Internet & Society: The
Technologies and Politics of
Professor
Home
| Course Logistics | Syllabus | WebBoard | Questions & Feedback |
Additional Resources
class 1|class 2|class 3|class 4|class 5|class 6|class 7|class 8|class 9|class 10|class 11|class 12|class 13|class 14
|
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 |
|
Class 2: Antitrust Issues on the ‘Net: the battle over defending
private turf and making it so ubiquitous such that it becomes public – Friday 1/3
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.
READINGS:
Excerpt
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 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf.
Jonathan Zittrain, The
Un-Microsoft Un-Remedy: Law Can Prevent the Problem That It Can't Patch Later, 31
Java
Community Process (excerpt from Executive Summary) SUPPLEMENTAL
|
|
II. THE LEADING STRUGGLE
FOR CONTROL: THE ARC OF DIGITAL PROPERTY |
|
Class 3: The Basics of Copyright in Cyberspace: “too much
music” - Monday, 1/6
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.
READINGS:
Background: John
Perry Barlow, The
Economy of Ideas
Precedent: Sony
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 http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20020913_mgm_summary_judgement.pdf
Defendants’ Motions (2) available
online at http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20020909_support_summary_vicarious.pdf and http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20020909_support_summary_judgement.pdf
TV
file-sharing: Salon, “Replay it
Again, Sam”
SUPPLEMENTAL
Fred von Lohmann, Peer-to-Peer
Copyright and File Sharing After Napster MGM v. Grokster
documents (skim complaint, briefs, responses) Wired
News, Court
Hints at Trouble for Kazaa, CNET,
Judge
Okays Suit Against Kazaa Parent, CNET,
Kazaa, Morpheus Legal Case
Collapsing, CNET,
Ruling Bolsters
File-Traders’ Prospects, CNET,
Judge Puts File
Swappers in Hot Seat, CNET,
Suit Hits Popular
Post-Napster Network, Oct. 2001 Salon,
Sour
Notes, Salon,
File
Sharing: Guilty as Charged?
|
|
Class 4: Technological Counterparts to Copyright (and the Laws that
Bolster Them) – Tuesday, 1/7
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.
READINGS:
“Technological
Counterparts to Copyright” chapter of forthcoming Internet Law
casebook
SUPPLEMENTAL
Amy Harmon, Studios
Using Digital Armor (NYTimes Online,
Doug Mellgren, Norwegian
Teen Acquitted of DVD Piracy (Salon.com, |
|
Class 5: Legal and Cultural Complements to Copyright – Wednesday, 1/8
READINGS:
“Alternatives
to IP” module excerpts
Excerpts
from Eldred
v. Ashcroft, Petitioner’s Brief
Excerpts
from “Digital Choice
and Freedom Act of 2002”
Jonathan Zittrain, Calling Off
the Copyright War, The
Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs,
Draft Chapter 5 (The Digital
Moment: The End of Copyright?).
|
|
Classes 6 The Role of Intermediaries – Friday, 1/10 Please Note Date
Change
READINGS:
17 U.S.C.A. § 512
(Section 202 of Digital Millennium Copyright Act)
Excerpts
from
Aaron Koller letter
RIAA
v. Verizon Motions: RIAA’s
Motion to
Enforce Subpoena and Verizon’s Motion in
Opposition
CNet article “Anti-piracy group bills for
downloads”
News articles
on Berman P2P “vigilantism” bill:
SUPPLEMENTAL
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)
|
|
Class 7 Economic Substitutes for Copyright
Regimes – Thursday, 1/9 Please Note Date Change
READINGS:
Excerpts
from Eric Raymond, The
Cathedral and the Bazaar
Excerpts
from the Microsoft Halloween Memos summary: http://www.scripting.com/misc/halloweenMemo.html original: http://opensource.org/halloween/
Excerpts
from Yochai Benkler,
Coase’s Penguin Read
Introduction Skim
Part I: examples of peer production Read
Part II, pp. 31-51: Peer Production in a Networked Environment Read
conclusion
Eben Moglen, The dotCommunist Manifesto
SUPPLEMENTAL
History
of Open Source Initiative http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.html
Free Software Foundation Overview: scan links at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html, including:
Richard
Stallman, Why Software Should be Free http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html |
|
III. SMALLER
BATTLEGROUNDS: COPYRIGHT’S LITTLE SIBLINGS |
|
Class 8: Privacy I: Privacy as Against
Corporate Entities - Monday, 1/13
PowerPoint slides
created in class
READINGS:
Chapter 11
of
Jonathan Zittrain, Welcome to Second Class
In re Doubleclick, Inc. Privacy Litigation - read the first 7 pages then skim
Excerpts
from
Assigned
W3C -
read the Background, P3P
and Privacy on the Web FAQ, http://www.w3.org/P3P/P3FAQ.html Skim FTC, "Online Profiling: A Report to
Congress," http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/06/onlineprofilingreportjune2000.pdf 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).
|
|
Class 9: Privacy II: Governmental
Surveillance and Infrastructure Protection: A Legislation Exercise – Tuesday, 1/14
READINGS:
Current Law: 18 U.S.C §
2702-03
Patriot
Act: ·
Select
Provisions of Patriot Act ·
EFF’s Critique
of Patriot Act Select Provisions
of Homeland Security Act
(altering § 2702)
Reactions
to Homeland Security Act: ·
GovTech.net, Homeland
Security Bill Has Internet Provisions ·
CNet News.com, House
considers jailing hackers for life ·
EFF Call to
Action Michael Adler, Cyberspace,
General Searches, and Digital Contraband: The Fourth Amendment and the
Net-Wide Search, 105
Yale L.J. 1093 (1996) ·
Skim
“Law” section, then read
Orin
Kerr, Post to Cyberprof list: “Net-wide
Search”
Critical
Infrastructure Commission Report: ·
Read chapters 1-3 ·
Note: this is a large PDF file and it may take a
few moments to load. NY Times, Agency Weighed,
but Discarded, Plan Reconfiguring the Internet, FBI
Congressional Statement on Carnivore
CNET, SafeWeb sidelines anonymity for security
SUPPLEMENTAL
NY
Times, Many
Tools of Big Brother Are Up and Running, |
|
Class 10: Harmful Speech - Wednesday, 1/15
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
READINGS:
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
Excerpt from
|
|
IV. FROM TREES TO |
|
Class 11: Jurisdiction – Thursday, 1/16
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 |
|
Class 12: Global Development Issues: ICT and Developing
Countries – Friday, 1/17 Please note: This
class will meet on Friday January 17 from
READINGS:
I. Technology
Architecture: Andrew
McLaughlin and Ethan
Zuckerman
Andrew McLaughlin, Internet Exchange Points (July 2002) Zachary, Letter from Ghana (August 2002) Geoff Huston, Interconnection and Peering (Nov. 2000) Balancing Act 139,
Kenya:
Jambonet Blocks the Internet, But the Private Sector Fights Back (January
2003)
II. Entrepreneurship: Jim Moore and Andrew McLaughlin
Letter to
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:
IV. Policy: Geoffrey Kirkman and Diane Cabell
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, Chapter 5 (2002). Also available as an html file here.
SUPPLEMENTAL
From
Geoffrey Kirkman:
Chapter
2 from the GITR, located at http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch02.pdf
From
Jim Moore: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jo.html
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:
On
Education:
There
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, What
Works: Serving the Poor Profitably
Additional
resources are at: |
|
V. FROM FOREST TO LUMBER
– A CANTONIZED INTERNET |
|
Class 13: Points
of Control
- Tuesday, 1/21 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.
READINGS:
Jonathan Zittrain, Internet
Points of Control (DRAFT)
Marsh
v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946).
Bill McSwain, Harvard Law Review, The Long Arm of
Cyber-reach. Excerpted (required) version available at http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/is02/readings/mcswain.doc.
Molly
Shaffer Van Houweling, Sidewalks,
Sewers and State Action in Cyberspace (DRAFT) SUPPLEMENTAL
READINGS:
|
|
Class 14: Tying
it all Together: Who Controls? – Wednesday, 1/22 RE-READ: John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of Independence
for Cyberspace. |