurisdiction on the
internet and the argument for the minimal intrusion of "local"
regimes. We will cover two cases where competing jurisdictional ideals have
collided on the Net. In one case,
READINGS: “Jurisdiction and Zoning” chapter from forthcoming Internet Law casebook
Please note: This class will meet on Friday January 17 from in Hauser 102
Andrew McLaughlin, Internet Exchange Points (July 2002)
Zachary, Letter from Ghana (August 2002)
Geoff Huston, Interconnection and Peering (Nov. 2000)
Balancing Act 139,
Jambonet Blocks the Internet, But the Private Sector Fights Back (January
class from Jim Moore, Senior Fellow at the
Jim Moore, A Digital Ecosystem in Jordan: October 2002
III. Learning: Professor Charles Nesson and Colin Maclay
Iqbal Z. Quadir, The Bottleneck is at the Top of the Bottle, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol.26:2 Summer/Fall 2002.
Eggleston, Jensen & Zeckhauser, Information and Communication Technologies, Markets, and Economic Development (2002)
Visit these sites:
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, Chapter 5 (2002). Also available as an html file here.
From Geoffrey Kirkman:
2 from the GITR, located at http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch02.pdf
From Jim Moore:
From Professor Nesson:
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Knopf, 1999)
Listen to Chris Lydon’s interviews of Jeff Sachs, Colin Channer, Yo Yo Ma
From Colin Maclay:
are good/current pieces in the Global Information Technology Report including
on telecoms privatization issues, education (as mentioned), rural
sustainability at http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/gitrr_030202.html
World Resources Institute Digital Dividend,
V. FROM FOREST TO LUMBER – A CANTONIZED INTERNET
In the "real" world we experience a mix of private and public - houses and parks. The infrastructure of the Internet is almost completely privately owned, from the pipes to the ISPs to the computers we use.
The conventional political and social wisdom of the Net appears essentially libertarian, celebrating this entirely private zone, with the threat to Net freedoms coming from outside Government(s) -- those weary giants of flesh and steel, as Barlow put it so lyrically in his now-venerable Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace. With most of cyberspace being "private," the setup is of a pleasant anarchy which need only come together to keep the inept (if not evil) government out.
As the first of two sessions winding up the course, we ask whether this remains true as either a descriptive or normative principle. We might confront the idea that threats to freedom come not from Big Brother but from Middle Siblings, a panoply of "private sheriffs," whether motivated by ideology or greed, who are increasingly in a position to govern our online behavior. The readings offer two case studies of private parties seeking to control the behavior of other private parties - while government claims no involvement in the dispute.
Jonathan Zittrain, Internet Points of Control (DRAFT)
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946).
Bill McSwain, Harvard Law Review, . Excerpted (required) version available at .
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, (DRAFT)
RE-READ: John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace.