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

The Good News Is...

[iGawyn]

At least most of the law professors interviewed by the NYT haven't lost all touch with reality. They predict things such as users not patronizing RIAA-run music services (no suprise there), the government abusing its powers under the new USA-Patriot act (again, no suprise), more court cases being brought up to fight the Constitutionality of the DCMA and predictions that the Supreme Court will hear them, internet privacy battles being fought over how much the government can regulate what we do.

None of it's really suprising, if you pay attention to the news, but the good news is that prominent law professors realize that this is happening, and many of them at least appear to be siding with sanity.

Perhaps in the next few years, we'll see either the DMCA being revoked, or at least heavily amended, and if we're really lucky, some of those quoted law professors will mean what they say and go to bat for the public against the government, protesting the invasions of privacy.

Gawyn

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.

Hardware vs content

[pjones]

bipolar companies such as Sony who make great profits off of consumer electronics -- walkman say -- and from content -- their music holdings -- will be engaged in strong internal battles over intellectual property rights (hardies going for lesser protection so as to get more content and more demand for hardware at a lower price point; content protectors the opposite). since Sony and others make much more from hardware look for the challenge to IP to come from them as they turn on the RIAA and MPAA

Re:Legal scmegal

[iGawyn]

Actually, if you think that legal battles don't matter, you're sadly mistaken. The major changes to the internet and "life as we know it" will happen in the courtrooms, far from most of us. That is what the EFF is here for, to fight for the rights of, well, people like us. Those of us who use computers, the internet, DVDs, what have you. Legal issues are often underlooked in the online community, but they are very important.

Gawyn

I predict...

[hubbabubba]

...the NYT is gonna get all steamed up about copyright infringement by people who post their entire articles at Slashdot. ;-)

Read my lips...

[ZoneGray]

Geez, I read through the article quickly, but nobody seemed to mention taxes.

All other Internet issues will take a back burner on the congressional agenda, although it may not happen in an election year. Watch out in 2003, though. This year, they'll probably appease the special interests, such as RIAA and MPAA, which can generate some campaign cash before the elections.

They're no fools, they want money to spend, and the Internet is a source of it. A money grab coming on the heels of the bursting bubble would have been too tacky even for politicians. But expect them to take it up again as e-commerce growth starts to recover.

Then, of course, they'll claim credit for the recovery.

(on a related note why do you think they wanted to pass a "economic stimulus package"? They know the economy is going to recover this year, and they wanted to take credit for it. Thankfully, they also wanted to make sure the opposing party didn't take credit for the recovery... so each party blocked the other's initiatives, and nothing happened. So now, if it doesn't recover, they can each blame the other side. I used to try to analyze these initiatives on their merits, until I realized what was really going on.)