Divining the Future of Internet Law

Mansing writes: "In his last Cyber Law Journal (New York Times, registration required, etc.), Carl Kaplan has captured a collection of insights from the like of Dr. Larry Lessig and Dr. James Boyle. Each one of these correspondents brings a slightly different, and sometimes humorous, view of what legal challenges and legal decisions may face the users of technology in the next year."

Comments

Now this sounds Depressing....

[bihoy]

"Microsoft and Disney will become the most important allies in defending the core values of the Internet."

Because, to me, this means further commercialization of the Internet to the exclusion of those with smaller bankrolls. I think what's at stake here is the use of the Internet as an equalizing factor between the Mega-Companies and small companies and individuals. This is precisely what the Open Source community must fight tooth and nail.

Re:Now this sounds Depressing....

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

I think this was meant as a joke. I've just started reading Lessig's latest book where he talks about how the Internet having an e2e architecture makes it an innovation commons. Microsoft and especially Disney would like to put restrictions on that e2e design by limiting what an attached device could do.

It's not a joke. If you pay attention to Lessig's recent pronouncements on the subject, he's decided that the biggest threat to the Internet comes from those who would change it from its current topology--i.e. a dumb network with smart terminals--into a smart network with dumb terminals. The companies Lessig figures are trying to do this are, not surprisingly, the ones that own the network (or parts thereof): AOLTW and the rest of the cable co.'s. Since most of these companies are either connected with the copyright cartels or in the business of making distribution deals with them, they would like nothing more than to be able to control what content passes over their section of "the Internet".

MS and Disney, on the other hand, and for all the horrible things which can rightfully be said about them, do *not* want a switch to a smart network with dumb terminals...because they don't control the network, and would thus be at the mercy of those who do. Indeed, Lessig is apparently quite optimistic about .NET from this standpoint, as it most certainly involves a way to increase the power terminals get from communicating over the Internet without changing the rules of the network itself (even to the point of exploiting the few restrictions already part of those rules, but I digress). Yes, you might need to sell your credit cards, pets, soul, mortgage, etc. to MS in order to access any Passport-enabled websites, but at least in order for .NET to work it will require leaving the Internet intact for non-.NET websites to talk to non-MS computers quite happily.

Microsoft and especially Disney would like to put restrictions on that e2e design by limiting what an attached device could do.

Perhaps they would, but they don't control the network, so they can't. Instead, they need to push for the network to stay open in order to allow their attached devices to do whatever they want them to do. The cable companies, on the other hand, do control the network, and have been itching for years and years to limit what an attached device can do in order to eliminate competition for their own attached devices, or in order to extort content providers for the privilige of getting their stuff on the "approved list".

Lessig argues that these sorts of issues of telecommunications law are in fact the most dire threat posed to the Internet in the near future, and that most politechies misplace their energies by not realizing this fact. Dunno if he's at all right about this, but he's certainly proved insightful in the past.

The Year of PKI

[Proaxiom]

I'm sure 2002 will be the year of PKI.

Just like 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998...

But seriously, while they seem to focus on civil liberties and privacy, there is a big cyberlaw issue that wasn't addressed: Digital Signatures.

How many American states will finally wake up and pass comprehensive digital signature laws, to complement the framework provided in the federal E-Sign law?

The west coast seems to be coming along well, but the east is really lagging, with most states not even having anything on the books.

Once again, Europe is leaving America in the dust on technology legislation...

core value?

[asmithmd1]

So what are the core values of the internet? Where are they written? Did he mean to say Microsoft and Disney will become the most important allies in Defining the core values of the Internet. This I can believe

Re:core value?

[Masem]

IMO, the essence of the internet, post-ARPANET but pre-commericalization, was that "There are no barriers". Barrier in the geographical sense, in language, in publication, etc. This in part was due to the unquested peering agreements between backbones, open standards on network protocols, and that anyone could publish without having to get a license or pay large fees to do so. Many in that time likened the Internet to the Gutenburg printing press, as both inventions allows the mass distribution of information more than the previous tech allowed.

Commercialization changed all that. While there are still places where there are no barriers, there are definitely barriers in various places to be had, both from executive choices, governement regulation, or otherwise. For any major ISP or software company, specifically AOLTW, Microsoft, and now Comcast/AT&T Broadband, they would make the most to gain by creating the walled garden where there is no barriers to information that they control, but it's impossible to get information outside of it or for outsiders to get information from it; at best, a walled garden with toll booths at the entrances would be a prime money-making model. This is not to say they are going this way, but certainly, if they suddenly found themselves with a walled garden, legally, they would be overjoyed to continue running it as such. However, achieving a walled garden from today's Internet structure would require not only changing the technology the Internet runs on, but also government restrictions and consumer outlashing. They'll try to put up more barriers (MSN restricted to IE only, online music ventures with propriatary formats, etc), and may sneak their way to this ideal condition, but I doubt they'll ever achieve it.

Happy 50'th, Lawrence Lessig!

[Tsar]

This is the 50th /. story about Lessig since the first one three years ago. As court appointed master in the MS-DOJ case, he'd sworn that he had no personal bias or prejudice, even though he'd sent an email to a lawyer friend at Netscape saying that having installed IE was equivalent to selling his soul. An appellate court kicked him off the case shortly thereafter.

He continues to be a voice of reason and intelligent debate in an arena where both are often sorely lacking. Our community is richer for his presence.

The Greedy Try Harder

[Alien54]

Strangely enough, this ties in well with The earlier Slash Story on Punishing Freeloaders.

Corporations will try harder to freeload. and people will try to stop them. Of course, the corporations would argue that it is the other way around.

But that is why we have courts, I think.

Patriot Act in the rest of the world...

[tobe]

.. well, it doesn't apply does it. Remember that the DMCA, Patriot Act, Child protection Act etc only apply within the U.S.

Whilst most European governments (for instance) have ISP Log access laws in the case of criminal investigations your rights to online privacy (as most other kinds) are still pretty well protected and legislation has not proceeded further than these basic laws.

Over here in the U.K. we reacted to September 11th by modifying our own Anti-Terrorism Laws in a manner I suspect was intended to allow the immediate detainment of a small number of specific activists we already knew about but previously had no powers to pull in. Our particular multi-party system and the fact we have a generally liberal, libertarian government tends to mean we avoid laws that in any way could be considered draconian.

The DMCA would actually be near impossible to implement over here due to our fundamentally different legal treatment of intellectual property rights. You also tend to find that where big business goes up against the individual on this side of the pond that the little guy will often win. Corporations do not have the same rights as individuals over here.

As for the Child Protection Act.. the fact that we have have no constutionally enshrined rights to free speech might make you think that we're in constant danger of having any freedoms of speech quashed at the whim of our governments but it reality that doesn't happen. Europe, by and large, has left-leaning executive and legistlature so this sort of thing is less likely to occur. And the flip side of not having a freedom of speech act is that we also don't have nutcases bringing suits against the government arguing for their unalienable right to publish (whether manufactured or not) a bunch of kiddie porn.

And the conclusion.. remember the U.S. has boundaries and that the net doesn't. If you're worried about what's going on simply move your on-line activites elsewhere if not your butt.