An Introduction To Cyberspace Law
When we talk about internet and cyberspace, we have some doubt about an obvious rule of law to govern the activities of the involving people in the virtual world such as e-commerce or online contract. Even though the Cyberspace law has been gradually developed, it is unclear in several aspects until now.
Developement of Internet and Cyberspace Law
In the U.S., the first internet technology was developed in the military function. Most people believe that an online activies occured due to the commercial activities, but it is not true. An e-commerce has gradually developed recently. The development of the computer and cyberspace area can be divided into four primary periods of development:
(1) 1960 the stand alone device; and 1965 wide spread of internet connection; (2) Government Sponsorship during 1966-1967 MIT researcher joins Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for ARPANET; and 1969 ARPANET;
(3) Technical Standardization;
(4) Commercial Expansion.
The activities on cyberspace were rarely governed by any law; some scholars, such as Judge Easterbrook, thought that the lawyer and the court should not involve the conflicts deriving from those activities; the law school and judge should focus only on the substantive law that were clear enough for them to control and judge. As a result, there should be special organization set up to solve the conflicts between the involving persons.
Subsequently, Professor Lessig disagreed with such proposal. Internet and cyberspace can be governed by several components. The four parts that relate to the cyberspace area are: (1) Law; (2) Market; (3) Norms; (4) Code or the architectural structure of cyberspace characteristics.
The Lessigs Idea he focuses on the code or the architecture of rule of law can be used to govern the cyberspace activities. Unlike Judge Easterbrook, who strongly disagreed to teach the cyberspace law in law school, Leggig strongly affirm that the cyberspace law can be regulated especially by the code or architecture of the internet characteristics.
Main Issue about the Cyberspace Law
Richard Diebenkorn (1922-1973) - Do we need to treat an activity in cyberspace differently form that in the real world?
This situation is the commodity auction of the art piece, which becomes the fake art. The problem is why we should care about the regulation to govern the way to bid. Some reason might be explained following here. In the real world of auction, we can consider if the bidders are the real persons who participate in the bid but in cyberspace we cannot distinguish one bidder from other. The fraud might happen if we dont protect the online market. One argument is that the e-bay must protect its reputation by implementing any measure to prevent fraud; then, there should not be any law to govern this area of activity. In contrast, we need some regulation to prevent the fraudulent activities on internet.
Why should we think about the risk assumption on the real world is different from the only activity? People who assume the risk on the online activity should be treated differently from the people an illegal activity in the real world? Several people might conspire to bid the price higher than the real one to persuade other to join the bidding and offer the higher price. One argument is that unless those conspirators, the bidder, who was deceived, will not offer the higher price if he or she knows that it is not the real auction. Without any regulation, the market has been distorted easily and there will be the economic harms from illegal activity. [Pleae visit: //www.cybercrime.gov/ebayplea.him to explore more details.]
The question is whether the internet world should be treated differently from the real world such as speech on internet is not doubtful in the present period. Of course, we need some rule to deal with this legal problem. We accept that cyberspace world might be regulated by several ways, such as, law, norms, or market as mentioned above. The market can influence to the buyer and purchaser by several means, for instance, standard setting or reputation evaluation of some organization: the BBB, GH, Moodys organization practice, which might be the market rating of the trustfulness.
How do the norms regulate the cyberspace world? For the 1L student, the Whale case hints us how norms guide the people to comply with. Without any law, the norms are dominant for the peoples life in particular society; the court always approves such norms as the law to govern the peoples life as well regardless the legislative enactment, especially, in the private law area.
The first crucial issue we have to figure is the information or any activity in cyberspace can be deemed property right. We will explore about the property on cyberspace and the property should be treated differently or the same. Professor Patricia, et al guide us how the court treats the issue of online activities.
The example case: eBay Inc. v. Bidders Edge, Inc.
This case generates a lot of legal academic articles. In 1995, an eBay was the well-known site at that time; Bidders Edge or BE was the company that gathered the information about the auctions from all over websites including eBay website. BE acted as the medium person to the general people who did not want to secure any auction by themselves. BE applied the spider or automatic device to gather the information from eBay as an aggregation of all products offered by several sellers.
eBays theory an English Common Law, called TRESPASS TO CHATTELS. Because eBays website will not get any protection of copyright law, eBay asserts that it must maintain website and other information to keep the computer run for its own customers. eBay asserts that its property rights has been infringed by BE because eBays website cannot work efficiently due to the obstruction of BEs system over the eBays system.
The question is this act is sufficient to deem as the trespass to the property of eBay committed by BE. The court in this case focuses on the possibility of the future harm if letting BE acts in this fashion, that is, the eBay computer system might crash because of the traffic congestion, which might be committed not only by BE, but also by other companies.
The court rules only using others property in certain way, it is enough to get relief junction; in this case, BE crawls an eBay website; it is enough to say that the property right of eBay has been violated.
Many scholars think the decision is incorrect. The concerns enunciating by the court has never happened; it is virtually impossible to happen because of the practice in the same way as that of BE. [See page 32-34.] The theory of Trespass to Chattels is different from the court established in this case.
Under the Trespass to Chattels under Rest. (2d) Torts § 217. The elements are:
Ways of committing trespass to chattel.
A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally
(a) dispossessing another of the chattels, or
(b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.
Under §218, the trespasser will be liable to the owner only in the situation of (a), (b), (c), or (d), that is, there must be some impairment to the owner.
The question is where the harm impacted to an eBay. eBay has no right on the information posted on eBay. In this case, the information which has been gathered by eBay is not the real or physical property in the same way as the house, or dog. In addition, there is no evidence about the impairment of eBay computer system.
Many scholars criticized this decision; they disagreed with the court because:
(1) eBay theory was not satisfied the theory of trespass to chattels; there must be some physical touching or invading; this case there is no interference in the scope of this theory in eBay theory;
(2) eBay attempt was failed; there was no property right in the case that eBay gathered information and posted such a bunch of information on its website. The attempt to assert the property right in this case cannot be satisfied by the intellectual property law concept.
However, some theory might be good enough for eBay to assert, that is, misappropriation. In INS v. AP News, the court decided that INS had no authority to copy any news gathered by an AP Agency and sold it to the public. Even though such news was distributed to public and there was no intellectual property right to be protected, INS could not misappropriate and exploited from others effort. INS must be liable for AP News.
Another example is whether the virtual property in game online can be deemed the property right. In another word, the issue is whether the act in the cyberspace like in a game can be hold liable as a crime. Article A Rape in Cyberspace indicated the facts that Mr. Bungle committed a rape crime in the LambdaMoo game. He had been stalking others and raping them in the living room of such game. Such conducts caused an emotional distress to the game players. But, can we considered him as criminal?
Please note that the criminal act under the traditional criminal law must be composted of physical act, called Actus Reus, and mental element, called Men Reas. There is no real physical act in this particular situation.
The game players volunteer to participate in an online game; no emotional distress can be proved; no real rape crime happened. How can we deal with this act? Maybe, the legislator has to deal with this problem by enacting the law to govern this type of conduct.
One more example is the conduct that looks like a crime but it happens in an online game. The questions are whether such data, which indicates that you have a weapon that can be sold, can be deemed property right, and if it is stolen, such conduct can be deemed a criminal act in the real world. How can we deal with this problem? We don't want the people who believe they have the property rights get upset and apply the self-help when they consider there is no law to help them.
The Court Jurisdiction
Today, we accept that the activities on cyberspace should be governed by the law. Another problem is that there is no clear rule in several aspects. The court jurisdiction is another problem that the law has to deal with.
Typically, when we talk about the jurisdiction, we have to determine if the court can exercise its authority on the case dispute. We have to know that some court has general power to try the case; others have the specific power on some types of dispute. Firstly, we have to consider what the subject matter of the case dispute in particular case. Another type of jurisdiction is the personal jurisdiction.
We turn to the problem of "Personal Jurisdiction," which might be more complex than the jurisdiction in subject matter.
This problem will deal with the problem of court authority. Under the federalism system, each court has its own jurisdiction, normally, only in its territory and only on. Subsequently, the state court extends its jurisdiction on some activities to protect its citizen. Forum states long-arm statute or federal statute is the law that entitles the authority to the state court over the dispute. However, even though the law might extend the broad protection to its citizen, it must conform to the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution.
Long-Arm Analysis:
Defendants action must come within the scope of the forum states long-arm statute; for example, the defendant must render some transactions within the forum state; or, the defendant can reasonably expect that his or her activity might have some consequence in the state forum.
Due Process Analysis:
The state court might assert general jurisdiction when nonresident defendant has continuous and systematic general business contacts with forum state; or the court might assert specific jurisdiction when nonresident defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of suit in the forum conform to traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice.
The Supreme Court ruled about the personal jurisdiction based on the due process analysis as following. The court must consider if the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state forum, or, if the defendant could reasonably anticipate suit in the state forum, or, if there are effects of the harm experienced in the forum state and capable of being anticipated there.
Even if the court considers that the due process test mentioned about is satisfied, the court might have not to exercise its authority if exercising such authority is unreasonable. The reasonable factors might be considered from several factors as following:
(1) Forums interest in dispute;
(2) Plaintiffs interest in obtaining effective relief;
(3) Courts interest in obtaining efficient resolution;
(4) Defendants burden in defending action in forum;
(5) Plaintiffs burden in maintaining action elsewhere; and
(6) Relation of claim to defendants in-state activities.
The personal jurisdiction becomes more complex when we subject to the problem of cyberspace activity. The jurisprudential challenge in the cyberspace might happen in some situation. Basically, the court is entitled the authority to solve the conflict because the sponsor of a Web site and the server upon which the information is stored is located in state forum. Some challenge might be whether the court can also exercise its authority on the Web site stored or located in other states because such Web site is accessible to computer user throughout the world.
Presently, there is not precedent decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The scholars propose three jurisdictional regimes:
(1) Subject defendant to jurisdiction in all jurisdictions where its Web site can be accessed; or
(2) Subject defendant to jurisdiction only in the location where it is physically located; or
(3) Subject defendant to jurisdiction based on a sliding scale test of activity or passivity in the state forum.
The first theory might be too broad. It is accepted in some court. For example, the District Court for the District of Connecticut has decided, in Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc. case [937 F.Supp. 161 (1996)] that the state court of Connecticut has the jurisdiction over the company located in Massachusetts even though the defendant company has no physical location in Connecticut.
The court reasoned that defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege conducting activities within Connecticut by using Internet and its toll-free number to conduct business within the state of Connecticut; those systems are designed to communicate with people and their businesses in every state, and thus invoke the benefit and protection of the lawsuit in the state of Connecticut. Moreover, the defendant can also be reasonably able to anticipate that its activity to purposefully availe itself of doing business will be subjected to the lawsuit in Connecticut.
Therefore, the court concludes that its finding of minimum contacts in this case comports with notions of fair play and substantial justice.
In sum, the minimum contact conducted by defendant, the anticipation of lawsuit, and the unreasonableness of fair play and substantive fairness as well as some others factors mentioned above are the main ones to consider whether the court will exercise it authority over the case dispute deriving from cyberspace law issues.
ขอสรุปสักนิด เรื่อง Cyberspace law นี่ แต่เดิม นักกฎหมายโดยเฉพาะผู้พิพากษาเห็นว่า มันยากเกินไปจะตั้งกฎเกณฑ์ ขึ้นมาควบคุม ควรปล่อยให้ธรรมชาติ หรือมีองค์กร เข้ามาจัดการปัญหาในลักษณะองค์กรเพื่อระงับข้อพิพาทโดยไม่ใช้องค์กรศาลแทน
ต่อมานักกฎหมายเห็นว่า ควรจะต้องควบคุม อย่างน้อย ก็คือ การออกแบบเวปไซต์ และกำหนดกฎเกณฑ์ต่าง ๆ เพื่อควบคุม และป้องกัน การฉ้อโกงไว้ล่วงหน้าได้
แต่ปัญหาที่สำคัญ คือ จะกำหนดเกณฑ์ในการพิพากษาคดีประเภทนี้อย่างไร จะสามารถนำกฎหมายเดิมไปใช้ประยุกต์ได้หรือไม่ โดยเฉพาะประเด็นปัญหาในเรื่อง สิทธิในทรัพย์สิน ว่าควรจะขยายไปครอบคลุมกิจกรรมต่าง ๆ บนอินเตอร์เน็ต ด้วยหรือไม่
คดีตัวอย่างที่ กล่าวถึงข้างต้น คือ อีเบย์ ซึ่งเป็นเวปไซต์ในการประมูลสินค้า แบบเป็นสื่อกลาง ต่อมาจำเลยได้สร้างโปรแกรม ในการค้นหาสินค้า เปรียบเทียบราคา ให้กับลูกค้า ซึ่งขัดกับนโยบายหรือกฎเกณฑ์ของบริษัท อีเบย์
ศาลได้ตัดสินว่า สิทธิในทรัพย์สินของอีเบย์ ถูกกระทบจากการกระทำของจำเลยแล้ว จำเลยจึงต้องรับผิดชดใช้ค่าเสียหายต่ออีเบย์
ปัญหาที่เกิดขึ้น อีกปัญหาหนึ่ง คือ แล้วศาลไหน จะเป็นผู้มีอำนาจตัดสินคดี เพราะอินเตอร์เน็ต สามารถถ่ายทอดข้อมูลในชั่วพริบตา ในทุกหนทุกแห่งทั่วโลก
ศาลได้วางหลักการไว้ในเรื่อง Minimum contact คือ ถ้าจำเลย ได้กระทำการใด ๆ ที่แสดงให้เห็นว่า มีส่วนในการเผยแพร่ข้อมูล เพื่อประกอบธุรกิจในเขตอำนาจศาลใด และจำเลยคาดหมายได้ว่า ถ้าเกิดความเสียหายแล้ว ตนเองจะต้องถูกฟ้องคดี และการรับคดีไว้พิจารณาของศาล ไม่เกิดภาระอันเกินสมควรแก่จำเลยมากเกินไปแล้ว ศาลจะรับคดีนั้นไว้พิจารณาต่อไป
ผมกำลังเฝ้าดูว่า เมื่อไหร่ เมืองไทยของเราจะออกกฎหมายประเภทนี้เสียที เพราะมันทวีความสำคัญและมีความจำเป็นขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ หวังว่าจะมีผู้มีอำนาจหน้าที่ ให้ความสำคัญและดำเนินการเสียทีนะครับ ใครรู้จักผู้มีบุญหนักศักดิ์ใหญ่ ก็ช่วยกันกระตุ้นด้วยครับ เอาละครับ พอแค่นี้นะครับ
| Create Date : 27 มกราคม 2549 |
| Last Update : 18 มิถุนายน 2553 8:36:08 น. |
|
15 comments
|
| Counter : 809 Pageviews. |
 |
|
|
ฝากข้อความหลังไมค์
Rss Feed
ผู้ติดตามบล็อก : 82 คน [
ยังไม่ได้อ่านทั้งหมดแต่ไว้ส่งงานเสร็จจะลองศึกษาดูครับ
อืม ๆ ผมว่าที่จริงเมืองไทยมีสิทธิ์เป็นเป้าหมายใหม่ ๆ ที่ล่อใจฝรั่งให้มาลงทุนในเรื่องธุรกิจไอทีเหมือนกันนะครับ เป็นประเทศกำลังพัฒนา ค่าแรงก็ต่ำ ค่าครองชีพก็ต่ำ แถมคนไทยให้เครดิตฝรั่งสูงอยู่แล้วด้วย ถ้าไม่ติดเรื่องกฎหมายไอทีกับเรื่องละเมิดลิขสิทธิ์ล่ะก็นะ (ติดเรื่องใหญ่ซะด้วยสิ)
้
ตราบใดที่วิสัยทัศน์ของผู้เกี่ยวข้องยังคับแคบ และเห็นเรื่องของคดีดิจิตอลเป็นเรื่องไร้สาระที่ไกลตัว ก็คงพัฒนาด้านนี้ได้ยากหน่อยล่ะครับ