Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
cyberlaw:networks [2019/01/18 12:21]
131.181.11.116
cyberlaw:networks [2019/02/13 11:37] (current)
witta
Line 1: Line 1:
  
-# The Dawn of the Internet ​Law and Regulation: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace+# The Dawn of the Internet: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
  
 In 1996, John Perry Barlow released a famous provocation about the limits of state power in regulating the internet. The Declaration,​ which we encourage you to **[read](https://​projects.eff.org/​~barlow/​Declaration-Final.html)** or **[watch](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=3WS9DhSIWR0)** in full, begins: In 1996, John Perry Barlow released a famous provocation about the limits of state power in regulating the internet. The Declaration,​ which we encourage you to **[read](https://​projects.eff.org/​~barlow/​Declaration-Final.html)** or **[watch](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=3WS9DhSIWR0)** in full, begins:
Line 9: Line 9:
 Barlow'​s Declaration has played an pivotal role in shaping how we think about online regulation. In this extract, he makes two main claims about online regulation, which we will examine in more detail below. The first is that the internet is inherently unregulable by territorial governments. The second is that state regulation of the internet is illegitimate,​ or governments should defer to the self-rule of cyberspace. Barlow'​s Declaration has played an pivotal role in shaping how we think about online regulation. In this extract, he makes two main claims about online regulation, which we will examine in more detail below. The first is that the internet is inherently unregulable by territorial governments. The second is that state regulation of the internet is illegitimate,​ or governments should defer to the self-rule of cyberspace.
  
-=====Barlow'​s First Claim: The Internet is Unregulable=====+##Barlow'​s First Claim: The Internet is Unregulable
  
 **Overview by Nic Suzor:​[Governing the Internet](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=ybNGDquKVTc)** **Overview by Nic Suzor:​[Governing the Internet](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=ybNGDquKVTc)**
Line 26: Line 26:
 (Image (c) Arbor Networks via [Wired](http://​www.wired.com/​2011/​01/​egypt-isp-shutdown/​)) (Image (c) Arbor Networks via [Wired](http://​www.wired.com/​2011/​01/​egypt-isp-shutdown/​))
  
-##A Case Study: Newzbin+###A Case Study: Newzbin
  
 **[Overview of Newzbin by Nic Suzor](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=z8Ph8eO26q4)** **[Overview of Newzbin by Nic Suzor](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=z8Ph8eO26q4)**
Line 38: Line 38:
 The Newzbin case study illustrates how regulating online content and behaviour can be an extremely difficult task. By cutting off the flow of money, the rightsholder groups were eventually successful in shutting down Newzbin. However, this took a lot of time and effort, and there is a good chance that many users of the service simply moved to newer, better hidden infringement networks. Overall, the copyright industry has had some succes in tackling large copyright infringers, but this is an ongoing arms race, as infringers continue to find ways around the regulations. ​ The Newzbin case study illustrates how regulating online content and behaviour can be an extremely difficult task. By cutting off the flow of money, the rightsholder groups were eventually successful in shutting down Newzbin. However, this took a lot of time and effort, and there is a good chance that many users of the service simply moved to newer, better hidden infringement networks. Overall, the copyright industry has had some succes in tackling large copyright infringers, but this is an ongoing arms race, as infringers continue to find ways around the regulations. ​
  
- +##Barlow'​s Second Claim: State Regulation of the Internet is Illegitimate
-=====Barlow'​s Second Claim: State Regulation of the Internet is Illegitimate=====+
  
 **Overview by Nic Suzor[The Legitimacy of Online Regulation](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=A0m_GZC4x2w)** **Overview by Nic Suzor[The Legitimacy of Online Regulation](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=A0m_GZC4x2w)**
Line 47: Line 46:
 >"​We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest,​ and the commonweal, our governance will emerge."​ >"​We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest,​ and the commonweal, our governance will emerge."​
  
-Barlow'​s argument is that the rules and social norms created by online communities to govern themselves will be better than anything imposed by territorial states. This was expressed by Johnson and Post in a famous 1995 article as a general principle that there is “no geographically localized set of constituents with a strong and more legitimate claim to regulate [online activities]” than the members of the communities themselves.((David Johnson and David Post, ‘Law and Borders--The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’ (1995) 48 Stanford Law Review 1367, 1375)) In addition arguing that online communities should be able to govern for themselves, Barlow and Johnson and Post also contend ​that if territorial governments try to impose their own laws on a borderless internet, users will never be able to work out what set of rules they are subject to. Post arguesin a separate article,((Post, '​Governing Cyberspace: Law' (2008) http://​www.academia.edu/​2720975/​Governing_Cyberspace_Law)), that: +Barlow'​s argument is that the rules and social norms created by online communities to govern themselves will be better than anything imposed by territorial states. This was expressed by Johnson and Post in a famous 1995 article as a general principle that there is “no geographically localized set of constituents with a strong and more legitimate claim to regulate [online activities]” than the members of the communities themselves.((David Johnson and David Post, ‘Law and Borders--The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’ (1995) 48 Stanford Law Review 1367, 1375)) In addition ​to arguing that online communities should be able to govern for themselves, Barlow and Johnson and Post asserted ​that if territorial governments try to impose their own laws on a borderless internet, users will never be able to work out what set of rules they are subject to. The consequence of governments attempting to prevent online communities from regulating themselvesaccording to Postwould be:((Post, '​Governing Cyberspace: Law' (2008) http://​www.academia.edu/​2720975/​Governing_Cyberspace_Law)) ​
  
->If online communities are not left to regulate themselves, ​we'll be stuck with the chaotic nonsense of Jurisdictional Whack-a-Mole"​.+> “... the chaotic nonsense of Jurisdictional Whack-a-Mole"​.
  
 As we will see in the [[jurisdiction|Jurisdiction chapter]], the legitimacy of any one nation claiming jurisdiction over transnational communications is still a vexed issue. As the Australian High Court noted in the _Dow Jones v Gutnick_((_Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick_ [2002] HCA 56 http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2002/​56.html?​stem=0&​synonyms=0&​query=title(dow%20jones%20and%20gutnick%20)&​nocontext=1)) case, nation states purport to have a responsibility to protect their citizens'​ interests online, and certainly a desire to regulate online content and behaviour. ​ As we will see in the [[jurisdiction|Jurisdiction chapter]], the legitimacy of any one nation claiming jurisdiction over transnational communications is still a vexed issue. As the Australian High Court noted in the _Dow Jones v Gutnick_((_Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick_ [2002] HCA 56 http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2002/​56.html?​stem=0&​synonyms=0&​query=title(dow%20jones%20and%20gutnick%20)&​nocontext=1)) case, nation states purport to have a responsibility to protect their citizens'​ interests online, and certainly a desire to regulate online content and behaviour. ​
- 
- 
  
  • cyberlaw/networks.1547774479.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 11 months ago
  • by 131.181.11.116