As with many other previously insignificant aspects of law, copyright law has been transformed with the explosive growth of the Internet and its capabilities. A group of politically active Swathmore students realized this when, in fall of 2003, they managed to get a hold of inter-company emails sent with Diebold Election Systems, the largest electronic voting machine production company. These emails discussed clear problems within the software and the vulnerability of the computer network to hacking. The students decided to publish these emails on the web. However, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (D.M.C.A.), legislation that ensures regulation of intellectual property, prohibits such an action.

The D.M.C.A. holds Internet service providers, such as Comcast and Verizon Wireless, liable for the content those ISP customers upload. As such, a company threatening to sue (as Diebold did) could manipulate ISPs to take down the content in question. That is exactly what happened, and had it not been for the negative press Diebold received as a result of the conflict, the content would still be unavailable to the public. Stories such as these have been occurring with increasing frequency as the ever-tightening copyright laws become more relevant to a world where intellectual content is easily accessible to almost anyone, anywhere. Besides the D.M.C.A., a new piece of legislation that affects copyright laws is the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act, which adds 20 years of protection to both old and new copyright laws.

Predictably, movements working against this direction of change have formed to attempt to redirect copyright laws to become looser and less restrictive. The “free culture movement,” also known as Copy Left, is made up of lawyers, scholars, ad activists who believe that if copyright laws continue expanding and becoming more restrictive, society will face disastrous results. Copy Left claims that the original intent of copyright legislation was to encourage creativity and ingenuity, and that current copyright laws function only to discourage such behavior and monetize successful property. According to Copy Left, ideal copyright laws would allow intellectual property owners a brief period of time during which they have the exclusive right to profit from their creations. When this period is over, the intellectual property is added to a public domain of such content, or a “cultural commons.” Copy Left argues that no person has ever created from nothing—all work has been influenced and inspired by work that came before it. According to them, by limiting the ability to work from past creation, we limit future content and creativity. Copy Left warns that if things continue as they are, copyright laws will incrementally affect even the smallest transfer of property, like reading in a library, or ripping a song from a CD.

Orginial copyright law was technically included in the Constitution by Thomas Jefferson, who considered it a necessary evil. Jefferson claimed that ideas were only the property of the creator until they were expressed, at which point they become the property of everyone. However, he viewed copyright laws only as a way to motivate people to create. As time has gone on, though, and information has become more of a commodity than it ever has before, copyright laws have become increasingly stringent. The time intellectual property is protected from the start of copyright has become increasingly longer. As it stands at the moment, there won’t be new material entering the public “cultural commons” anytime soon. Small technicalities in wording of laws written decades ago also affect copyright laws for technology that didn’t exist before, such as with the 1909 Copyright Act, before which copyright was written as the exclusive right to “publish” a creation, but was changed to prohibiting others from “copying” property—relevant to modern techniques of being able to copy content exactly using Xerox, computers, VCRs, and the like. In the 1970s, a legislative revision made it unnecessary to formally register or renew a copyright in order to comply with international copyright standards, as long as the content was “fixed in a tangible medium.” This is become an important issue in considering the technical aspects of computers and the web.

Lawrence Lessig, one prominent member of Copy Left, is public in his attempt to deregulate copyright so that it returns to the state Thomas Jefferson intended for intellectual property. He claims that corporations and media want to monopolize free thought, and the American people must not allow that to happen. In the Supreme Court case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, Lessing contributed to the plaintiff’s argument against infinitely extending a term of copyright. The defendants of the case won, a huge step back for Copy Left. Lessig also helped found Creative Commons, an organization that helps creators who want less severe copyright laws applied to their creations so that others can benefit from them. The organization has helped develop software for that purpose, as well as making themselves known in the international community.

Copy Left also stresses the necessity of understanding the nature of consuming media. The organization claims that people don’t just want to consume, such as with radio, television, and other broadcasting technology. Instead, they claim that people want to interact with media, an idea that is fully supported with the wild success of the web. Yochai Benkler supports this idea with a statistic comparing the income of the recording industry to the income of the phone industry—phone companies receive more than 20 times the revenue that recording companies receive. He claims this proves a preference to interact as opposed to consume.  As such, Benkler puts the ideas of Copy Left as economically sensible as well as morally right. He predicts that the recording industry in on their way out due to the lack of interaction in their products.

Opponents of Copy Left fear that were copyright laws to become less strict, the creators would suffer. Jane Ginsberg, an opponent of Copy Left, supports the idea of a society in which permission is required to copy any form of creative content. She claims that only creators can truly understand the importance of copyright laws, in ways that corporations and consumers can’t. Opponents believe that strict copyright laws provide a sense of logic and security to an often emotionally-driven culture.  However, William Fisher of Copy Left has devised a system for compensation that would support the ideals of unrestricted copyright laws, one that would potentially provide the same amount of stability. It would basically run on a popularity system—the more specific content is used, the more compensation is given to the creator, all run from one central office. The money would be derived from the sales of copy-assisting products, such as DVD burners and blank CDs. Current media industries that have been shown this system have received it well and with interest, due to the direction those industries are headed in. However, Fisher says it is unlikely for such a system to take place in the US until the current system breaks down. For now, second-world countries are the most likely proponents for this system, because they will not have signed international copyright protocols, nor do they have the desire to. Copy Left equates itself with Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, the book credited with huge leaps in the environmental movement. They are trying to raise awareness of copyright laws today and where those laws are headed. They claim that before anything can be down to save public domain, it must be accepted and understood.

As a victim of plagiarism myself, it’s difficult not to side with the idea of stricter copyright laws. Creating is an amazing and difficult process, and a creator definitely forms and intense personal relationship with their creation. That said, there is no argument to the idea that all creators are affected and inspired by what they have seen before them. I put everything that I have experienced and seen into my designs, and it would be more than selfish to rob future generations of the same ability—it would be criminal. When I truly think about my designs and the future, I think I’ll be happy as long as I get credit for my work. Anything more than that—alteration, or usage, or reference, should be allowed to the public. To  Jane Ginsberg, who believes that only a creator can understand: as a creator myself, I do understand the bond, but I also accept that nothing I’ve ever created would have been without the work of my predecessors and peers. Who am I to rob others of what I myself would fight for?

“National Cyber Alert System: Cyber Security Tip ST06-005,” describes the newly emerging problem of cyberbullying. New technology is allowing bullies access to crueler and more unusual forms of harassment. While cyberbullying can be much more troublesome than traditional forms of bullying, there are strategies of dealing with this increasing trend in teenage societal behaviors. In simple terms, cyberbullying is becoming much more of a problem than other forms of bullying. This is mainly because of how invasive it can be. Also, due to increasing reliance on internet technologies, it is becoming far more unavoidable. Newer options in computer and computer-related technologies such as email, text messaging, instant messaging, websites, social networks, and digital photography have given bullies ample material with which to torment their peers. These new technologies have further enhanced a troublesome behavior from a classically aggressive demographic.

There are many different facets of bullying. Cyberbullying is no exception to this rule. Cyberbullying can include, but is not limited to: harassment, stalking, spreading vicious rumors, and posting doctored photographs on an online forum. Cyberbullying is especially becoming a problem in schools, an area usually equipped with multiple computer labs and access to the web. While it occurs among any age group, teenagers and young adults are the common victims because insecurity tends to be the worst at that age. Also, teenagers are under a lot of pressure which can be expressed in lashing out against peers.

There are multiple reasons that cyberbullying appeals to bullies. For one, the web provides an anonymous tool with which to harass others. This works well because it takes out the aspect of personal contact, which might make bullying more difficult. It also makes such behavior difficult to track back to the perpetrators. Lastly, it is far more difficult for teachers and trusted adults to catch such behavior as it takes place in forums that adults don’t usually frequent. In addition to the anonymity and stealth allowed through the web, using such technology to bully also offers a far greater range of abuse in terms of witnesses of the abuse. The web also is much quicker than traditional methods.

Just as with traditional bullying, cyberbullying can show much deeper troubles than most assume. Such behaviors can foreshadow future violent tendencies. There are steps one can take to defend against cyberbullying. It is important, for many reasons, to be cautious and deliberate with the personal information one releases on the web. When someone limits strangers’ access to their screen-names, emails and blogs, they go one step further in reducing their exposure to harassment. When one does become a victim, a highly recommended course of action is to ignore the behavior. The harassment is usually motivated by getting a reaction from the victim, and when the bully is refused such a reaction it goes a long way to end the bullying. One can also escape such harassment by changing their emails and screen-names, or having two separate accounts–one for only close family and friends, and one for the public. If the harassment does follow the victim, there may be call for higher reactions, such as legal action.

Other recommendations for cyberbullying victims is to keep records of all the harassment, something made much easier by the technological aspect of the abuse. As with everything, one should consider backing up this information. If ignoring the bullying or changing screen-names doesn’t work, one should report the behavior to someone with the authority to help. Different law enforcement agencies have varying reactions to cyberbullying. Still, local police stations are a good place to start because they can at the very least recommend a course of action. It might also be highly relevant to include a school official, especially if the abuse is taking place from school property or through the school as a medium. Parents should consider teaching their children appropriate online decorum. They should keep up on modern technologies so they can supervise their children and so children feel that their parents are more in-touch with what might be going on. As with other things, children should be given a series of guidelines for using technology.

Personally, I think it’s very wise for parents to keep in touch with today’s technologies. New social networking sites have brought even newer rules of decorum and netiquette in the spotlight, and we as a society should act accordingly. However, there is also something to be said for allowing children to solve their problems by themselves. Teenagers especially can become very defensive if they feel their privacy has been invaded. It is important to keep good communication with younger generations without smothering them. Still, new technologies bring new problems with convenience and society (especially younger children who have never known anything but the world of Myspace and YouTube) is changing as a result.

According to the article, “Google as Big Brother: And then there were Four,” at this stage in the evolution of the web and search engine technology, there are four major search engines operating on the web today. The top two contenders are Yahoo and Google, and there’s no question that Google reigns over Yahoo and the other search engines. However, this article claims that at this point, Yahoo has all the tools it needs to surpass Google as the most-used search engine of the web. However, there’s a high chance that Yahoo will not succeed due to its greed and attempt to turn everything into profit. One reason Yahoo is beginning to threaten Google’s stance is that the quality of the “Google experience” has significantly weakened in the past few years. While the technology of search engines has advanced to the point that any algorithm combination will do the job, the depth of “crawling,” or how much of the web an engine can search to find suitable results, still has ways to go. It is this factor that causes differences among top search engines.

Due to competition with Yahoo, Microsoft began developing their own search engine software, launched in 2005. According to the article, if Microsoft can put aside their obsession with profit margins for just a few years, they could become a serious contender for Google’s place as top search engine. However, they would need to make quality their top priority. Due to the fact that search engine design is becoming common knowledge among engineers, what marks the difference now is who has the means to commit to a high-quality search engine that puts the user before profit margins and political pundits. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Ask Jeeves are the clear successes of search engines. However, that Ask Jeeves remains a relevant search engine depends, again, on their commitment to quality web crawls. At this point, however, Google is the most successful search engine on the web, and as a result webmasters no longer have a choice in putting up their website with Google. If they do not, their sites will not receive traffic, and there is no doubt about that.

The article also argues that the direction the web is headed in is an important one to many people, from political pundits to the average Google user (which is most people). Advertising plays a huge role in the struggle- users are worried about privacy and companies (and many politicians) support major advertising campaigns and keyword triggers due to the revenues such actions will bring in. This advertising is what is commonly seen on the sidebars of a Google search results page that offer services or products related to the search just entered. Google is profiting hugely from such advertising where it once was ad-free. However, while Yahoo has the tools and potential to surpass Google, it does appear for the moment that they are more interested in money from advertising than quality searches. The point is also made that while public-sector sites, such as those with the top-level domain of org, edu, or gov, do not offer income to search engines, yet Google goes to great lengths to crawl them. All the same, there is great need for search engines that specifically search such sites, and to date no one has stepped up, despite the increase in quality it would bring to the web as a whole. Nonetheless, the web is becoming a less and less attractive place to be, while it steadily becomes more and more necessary to business and communication.

Yet another issue regards the massive banks of data Google has and still collects on their users, and who has the right to that data. While discussion of consumer rights in terms of their searches has always been important, since the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, the issue at the forefront is the privacy rights of users in terms of government tapping. Google has not chosen a side, and as a major player in the game, what they decide will be of great importance and significance. These issues magnify the influence Google has on the global and national communities, as well as its specific search engine competition. This also brings up another criticism of Google policy. That PageRank favors “popular” websites as opposed to quality sites for its search results is a major complaint. It has been called “anti-democratic” and proves further that Google has made questionable decisions regarding user preference and rights.

Google’s questionable decisions include the one that led to the inclusion of the cookie that expired in 2038. This cookie attaches to your hard drive when you go to a Google site. The cookie assigns an ID number to the hard drive. At the time, immortal cookies were still illegal and this cookie was a loophole around that law. Google also records the information they collect from the cookie, which includes your IP address, the time and date, search terms, and browser configuration. As time goes on, Google has been customizing results based on your IP address with increasing frequency. The company has also remained silent on why they need access to such data and what they use it for. Google has hired questionable people in the past as engineers, and their toolbar search feature updates without prompting and records all pages the user visits online, and has access to your computer’s hard drive. They have also changed the options so that webmasters must include “nonarchive meta’ in the header of every page they don’t want Google to have access to, so that the effort goes into denying service as opposed to accepting it. Overall, the article argues that Google has too much power and it’s an accident waiting to happen.

Personally, while the article makes many good points, I can’t help but feel it was written in an unprofessional manner and therefore do not know how trustworthy a source it is. It comes dangerously close to sounding like a conspiracy website. That aside, I feel that too much power in the hands of one company undermines the original purpose in mind for the designers of the web. This technology was supposed to be accessible and free to all, as a means of global communication. These issues bring to mind the issues of net neutrality- that is, who holds the rights to preference of information and level of quality for web users. So no, I don’t think it’s right for one company to have so much power, and it worries me that they have access to my information. That said, as a user of the web I must act responsible and cautious in my searches. As in life, one must be accountable for their actions and it’s far too easy to point a finger to “big, bad, corporate America.” Consumers must keep in mind that when they take advantage of free services such as Google, there are always pros and cons.

The articles in discussion focus on the topic of legislation regarding rights to domain names. As was discussed in class, when the internet first began many people made a “quick buck” buying the domain names to large corporations. Later, when the corporation made an effort to begin a website in their name, they found the name was already taken. These corporations were forced to pay up to millions of dollars for these domain names. As the internet has grown and evolved, legislation has been written to address this issue. In “Domain Name Disputes- An Update,” Ivan Hoffman reviews the technical aspects of said legislation. As informative and helpful as the articles are, they were written in 2000 and most assuredly new legislation has been written on these subjects.

With ICANN’s decision to add seven more top level domains in addition to what was previously available (biz, info, name, etc…) came discussion on the effects this decision would have on trademark owners and site developers. In the beginning of 2000, ICANN developed a new dispute policy involving UDRP, or the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. UDRP was adopted by domain name registrars and was an addition to a complex series of laws regarding the internet called the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, or “The Act,” which in itself was already a US trademark law amendment. These sets of laws (UDRP and The Act) are used to resolve cases in which a domain name is acquired through “bad faith.” For these laws to apply to cases, the domain name must be obviously used in reference to a trademark or trademark right, as well as being used in bad faith.

What is and is not considered bad faith usage varies depending on the specific case. However, there are some rules which clearly state what would be considered bad faith usage. In most cases, it is extremely important that the plaintiff have trademark rights over the domain name in question. There are four specific situations which clearly define “bad faith.” If the domain name has been purchased for the sole objective of reselling or making profit by transferring the domain for the use of another who owns that registered trademark (or is a competitor of that trademark owner), it is considered bad faith. It is also considered bad faith if one is registering the domain name so that no one else is able to protect that trademark of the domain name. If a domain name is purchased so to cause a problematic situation for the owner, or if a domain name is purchased in order to draw consumers of the trademark in question (or in any way to take advantage of the fame of the trademark for one’s own needs) are also cases of clearly defined bad faith.

If one considers themselves victim in such a situation, they are welcome to take the case up in court by filing a civil action claim. Usually, an arbitration panel will hear these cases for service fees, and these panels with determine the resulting decision. These actions are only suitable in cases where there is clear infringement of trademark rights as well as presence of bad faith usage of the domain. Until 2000, when such disputes came to pass, the only action taken was to freeze the domain name so that neither party had access. The legislation passed at this time allowed for the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff if found they had right to it. The registrar can also cancel the domain name, or change it, after they receive written notice from the domain name owner, a court-order requiring the changes, or an ICANN panel decision requiring the changes. However, these laws are most effective when the trademark owner has been aggressive in protecting their rights. If they have not protected their rights aggressively, they are at risk of losing those rights.

There are several cases in which celebrities have taken action against people who have purchased their domain names. One such case is when Jerry Falwell, a televangelist. Gary Cohn, an Illinois resident, purchased the domain names Jeryfalwell.com and Jerryfallwell.com, and used those sites to parody jerry Falwell’s opinions and claims. On the one hand, Jerry Falwell has no use of the domain and it is being used against him. On the other hand, one could argue that Gary Cohn is exercising his right to free speech. The court decided that they did not have jurisdiction over the case since Mr. Cohn did not live, work, or target people in the state of Virginia, where the court was located. Another case involved actress Julia Roberts. In this case, the domain name juliaroberts.com was taken but was not used as a fansite and was put up for auction. Due to that action, it was found that the domain name had been purchased in bad faith. It was also proven that because the name “Julia Roberts” brings to most people’s mind the specific Hollywood actress that even though she’d never registered the name as a trademark, she possessed trademark rights due to “secondary meaning.” Something similar occurred with the Jimi Hendrix estate, in that the domain name had been purchased in bad faith and was therefore transferred to the Jimi Hendrix estate.

In my opinion, the laws brought on with The Act and UDRP are very beneficial to the internet community as a whole. Yes, they are technically infringing on right to free speech, but when one considers the bad faith segments of the laws, these claims are unjustified. These laws are set in place to protect people from those who are out to profit. To register a domain name for the sole purpose of reselling it at a marked up price is no different from those who purchase necessary supplies during times of need and sell them marked up to those who truly need them. At it’s basest it is selfish and manipulative and serves only to take advantage of others in order to further one’s own causes. I do think, however, that law cases are rarely cut-and-dry. It is important that are are panels set in place to discuss these cases on a specific level. However, discussions such as these only prove further that the internet is growing vast and as such, real-world legislation is needed in order to police such acts.

Two senators, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota worked together to re-introduce a bill to the Senate. The bill was an identical version of a bill which had died in Senate the previous year and was known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Although this had been an expected course of action, it was surprisingly quick to be re-introduced. When the internet and web first began to take form, the inspiration for the inventions was world-wide communication that was in the people’s hands and was not controlled by a single person or entity. The re-introduction of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act goes a long way to keep that dream ongoing. The idea of one entity controlling which websites should be given preference over others in terms of delivery time, also known as net neutrality, threatens the foundations that the internet and web are built upon. It allows corporations power over already popular websites in that they would charge those websites more money for faster speeds. In turn, younger or lesser-known websites would suffer because they would not be given priority.

Some time ago, the media highlighted this issue. Until certain corporations began to claim that they should be able to charge certain websites more money for faster delivery speeds, the issue of net neutrality was relatively unknown to a majority of the public. These corporations claimed that they should be able to collect the money that was to be earned by charging high-profile sites higher rates. However, as the issue has gained notoriety, and as such celebrities, various consumer communities and groups, and internet companies have vehemently spoken out against these companies’ desires, and they are supported by one of the founding fathers of what we know today as the web, Vinton Cerf. Cerf paved the way for this technology in the mid-1970’s with his creation of the TCP/IP, or transmission control protocol/internet protocol. These groups have begun campaigns in order to encourage to government to place federal regulations in order to forbid such behaviors. While the opposing side of the issue claim that any new protocols would impede progress of this still relatively new technology, supporters claim that without such rules, corporations could threaten the very ideals on which this technology was founded.

If the Internet Freedom Preservation Act were to pass, new rules would prohibit network operators from prioritizing online materials or services. They would also be forbidden from blocking consumer access to a network from an external device, unless it was for security or other high-necessity purposes. However, the act is not unopposed to prioritizing content on the web. As long as preferences are made for all media and material on the web that falls under the category in question, it is allowed. Still, these preferences must be made upon the group as a whole and charging fees for this service will become illegal is the legislation is passed. For example, if a specific internet provider such as Comcast wanted to create a line for all music content so that faster speeds would be available to consumers of those services, they are welcome to. However, The Internet Freedom Preservation Act would demand that all websites offering that content be allowed access to the line, and without a cost. This would prevent Comcast from charging specific music providers, such as Napster, a higher rate in exchange for priority speed to consumers.

The act being introduced by Snowe and Dorgan also addresses other topics different from net neutrality. It stipulates that companies that provide broadband service must also give their customers to option to purchase only broadband service, and not be tied in to take part in any of the other services the company offers. The FCC would be the government agency in charge of handling any problems or notifications that arise from consumers as a result of the legislation. Shortly before the issue became mainstream, the FCC accepted AT&T’s net neutrality proposal. This proposal was offered after AT&T merged with BellSouth. AT&T claims it opposes any laws that might be put in place to regulate net neutrality. Two conservative voters on the FCC have claimed that they do not plan on addressing the issue again, as opposed to their more liberal peers. As a result of the re-introduction of the legislation, AT&T and Verizon representatives quickly spoke out against the law.

The president of the communications lobbyist group, U.S. Telecom Association, claims that this legislation would ban companies from allowing specific interest sites, such as those centered around home health, financial monitoring, and entertainment and communication priority in delivery speeds. Senators Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all supported the re-introduced legislation. A Consumers Union senior policy analyst spoke out and claimed that the legislation would, in fact, allow all consumers regardless of class or financial status the ability to have affordable high-speed access to the Internet. That same language failed in passing the legislation the first time it was introduced. Chances are better this time around, however there is no definite victory or defeat yet predictable. House of Representatives Edward Markey has plans to re-introduce his own Net-neutrality-specific legislation, but like the bill facing the Senate, it was previously defeated and no clear result is yet in sight.

My opinion:

Personally, I think it’s important to protect the ideals on which the pioneers of the internet and web built their inventions. The best systems are systems in which not one (or even a few) entities control. The legislation ensures that the web continues to be relatively free to consumers. Internet-providing companies are wrong in saying that internet content devoted to health care or financial monitoring wouldn’t be given priority were the bill to pass. It would only ensure that all financial monitoring and health care-related sites are offered to consumers, and without a fee. The political aspects of who is supporting and who is opposing the acts is irrelevant. What is important to keep in mind is what is the right way to regulate this new technology. We must also consider how we can keep legislation relevant to a constantly growing and changing technology.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!