For searching purposes, it's useful to note that the proper phrase is "work made for hire" when you're talking about copyright. And, the parent is correct--non-employees hold copyright in what they do for a client unless there's a transfer in writing. {Prof. Jonathan}
Sure they can. Depends on the law. You can't contract around, say, a speed limit law, but there are many laws which provide for default situations unless the parties contract around it. State laws covering the sale of goods(the Uniform Commercial Code) works exactly like this, providing things like default warranties unless the parties agree otherwise. (Which is why every sales contract you've ever seen says something like, "Except as expressly provided herein, the seller gives no warranty, express or implied, including but not limited warranties of merchantability [which means you can sell the thing] or fitness for a particular purpose." Without that magic language, the default warranties of the UCC apply.) Copyright similarly provides for the default ownership of a creative work, but in most cases that can be changed by written contract. {Professor Jonathan}
Don't confuse patent (covers inventions) with copyright (covers literary and artistic works, including computer code). Software can be both patented and copyrighted, but ownership is primarily a copyright issue. Run, don't walk, to the Copyright Basics Circular of the U.S. Copyright Office. You should also read the circular on works made for hire and the circular that covers copyright in software. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
The U.S. law in question, which protects "service providers" from libel liability from third-party postings, has an interesting history. Back in 1995, a New York judge found that the then-proprietary Prodigy service could be held responsible for an allegedly libelous posting to its Money Talk bulletin board about the Stratton Oakmont financial services firm, on the theory that Prodigy exercised editorial control over the postings. The fact that Prodigy's editorial control was limited to automated dirty-words filtering was lost on the judge.
In response to the uproar by ISPs and online hosts over this case, the U.S. Congress enacted a safe harbor for service providers, ironically into the roundly criticized Communications Decency Act. While most of the CDA was found unconstitutional, the safe harbor remains (at 47 U.S.C. 230, and has been used by a number of major ISPs (including AOL in a case involving a Matt Drudge story) over the years.
This case will likely come down to whether a blog creator is a service provider as defined by the law and the cases that have interpreted it. What makes it interesting is that allowing public comments to a blog really falls somewhere in the spectrum between hosting a message board and publishing letters to the editor, depending on issues of control and other factors.
A few other thoughts. First, regarding those Slashdotters who have marveled at the U.S.-centric views on Internet law, it's really the European Union (through its data protection and VAT laws among others) that has sought to project its legal structure regarding the Internet to others around the globe. Also, as it happens, libel via the Internet has generated major new jurisdictional questions, as the libelers have been brought to trial in foreign countries whose libel laws are much more pro-plaintiff than those of the alleged libeler's home country. (Take a look at the Dow Jones v. Gutnick case for just one example of this.)
------------------- Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor Assistant Professor of Law and Technology Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT) Touro Law Center Co-Author, TechLawProf Blog
I'm not sure what "open source skills" are; as far as I know, programming is programming, where "open source" is not about how code is written (by an individual), but how it is shared and improved by multiple programmers. More to the point, many companies simply don't understand the implications of GPL, as we've seen from the number of otherwise sophisticated firms including GPL code in products they meant to be proprietary, so the notion of "implied consent" is a challenging one to hang a legal hat on. Of course, while IAAL (*grin*), I am not making any statements about the actual legal responsibility here, as I (and you) don't have enough information. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor}
Daimou has put his employer in a very difficult position here, by bringing into a commercial workplace GPL'ed code, and incorporating it into his work. With Daimou being an employee, his employer had the right to assume that it could use his work product in any way it saw fit with full ownership, absent a written agreement to the contrary (employee work within the scope of employment is considered a work made for hire under U.S. Copyright law). Further, from this article, it isn't clear that Daimou either notified, explained to or got the agreement of his employer to include GPL'ed code (which does, by the terms of the license, need to stay under the GPL) in his work. At some level, the GPL issue is a red herring (although it obviously affects the ability of the employer to keep the source code proprietary)--if Daimou had included code he'd written for some other previous employer, it would have caused similar problems.
At this point, Daimou's employer may (depending on the intricacies and particular facts of this situation, for which it would need the advice of its own lawyer) face a difficult decision: release under the GPL, or rebuild using non-GPL'ed code. Who pays for the rebuilding, and Daimou's role in the process (or at the company), are other questions to be determined. Moral of the story, folks: Never include any code or content subject to outside license restrictions (whether GPL or otherwise) in something done for your boss without getting the boss' informed consent! {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Director, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
I've had a reasonable amount of success with a side on-site computer repair business. I charge $50/hour for homes, and $75/hour for small businesses. Those rates are generally acceptable, and also reflect (I believe) the skillset I bring to the table. My "site" (really an affiliate program link, for additional revenue) is here. {Jonathan}
The question, though, is how you define ISP (or "Service Provider," which is the phrase used in much of this legislation). I'm very interested in the question of whether free hotspots, intentionally open or even unknowingly open home or work networks do and/or should enjoy the statutory protections of commercial service providers. It's something I'm working on now, and I hope to have conclusions shortly. Meanwhile, you may want to check out what EFF says about online service provider best practices. {Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor, Touro Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
Um, how exactly can a movie bring out more about a character than the fictional book in which the character was invented? It isn't like Willy Wonka was a real person (notwithstanding the Wonka candy bars in my local store!). {Jonathan, who saw the Gene Wilder original in the theatre, way the heck back there in time}
Depending on the Tungsten model you have, Graffiti 1 *is* available. Search some of the old Palm discussions lists and message boards--the short version is that you need to find someone with an original Tungsten T (the first unit with the slider), which was the only Palm handheld with both OS5 *and* Graffiti 1, and get the two Graffiti libraries. Or, find someone who has the files already. I'm making no comment as to the legality of this, only the techniques involved. {Jonathan, Tungsten C owner}
There are a number of voting machine-related challenges on the national level. Ralph Nader has successfully requested a recount in New Hampshire, and groups like BlackBoxVoting are working on fraud audits. Also, in Ohio, the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are reportedly joining together to demand a recount. There are local challenges going on as well. {Jonathan}
------------------- Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor Assistant Professor of Law and Technology Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT) Touro Law Center 300 Nassau Road, Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: 631-421-2244 x412 Fax: 516-977-3001 e-mail: jezor@tourolaw.edu BizLawTech Blog: http://iblt.tourolaw.edu/blog
True. The problem with hydrogen-based power systems (either direct combustion, or fuel cell energy storage) is that producing hydrogen from seawater takes energy in the first place. Nuclear power could put the energy into the hydrogen economy, with vehicles to take it out again. The waste issue, though, is the key issue, and even if you accept the Yucca Mountain solution, how do you protect against catastrophic spills from the trains/trucks/airships used to transport it there? {Jonathan}
I rode the Vomit Comit back in 1987, as a research participant in Space Adaptation Syndrome (i.e. zero-g motion sickness) studies at the Ashton Graybiel Spatial Orientation Lab at Brandeis University. We did 2 or 3 days worth of flights, essentially a 2-mile high roller coaster (40 or so 10,000-foot parabolae with 30 seconds of zero-g at the top of each parabola) over the Gulf of Mexico, and it was truly one of the most amazing experiences of my life. While I didn't get to do the zero-g acrobatics you've seen on TV or in "Apollo 13" (I was doing baseline susceptibility studies, and was seated), I had the fun experience of being hit while blindfolded by a floating teddy bear in a space suit. While I never got to go back (scheduling problems, an engine failure on the ground prior to a flight, etc.), I wouldn't have missed it for the world. And while I only vomited once (some professional researchers were so susceptible that they had to sit out the second and third days to recover), I will tell you that the smell of a padded aircraft cabin with poor ventilation after one of those flights was...powerful. {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center}
While I applaud the increased awareness by technology professionals about the legal and regulatory environment in which we all must work, I wonder whether NYFU is perhaps confusing politics and commerce in its Call to General Assembly. After all, while there are legitimate political discussions to be had on the jurisdiction and scope of the FCC and its actions, as well as the balance between national security and personal privacy, do these key questions really deserve to be joined with a debate about Microsoft's contracting practice or SCO's IP claims? I would argue that they do not, and that joining them threatens to weaken legitimate discourse and overgeneralizes about the "Internet community" to which this Call to General Assembly is directed.
Looking at this Call to General Assembly, I find myself pondering exactly what NYFU is trying to be. Is it based upon a political view of overreaching and naive governmental officials, and if so, is this limited to Internet issues? Are they espousing a belief in the technical superiority of open source over closed source software and, if so, what relevance is the "Bio-Medical Cartel" and similar hyperbolic language? Are they objecting to the substance of SCO's IP claims, with some broader conspiracy theory involving Microsoft? If their answer is "all of the above," I think they are being counterproductive. Each of these views is certainly worth discussing, but they seem to have little relationship among them beyond the fact that some technology professionals hold them as true.
For myself, as an attorney and law professor interested in issues of technology rights and risks, I am turned off by the exaggeration and mix of issues presented in this Call. I also believe that NYFU is doing both itself and its cause(s) a profound disservice by presenting its ideas as a conspiratorialist rant filled with references to "tyrannical governments", "barratry and red-baiting" and cartels and oligopolies.
What do the rest of you think? {Professor Jonathan}
As someone who runs a business and technology law institute at Touro Law Center in Huntington, NY, I'm really looking forward to this show. Yes, it'll be soapy, and no, it won't go into the issues discussed on Slashdot, but I am tickled by the thought that someone is projecting out the other kinds of legal questions that may come up for my students, tomorrow's tech-savvy lawyers. But hey -- no law show ever showed licensing or similar lawyers; negotations over ownership provisions ("Work Made for Hire!" "No, Limited License!") or warranties and representations never make for good television. {Professor Jonathan}
There are actually two issues for which electronic voting may be useful:
1) Unreliable mechanical voting machines. The thought is that digital is less prone to breakdown than mechnical. Makes sense, and the Diebold system is pointed in that direction. We've seen, though, that reliability can work both ways.
2) Remote voting. This is the one I really want, since I'd much rather vote via browser than having to go to the local public school, find parking, and wait on line. Problem of course is not only security but authentication, and the authentication problem is really a pain. You think that all those elderly folks in Florida had trouble with chads? Try asking them to install private key encryption! {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Director, Touro Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
As someone who teaches Cyberlaw and runs a program on law and technology, I'd urge you to consider broadening your horizons a bit, and to focus on practical rather than theoretical discussions. As relevant as IP law is to the technology industries, it is only one small part of the whole picture. Contract law, corporate structure finance (yes, even in this post-bubble era!), privacy law and especially international law are also crucial subjects to learn.
I'd echo the sentiments of those who said to take a look at casebooks and other law school texts in a local library. You can also go to the sources for IP law: the U.S. Copyright Office and Patent and Trademark Office have some good basic info, as does the Federal Trade Commission on privacy rules. This site has a good list of info. on doing e-business throughout the world. Finally, for an introduction to Internet-related business legal issues, you can always find my book in a local library.
Finally, you'll need to decide if you actually want to be a lawyer. Law school is rather expensive these days, even for state schools, and the loan burden for many of our students is severe. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to ponder this further. {Professor Jonathan Ezor}
As someone who teaches cyberlaw, I find this case interesting but not unique. After all, what we're really talking about is intangible property--essentially, a contractual right to do certain things in a certain context. Almost like a license. In other words, the company set up the game to allow the player to do X, then messed up its security so that the player was prevented from doing X. Player didn't get the benefit of his agreement to use the game.
What would have been more interesting would be if the game had included a virtual "court," the player had won in that "court," and a real-world court had been used to enforce the "judgment." I'm sure that's coming one of these days. It's a logical outgrowth of situations such as that described by Julian Dibbell in "A Rape In Cyberspace," which I assign to my students each semester. {Professor Ezor}
Wasn't it the Pegasus, commanded by Lloyd Bridges? {Jonathan, whose favorite old BG episode was with Fred Astaire as Chameleon, the old con man who was....
spoiler space
Starbuck's father, and who did the role because his grandkids thought the show was cool}
I'm actually researching this question: how responsible is an access point owner for what's done using his/her connection? Will access point owners get the same protections standard ISPs do under US law? Will they have the same responsibilities? I've already written a short piece on the subject.
I look forward to sharing my research with the Internet community. Contact me here if you're interested in the topic. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center}
Actually, this kind of identifier would probably be easier to protect under trademark law than domain names, since there would be little way for the "URI-squatter" to argue that he wasn't referring to Palm's products when he incorporated "info:palm/model/P80900US" into his site. {Jonathan}
How quickly do you think that some unthinking government agency or financial institution will start including Social Security numbers into URIs, and make them publicly searchable? It will probably happen accidentally, given that so many institutions use SS#s as identifiers even though they're not supposed to.
*sigh*
{Jonathan}
------------------- Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor Associate Professor of Law and Technology Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT) Touro Law Center 300 Nassau Road, Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: 631-421-2244 x412 Fax: 516-977-3001 e. jezor@tourolaw.edu BizLawTech Blog
Because the URL is a single Web page; the URI is an identifier that can be incorporated to every single Web page that fits the description. URLs and URIs do two different things; the former is a pointer to a file; the latter adds descriptive depth in an ideally universal way. {Jonathan}
------------------- Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor Associate Professor of Law and Technology Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT) Touro Law Center 300 Nassau Road, Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: 631-421-2244 x412 Fax: 516-977-3001 e. jezor@tourolaw.edu BizLawTech Blog
Slashdot Mirror
For searching purposes, it's useful to note that the proper phrase is "work made for hire" when you're talking about copyright. And, the parent is correct--non-employees hold copyright in what they do for a client unless there's a transfer in writing. {Prof. Jonathan}
Sure they can. Depends on the law. You can't contract around, say, a speed limit law, but there are many laws which provide for default situations unless the parties contract around it. State laws covering the sale of goods(the Uniform Commercial Code) works exactly like this, providing things like default warranties unless the parties agree otherwise. (Which is why every sales contract you've ever seen says something like, "Except as expressly provided herein, the seller gives no warranty, express or implied, including but not limited warranties of merchantability [which means you can sell the thing] or fitness for a particular purpose." Without that magic language, the default warranties of the UCC apply.) Copyright similarly provides for the default ownership of a creative work, but in most cases that can be changed by written contract. {Professor Jonathan}
Don't confuse patent (covers inventions) with copyright (covers literary and artistic works, including computer code). Software can be both patented and copyrighted, but ownership is primarily a copyright issue. Run, don't walk, to the Copyright Basics Circular of the U.S. Copyright Office. You should also read the circular on works made for hire and the circular that covers copyright in software. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
The U.S. law in question, which protects "service providers" from libel liability from third-party postings, has an interesting history. Back in 1995, a New York judge found that the then-proprietary Prodigy service could be held responsible for an allegedly libelous posting to its Money Talk bulletin board about the Stratton Oakmont financial services firm, on the theory that Prodigy exercised editorial control over the postings. The fact that Prodigy's editorial control was limited to automated dirty-words filtering was lost on the judge.
In response to the uproar by ISPs and online hosts over this case, the U.S. Congress enacted a safe harbor for service providers, ironically into the roundly criticized Communications Decency Act. While most of the CDA was found unconstitutional, the safe harbor remains (at 47 U.S.C. 230, and has been used by a number of major ISPs (including AOL in a case involving a Matt Drudge story) over the years.
This case will likely come down to whether a blog creator is a service provider as defined by the law and the cases that have interpreted it. What makes it interesting is that allowing public comments to a blog really falls somewhere in the spectrum between hosting a message board and publishing letters to the editor, depending on issues of control and other factors.
A few other thoughts. First, regarding those Slashdotters who have marveled at the U.S.-centric views on Internet law, it's really the European Union (through its data protection and VAT laws among others) that has sought to project its legal structure regarding the Internet to others around the globe. Also, as it happens, libel via the Internet has generated major new jurisdictional questions, as the libelers have been brought to trial in foreign countries whose libel laws are much more pro-plaintiff than those of the alleged libeler's home country. (Take a look at the Dow Jones v. Gutnick case for just one example of this.)
-------------------
Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
Assistant Professor of Law and Technology
Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT)
Touro Law Center
Co-Author, TechLawProf Blog
Deblau:
I'm not sure what "open source skills" are; as far as I know, programming is programming, where "open source" is not about how code is written (by an individual), but how it is shared and improved by multiple programmers. More to the point, many companies simply don't understand the implications of GPL, as we've seen from the number of otherwise sophisticated firms including GPL code in products they meant to be proprietary, so the notion of "implied consent" is a challenging one to hang a legal hat on. Of course, while IAAL (*grin*), I am not making any statements about the actual legal responsibility here, as I (and you) don't have enough information. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor}
Daimou has put his employer in a very difficult position here, by bringing into a commercial workplace GPL'ed code, and incorporating it into his work. With Daimou being an employee, his employer had the right to assume that it could use his work product in any way it saw fit with full ownership, absent a written agreement to the contrary (employee work within the scope of employment is considered a work made for hire under U.S. Copyright law). Further, from this article, it isn't clear that Daimou either notified, explained to or got the agreement of his employer to include GPL'ed code (which does, by the terms of the license, need to stay under the GPL) in his work. At some level, the GPL issue is a red herring (although it obviously affects the ability of the employer to keep the source code proprietary)--if Daimou had included code he'd written for some other previous employer, it would have caused similar problems.
At this point, Daimou's employer may (depending on the intricacies and particular facts of this situation, for which it would need the advice of its own lawyer) face a difficult decision: release under the GPL, or rebuild using non-GPL'ed code. Who pays for the rebuilding, and Daimou's role in the process (or at the company), are other questions to be determined. Moral of the story, folks: Never include any code or content subject to outside license restrictions (whether GPL or otherwise) in something done for your boss without getting the boss' informed consent! {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Director, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
As opposed to techie acronyms and abbreviations?
I've had a reasonable amount of success with a side on-site computer repair business. I charge $50/hour for homes, and $75/hour for small businesses. Those rates are generally acceptable, and also reflect (I believe) the skillset I bring to the table. My "site" (really an affiliate program link, for additional revenue) is here. {Jonathan}
The question, though, is how you define ISP (or "Service Provider," which is the phrase used in much of this legislation). I'm very interested in the question of whether free hotspots, intentionally open or even unknowingly open home or work networks do and/or should enjoy the statutory protections of commercial service providers. It's something I'm working on now, and I hope to have conclusions shortly. Meanwhile, you may want to check out what EFF says about online service provider best practices. {Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor, Touro Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
Um, how exactly can a movie bring out more about a character than the fictional book in which the character was invented? It isn't like Willy Wonka was a real person (notwithstanding the Wonka candy bars in my local store!). {Jonathan, who saw the Gene Wilder original in the theatre, way the heck back there in time}
Depending on the Tungsten model you have, Graffiti 1 *is* available. Search some of the old Palm discussions lists and message boards--the short version is that you need to find someone with an original Tungsten T (the first unit with the slider), which was the only Palm handheld with both OS5 *and* Graffiti 1, and get the two Graffiti libraries. Or, find someone who has the files already. I'm making no comment as to the legality of this, only the techniques involved. {Jonathan, Tungsten C owner}
There are a number of voting machine-related challenges on the national level. Ralph Nader has successfully requested a recount in New Hampshire, and groups like BlackBoxVoting are working on fraud audits. Also, in Ohio, the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are reportedly joining together to demand a recount. There are local challenges going on as well. {Jonathan}
-------------------
Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
Assistant Professor of Law and Technology
Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT)
Touro Law Center
300 Nassau Road, Huntington, NY 11743
Tel: 631-421-2244 x412 Fax: 516-977-3001
e-mail: jezor@tourolaw.edu
BizLawTech Blog: http://iblt.tourolaw.edu/blog
True. The problem with hydrogen-based power systems (either direct combustion, or fuel cell energy storage) is that producing hydrogen from seawater takes energy in the first place. Nuclear power could put the energy into the hydrogen economy, with vehicles to take it out again. The waste issue, though, is the key issue, and even if you accept the Yucca Mountain solution, how do you protect against catastrophic spills from the trains/trucks/airships used to transport it there? {Jonathan}
Spaceship One is safely on the ground and appears to have exceeded its altitude target. Well done, pilot Mike Melville! {J}
I rode the Vomit Comit back in 1987, as a research participant in Space Adaptation Syndrome (i.e. zero-g motion sickness) studies at the Ashton Graybiel Spatial Orientation Lab at Brandeis University. We did 2 or 3 days worth of flights, essentially a 2-mile high roller coaster (40 or so 10,000-foot parabolae with 30 seconds of zero-g at the top of each parabola) over the Gulf of Mexico, and it was truly one of the most amazing experiences of my life. While I didn't get to do the zero-g acrobatics you've seen on TV or in "Apollo 13" (I was doing baseline susceptibility studies, and was seated), I had the fun experience of being hit while blindfolded by a floating teddy bear in a space suit. While I never got to go back (scheduling problems, an engine failure on the ground prior to a flight, etc.), I wouldn't have missed it for the world. And while I only vomited once (some professional researchers were so susceptible that they had to sit out the second and third days to recover), I will tell you that the smell of a padded aircraft cabin with poor ventilation after one of those flights was...powerful. {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center}
While I applaud the increased awareness by technology professionals about the legal and regulatory environment in which we all must work, I wonder whether NYFU is perhaps confusing politics and commerce in its Call to General Assembly. After all, while there are legitimate political discussions to be had on the jurisdiction and scope of the FCC and its actions, as well as the balance between national security and personal privacy, do these key questions really deserve to be joined with a debate about Microsoft's contracting practice or SCO's IP claims? I would argue that they do not, and that joining them threatens to weaken legitimate discourse and overgeneralizes about the "Internet community" to which this Call to General Assembly is directed.
Looking at this Call to General Assembly, I find myself pondering exactly what NYFU is trying to be. Is it based upon a political view of overreaching and naive governmental officials, and if so, is this limited to Internet issues? Are they espousing a belief in the technical superiority of open source over closed source software and, if so, what relevance is the "Bio-Medical Cartel" and similar hyperbolic language? Are they objecting to the substance of SCO's IP claims, with some broader conspiracy theory involving Microsoft? If their answer is "all of the above," I think they are being counterproductive. Each of these views is certainly worth discussing, but they seem to have little relationship among them beyond the fact that some technology professionals hold them as true.
For myself, as an attorney and law professor interested in issues of technology rights and risks, I am turned off by the exaggeration and mix of issues presented in this Call. I also believe that NYFU is doing both itself and its cause(s) a profound disservice by presenting its ideas as a conspiratorialist rant filled with references to "tyrannical governments", "barratry and red-baiting" and cartels and oligopolies.
What do the rest of you think? {Professor Jonathan}
As someone who runs a business and technology law institute at Touro Law Center in Huntington, NY, I'm really looking forward to this show. Yes, it'll be soapy, and no, it won't go into the issues discussed on Slashdot, but I am tickled by the thought that someone is projecting out the other kinds of legal questions that may come up for my students, tomorrow's tech-savvy lawyers. But hey -- no law show ever showed licensing or similar lawyers; negotations over ownership provisions ("Work Made for Hire!" "No, Limited License!") or warranties and representations never make for good television. {Professor Jonathan}
There are actually two issues for which electronic voting may be useful:
1) Unreliable mechanical voting machines. The thought is that digital is less prone to breakdown than mechnical. Makes sense, and the Diebold system is pointed in that direction. We've seen, though, that reliability can work both ways.
2) Remote voting. This is the one I really want, since I'd much rather vote via browser than having to go to the local public school, find parking, and wait on line. Problem of course is not only security but authentication, and the authentication problem is really a pain. You think that all those elderly folks in Florida had trouble with chads? Try asking them to install private key encryption! {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Director, Touro Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
As someone who teaches Cyberlaw and runs a program on law and technology, I'd urge you to consider broadening your horizons a bit, and to focus on practical rather than theoretical discussions. As relevant as IP law is to the technology industries, it is only one small part of the whole picture. Contract law, corporate structure finance (yes, even in this post-bubble era!), privacy law and especially international law are also crucial subjects to learn.
I'd echo the sentiments of those who said to take a look at casebooks and other law school texts in a local library. You can also go to the sources for IP law: the U.S. Copyright Office and Patent and Trademark Office have some good basic info, as does the Federal Trade Commission on privacy rules. This site has a good list of info. on doing e-business throughout the world. Finally, for an introduction to Internet-related business legal issues, you can always find my book in a local library.
Finally, you'll need to decide if you actually want to be a lawyer. Law school is rather expensive these days, even for state schools, and the loan burden for many of our students is severe. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to ponder this further. {Professor Jonathan Ezor}
As someone who teaches cyberlaw, I find this case interesting but not unique. After all, what we're really talking about is intangible property--essentially, a contractual right to do certain things in a certain context. Almost like a license. In other words, the company set up the game to allow the player to do X, then messed up its security so that the player was prevented from doing X. Player didn't get the benefit of his agreement to use the game.
What would have been more interesting would be if the game had included a virtual "court," the player had won in that "court," and a real-world court had been used to enforce the "judgment." I'm sure that's coming one of these days. It's a logical outgrowth of situations such as that described by Julian Dibbell in "A Rape In Cyberspace," which I assign to my students each semester. {Professor Ezor}
Wasn't it the Pegasus, commanded by Lloyd Bridges? {Jonathan, whose favorite old BG episode was with Fred Astaire as Chameleon, the old con man who was....
spoiler space
Starbuck's father, and who did the role because his grandkids thought the show was cool}
I'm actually researching this question: how responsible is an access point owner for what's done using his/her connection? Will access point owners get the same protections standard ISPs do under US law? Will they have the same responsibilities? I've already written a short piece on the subject.
I look forward to sharing my research with the Internet community. Contact me here if you're interested in the topic. {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center}
Actually, this kind of identifier would probably be easier to protect under trademark law than domain names, since there would be little way for the "URI-squatter" to argue that he wasn't referring to Palm's products when he incorporated "info:palm/model/P80900US" into his site. {Jonathan}
Something just occured to me:
How quickly do you think that some unthinking government agency or financial institution will start including Social Security numbers into URIs, and make them publicly searchable? It will probably happen accidentally, given that so many institutions use SS#s as identifiers even though they're not supposed to.
*sigh*
{Jonathan}
-------------------
Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
Associate Professor of Law and Technology
Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT)
Touro Law Center
300 Nassau Road, Huntington, NY 11743
Tel: 631-421-2244 x412 Fax: 516-977-3001
e. jezor@tourolaw.edu
BizLawTech Blog
Because the URL is a single Web page; the URI is an identifier that can be incorporated to every single Web page that fits the description. URLs and URIs do two different things; the former is a pointer to a file; the latter adds descriptive depth in an ideally universal way. {Jonathan}
-------------------
Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
Associate Professor of Law and Technology
Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT)
Touro Law Center
300 Nassau Road, Huntington, NY 11743
Tel: 631-421-2244 x412 Fax: 516-977-3001
e. jezor@tourolaw.edu
BizLawTech Blog