INTERNET LAW AND POLICY
Communications 492 (Spring, 2009)
Instructor: Professor Rob Frieden
102 Carnegie Building
863-7996; E-mail: rmf5@psu.edu
Class Hours: Tuesday/Thursday 2:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. (367 Willard)
Office Hours: Monday/Wednesday 9:00-11:00 a.m. and by appointment
The Internet triggers countless legal, regulatory, technological, business, philosophical, and geopolitical issues. While many people would like to think the Internet operates free of the constraints that exist in the physical world, this course frequently will dispute this view. Should you pursue a career where the Internet factors in significantly, this course will provide you with much needed perspective and the skills needed for success.
I have designed this course to present, investigate and debate ongoing or anticipated conflicts in Internet-mediated information, communications and entertainment (“ICE”). The resulting confrontations may stem from technological innovation, real or perceived changes in the marketplace, or the imperatives of prevailing jurisprudential, regulatory, political or economic philosophies. Conflict resolution often results from persuasive advocacy, coalition building and accommodation of outsiders with new perspectives or entrepreneurial visions, rather than applying legal precedent or treaty interpretations.
The course also will examine the growing body of cases that have addressed aspects of Internet-mediation in each of the following general categories:
• Speech--commercial and political speech, obscenity, forums analysis;
• Legal and Regulatory Consequences of Convergence--the juxtaposition of telecommunications and information processing technologies, markets and regulatory regimes;
• Governance and regulation of the Internet--whether the need exists for government intervention on such matters as numbering and domain registration;
• Intellectual Property Rights--the impact of Internet-mediation on copyright, trademark and patent laws;
• Electronic Commerce--the law and policy of Internet-mediated transactions; privacy and encryption concerns; and
• Equity, Competition Policy and Consumer Protection Concerns--what, if anything, should governments do to remedy market failures.
Course
Format and Performance Assessment
The course will examine a series of Internet law and policy issues. You should prepare for each class by reading the assigned materials and generally taking responsibility for additional research to achieve a complete understanding of the positions taken by all major constituencies, or coalitions involved. I place a significant premium on your attendance and coherent and considered participation in class. You can access all of the assigned readings and most recommended readings via the Internet.
I want this course to engage and challenge you. I assume you have decided to take the course because of a keen interest in the subject matter and a willingness to work hard in mastering complex and interdisciplinary materials. By enrolling in this course, you agree to participate actively and to comply with all University rules and regulations.
GRADING
The final course grade will factor in the following:
*
Four tests of equal weight
In the spirit of fairness, I will drop the lowest grade provided you take all four tests.
Disabilities
Please see me at your earliest convenience if you have a documented disability that requires any special consideration or arrangement.
The rules and policies
regarding academic integrity should be reviewed by every student, and can
be found online at: <http://www.psu.edu/ufs/policies/47-00.html#49-20>,
and in the
The study of, and careers in Internet-mediated Information, Communications and Entertainment (“ICE”) require an interdisciplinary perspective. While you risk being “a mile wide and an inch deep” in several subject areas, you will gain perspective, a broader range of skills and greater employment marketability. Of course, to develop such range you have to nurture intellectual curiosity, self-direction, mental nimbleness and a willingness to go beyond the apparent minimum required.
Our first active learning exercise involves a self-assessment designed to help you determine whether you have the interest and willingness to thrive in this class and in messy and demanding interdisciplinary careers. While some of the questions below clearly favor students with access to discretionary funds, most simply examine whether you have retained knowledge and insights from prior telecommunications classes and whether your extracurricular activities corroborate your apparent interest in ICE and the law.
Law—the First Amendment, strict scrutiny/intermediate scrutiny; common carrier; 14th Amendment/interstate commerce; jurisdiction.
Sample Question: When accessing a World Wide Web site, for purposes of determining jurisdiction do you establish a presence where the site is physically located, or does the site operator establish a presence in your state of residence?
Economics—economies of scale/scope; vertical and horizontal integration; natural monopoly, market failure, destructive competition; externalities, especially positive networking, cross-subsidization; All You Can Eat pricing.
Sample
Question: What economic principles support marketplace and technological
convergence, i.e., the formation of global megafirms such as Disney, News
Corp., AOL-Time Warner; Sony, NBC-Universal, etc.?
Sample Question: What accounts for the diversification strategies of Google?
Engineering/Technology Management—TCP/IP; packet switching; distance insensitivity.
Sample Question: When, if ever, should governments intervene in the regulation of the Internet, radio spectrum, telecommunications standards, and availability of ICE equipments and services?
Unit One--Introduction
This section of the course will introduce the technology and business of the Internet and more specifically the convergence of Information, Communications and Entertainment (“ICE”). Many of the industries making up the Internet have different cultures and legal frameworks. We must appreciate that the Internet constitutes a “network of networks” and the convergent ICE marketplace requires skills in “Nethead,” “Bellhead” and “Cablehead” camps.
Assignment (to be sent to your email address):
The Economist, Survey: Telecoms—A World of Connections (April
26, 2007); available at: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9032088;
(Note there are several articles; scan all of them).
and/or
The Economist, Survey: Telecoms Convergence--Your television is
ringing (Oct 12th 2006); available at: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7995312; (Note there are several articles; scan all of
them).
Recommended
Other
Jonathan Zittrain, A History of Online Gatekeeping, 19 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 253 (Spring, 2006).
J. Steven Rich, Brand X and the Wireline Broadband Report and Order: The Beginning of the End of the Distinction Between Title I and Title II Services, 58 FED. COMM. L.J., No. 2, 221 (April, 2006).
Kevin Werbach, The Federal Computer Commission, 84 N.C. L. REV. 1 (Dec., 2005).
Ethan Zuckerman &
Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions,
(August, 2003); available at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html.
Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff, A Brief History of the Internet; available at:
Teaching Library Internet Workshops,
Glossary: Web Searching and Netscape Jargon; available at:
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Glossary.html.
Matisse Enzer’s Glossary of Internet Terms; available at:
http://www.matisse.net/files/glossary.html.
Unit Two--Jurisprudential/Regulatory
Models—What Degree of Government Intervention
is Appropriate for the Internet?
This unit will consider baseline models used in considering the proper scope of government oversight and regulation. We will have to determine whether any pre-existing model works in view of the variety of different functions performed via the Internet. Existing models, based on a First Amendment analysis and adjusted for technological, e.g., use of public spectrum, and economic characteristics, e.g., scarcity, may prove unsustainable. In various applications, the Internet performs the functions of a casino, bank, shopping mall, porno shop, post office, telephone company, radio or television station, newspaper, travel agent, stockbroker, etc.
Most First Amendment purists believe in a “one size fits all” model that can apply equally to all media. However, the Supreme Court has endorsed, and regulatory agencies have applied different public interest safeguards and regulations based on the type of medium: print; broadcasting; cable television; telephony; or the Internet. We need to know about each regulatory/jurisprudential model and the following cases will help us make the distinctions. Will these different models make sense if in the future the Internet provides a medium for all types of ICE services?
Assignments:
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn.
v. Brand X Internet Services, 125 S.Ct. 2688 (2005); available at: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZS.html.
Recommended Other Readings
Rob
Frieden, Neither Fish Nor Fowl: New Strategies for Selective Regulation of
Information Services, 6 JOURNAL ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND HIGH TECHNOLOGY
LAW, No. 2 373-423 (2008); draft available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=102928.
Steven Aronowitz, Brand X Internet Services v. FCC: The
Case of the Missing Policy Argument, 20
This unit will examine the difficulty in determining whether a court has jurisdiction to hear an Internet case. Because of global accessibility, the Internet presents difficult questions about the enforceability of national laws. We will consider whether Internet gamblers establish a virtual presence in the country serving as the home to gambling software and servers, or whether the offering of a gambling opportunity triggers liability in localities outlawing such activity. We also will consider more broadly the link between Internet access and jurisdiction.
People v.
World Interactive Gaming Corp., 185 Misc. 2d 852, 714 NYS.2d 844 (NY
B) Online Access to Alcoholic Beverages
Granholm v.
Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005); available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1116.ZS.html.
Recommended Other Readings
Mattia V. Corsiglia
Murawski, The Online Gambling Wager: Domestic and International Implications of the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, 48
James N. Brenner, Betting on Success: Can the Unlawful
Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Help the
Michael Grunfeld, Don't Bet on the United States' Internet
Gambling Laws: The Tension Between Internet Gambling Legislation and World
Trade Organization Commitments, 2007 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 439.
Megan E. Frese, Rolling The Dice: Are Online Gambling Advertisers "Aiding And Abetting" Criminal Activity Or Exercising First Amendment-Protected Commercial Speech? 15 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA AND ENT. L. J. 547 (Winter 2005).
Does Web
Accessibility Trigger Jurisdiction?
Young v. New
Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256, 31 Media L. Rep. 1695, 4th Cir. 2002);
available at: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012340.P.pdf.
Recommended Other Readings
Kevin A. Meehan, The Continuing Conundrum of International
Internet Jurisdiction, 31 B.C. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 345 (Spring,
2008).
Eugene Kontorovich,
The Inefficiency
of Universal Jurisdiction, 2008
Dr. Georgios I. Zekos,
State Cyberspace
Jurisdiction and Personal Cyberspace Jurisdiction, 15 INT'L J.L. &
INFO. TECH. 1 (Spring, 2007).
Joann K. Coston, Embrace the
New, But Don't Forget About the Old: Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Over the
New Internet Age, 34 S.U. L. REV. 249 (2007).
Joel R. Reidenberg, Symposium, Current Debates in the Conflict of Laws Choice of Law and Jurisdiction on the Internet, Technology and Internet Jurisdiction, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1951 (June, 2005).
Feb 5th
(estimate) First Test
Unit Four--Liability for Libel, IPR
Violations and Other Torts
This
unit will examine the scope of potential civil and criminal liability for
transactions occurring in an Internet-mediated environment. We will concentrate on assessing whether and
how Internet mediation changes preexisting law relating to libel, intellectual
property rights, and privacy. In
addition, we will consider how courts allocate liability between the tortfeasor
and the carrier used to publish or extend the tort, i.e., Internet Service
Providers.
Assignment:
Excerpt from Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002); available at: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/pp-enbanc.htm.
Yahoo!,
Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 379 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.
2004); available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D079531C495BC5E288256EF90055E54C/$file/0117424.pdf?openelement.
Recommended Readings
Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing
International Speech Restrictions in an Online World, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH.
L. & POL'Y 2 (Fall, 2007).
John C. Knechtle, When to Regulate Hate Speech, 110 PENN
B) Libel/Defamation; Liability of ISP Intermediaries
Assignment:
Go online
and find the text of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. Section
230. Part of this assignment involves an
assessment whether you can use the Internet for a specific task, i.e., finding
a site that will display this section of the
Zeran v.
Blumenthal
v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) available at http://www.epic.org/free_speech/blumenthal_v_drudge.html.
Jane Doe v.
Myspace, Inc. Case No. 07-50345, slip op. (5th Cir. 2008);
available
at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0750345cv0p.pdf.
Recommended
Other
Robert G. Magee, Information Conduits or Content Developers?
Determining Whether News Portals Should Enjoy Blanket Immunity From Defamation
Suits, 12 COMM. L. & POL'Y 369
(Autumn, 2007).
Matthew G. Jeweler, The Communications Decency Act of 1996: Why
§ 230 is Outdated and Publisher Liability for Defamation Should be Reinstated
Against Internet Service Providers, 8 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. & POL’Y 3
(Fall, 2007).
Censorship by Proxy: The First Amendment, Internet Intermediaries, and the
Problem of the Weakest Link 155 U. PA. L. REV. 11 (Nov. 2006).
C) Intellectual Property Rights—Copyright Law and the Balance of Power
Between Copyright Owners and Consumers
available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/907_FSupp_1361.htm.
Sony Corp. of
Read summary of case at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios.
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
Inc. (9th Cir. 2007); available at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE8297F56287C0BC882572DC007DACC6/$file/0655405.pdf.
Recommended
Other
The Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics; available at:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html.
Portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr04/cos491/cases/dmca.html.
Dave
Hauser, The DMCA and the Privatization of
Copyright, 30 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT L.J. 339 (Winter 2008).
Bill D.
Herman, Breaking and Entering My Own
Computer: The Contest of Copyright Metaphors, 13 COMM. L. & POL’Y 231
(Spring, 2008).
Rob
Frieden, Internet Packet Sniffing and Its
Impact On The Network Neutrality Debate and the Balance of Power Between
Intellectual Property Creators and Consumers 18 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA
& ENT. L. J. 633 (Spring, 2008).
Amy
Kapczynski, The Access to Knowledge
Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property, 117 YALE L. J.
804 (March, 2008).
Amy
Kapczynski, The Access to Knowledge
Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property, 117 YALE L. J.
804 (March, 2008).
Hyangsun
Lee, The Audio Broadcast Flag System -
Can It Be A Solution?, 12 COMM. L. & POL’Y 405 (Autumn, 2007).
Neil
Weinstock Netanel, Temptations of The
Walled Garden: Digital Rights Management And Mobile Phone Carriers, 6 J.
TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 77 (Fall 2007).
Andrew
William Bagley, Fair Use Rights in a
World Of The Broadcast Flag and Digital Rights Management: Do Consumers Have a
Chance?, 18
Henry H.
Perritt, Jr., New Architectures For
Music: Law Should Get Out Of The Way
29
Julie E.
Cohen, Creativity and Culture in
Copyright Theory, 40 U.C.
Mark A.
Lemley & Philip J. Weiser, Should
Property Rules or Liability Rules Govern Information?, 85 TEX. L. REV. 783
(2007).
Jessica
Litman, Lawful Personal Use, 85 TEX.
L. REV. 1871 (June, 2007).
Joel
Reidenberg, The Rule of Intellectual
Property Law in The Internet Economy
44 HOUS.
L. Rev. 1073 (2007).
Christopher
S. Yoo, Copyright And Public Good
Economics: A Misunderstood Relation
155 U. PA.
L. REV. 635 (Jan. 2007).
Assignment:
UMG
Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F.Supp.2d 349 (S.D.N.Y., 2000); available
at
http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/UMG-Recording-MP3.com-SDNY.pdf;
or
http://www.tomwbell.com/NetLaw/Ch07/UMG.html.
A & M
Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm.
MGM Studios
v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913, 125 S.Ct. 2764 (2005); available at: http://danfingerman.com/law/cases/Grokster.html.
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Justin
Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
available at: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/torrentspy/columbia_v_bunnel_usdc_ruling.pdf.
The Cartoon Network et al v. CSC
Holdings, Inc. et al, 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008).
available at: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/cablevision.pdf.
Recommended Other
Charles B. Vincent, BitTorrent,
Grokster, and Why Entertainment and Internet Lawyers Need to Prepare for the
Fair Use Argument for Downloading TV Shows, 10 No. 11 J. INTERNET L. 1
(May, 2007).
Chia-heng Seetoo, Can Peer-To-Peer Internet
Broadcast Technology Give Fans Another Chance? Peer-To-Peer Streaming
Technology and Its Impact, 2007
March 5th (estimate) Second Test
Unit
Six--Cybersquatting and Domain Names as Speech versus Property
While one can argue persuasively for no government regulation or regulatory oversight of the Internet, many support some type of self-regulation. In addition, we will get acquainted with trade name law and its relationship with domain name registration.
A) Cyber-squatting
Assignment:
MTV Networks v. Curry, 867 F. Supp. 202
(S.D.N.Y. 1994); available at: http://www.loundy.com/CASES/MTV_v_Curry.html.
Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc. 66
F.Supp.2d 117 (D.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
wallmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey, WIPO
Arbitration Case No. D2000-1104; available at: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1104.html.
Recommended Other
Greg Lastowka, Decoding Cyberproperty, 40 IND. L. REV. 23 (2007).
Jacqueline Lipton, Beyond
Cybersquatting: Taking Domain Name Disputes Past Trademark Policy, 40 WAKE
Unit Seven--Cyberstalking, Privacy,
Software as Speech, Encryption and National Security
In this unit, we will explore some of the risks to national and individual security resulting from access to the Internet. The Internet provides a forum for communications, including harmful, or conspiratorial messages. We will consider the lawful and unlawful ways in which nations, corporations and individuals can mask their identity and activities.
A) Cyberstalking
Assignment:
B) Monitoring
E-mail/Privacy Rights
Assignment:
Intel v.
Hamidi, 03 C.D.O.S. 5711 (
Recording Industry Association of
America, Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 2003); available
at: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/opinion-20031219.pdf.
Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2006)
available at: http://www.spamlaws.com/f/cases/omega1.pdf.
Fred H. Cate, Government Data Mining: The Need for a Legal
Framework, 43 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 435 (Summer, 2008).
Katherine J. Strandburg, Freedom of Association in a Networked World:
First Amendment Regulation of Relational Surveillance, 49 B.C. L. REV. 741
(May, 2008).
Jacob Kreutzer, Somebody has to Pay: Products Liability for
Spyware, 45 AM. BUS. L.J. 61 (Spring, 2008).
Timothy Casey, Electronic Surveillance and the Right to be
Secure, U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 977 (February, 2008).
Julie E. Cohen, Privacy, Visibility, Transparency, and
Exposure, 75 U. CHI. L. REV. 181 (Winter, 2008).
C) Cryptography and National Security
Assignment:
U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Bernstein, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999),
available at http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/9th/case/9716686&exact=1.
background on the case available at: http://www.gigalaw.com/library/bernstein-doj-1999-05-06-p1.html.
Background on the AT&T Class Action law
suit, Tash Hepting v. AT&T Corp., (N.D.
Recommended Other
Aaron Perkins, Encryption Use: Law and Anarchy on the Digital Frontier, 41 HOUS. L. REV. 1625 (Spring, 2005).
Unit Eight--Electronic Commerce and Consumer Protection
Electronic Commerce may constitute the Internet’s killer application. Businesses and consumers will embrace Internet-mediation that offers faster, better, cheaper, smarter and more convenient delivery of products and services. We will examine how existing laws and policies governing commerce must change to accommodate transactions over the Internet.
Clip Wrap Licensing and Contracts of Adhesion
Assignment:
ProCD, Inc.
v. Zeidenberg, 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wisc.), rev’d, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996); available at http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/961139.html.
Specht v.
Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d. 17 (2d Cir. 2002); available at: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/2nd/case/017860v2&exact=1.
Marc Bragg
v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F.Supp.2d 593 (E.D. Pa. 2007); available at:
http://pub.bna.com/eclr/064925_053007.pdf.
Recommended Other Readings
Ronald J.
Mann, Just One Click: The Reality of
Internet Retail Contracting, 108 COLUM. L. REV. 984 (May, 2008).
Liability
of Auction Intermediaries
Assignment: Tiffany,
Inc. v. EBay, Inc., No. 04 CIV 4607, Slip Op. (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008)
available
at: http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=83;
summary of case available at: http://commonlawjournal.com/cmacedo/art/138/.
Third Test April 9th (estimate)
Unit Nine-- Antitrust and
Nondiscrimination Enforcement in Cyberspace
In this section, we will
examine whether and how marketplace self-regulation may not sufficiently
protect ICE consumers. Antitrust laws
seeks to prevent market manipulation that harms consumers. These laws should not punish a company for
exploiting scale economies, or innovations that have resulted in a monopoly, or
dominant market share. On the other
hand, there are a number of anticompetitive practices that companies
individually and collectively use that harm consumers. The network neutrality debate extends our
analysis into what, if any, role governments should assume to ensure fair and
nondiscriminatory access to Internet content.
A) Antitrust Enforcement
Assignment:
Read the
summary of
Recommended Other Readings
Timothy J.
Brennan, Bundled Rebates as Exclusion
Rather Than Predation, 4 J. COMPT. L. & ECON. 335 (June, 2008).
Spencer
Weber Waller, Areeda, Epithets, and
Essential Facilities, 2008 WIS. L. REV. 359.
Daniel A.
Crane, Technocracy and Antitrust, 86
TEX. L. REV. 1159 (May, 2008).
David S.
Evans, Antitrust Issues Raised by the
Emerging Global Internet Economy,
102 NW. U.
L. REV. 285 (April 28, 2008).
Brett
Frischmann, Revitalizing Essential
Facilities, 75 ANTITRUST L.J. 1 (2008).
Jim Chen, The Echoes of Forgotten Footfalls: Telecommunications Mergers at the Dawn of the Digital Millennium, 43 HOUSTON L. REV. 1311 (Spr. 2007).
Nicholas
Economides, Hit and Miss: Leverage,
Sacrifice, and Refusal to Deal in the Supreme Court Decision in Trinko, 10
VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. 121 (Fall 2007).
Daniel F.
Spulber, Mandating Access to Telecom and the
Internet: The Hidden Side of Trinko, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1822 (December,
2007).
B) Network Neutrality
Assignment:
Appropriate Framework for Broadband
Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, CC Docket No. 02-33, Policy
Statement (2005); available at: http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/FCC-05-151A1.pdf.
Formal
Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation for
Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications, File No. EB-08-IH-1518,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 08-183 (rel. Aug. 20, 2008); available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.doc
(read pages 1-34).
Theodore Frank and Maureen Jeffreys,
Arnold and Porter, Recent Developments in
the U.S. on Network Neutrality (2009); available
at: http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/TEL09_Arnold%20&%20Porter_ver2.pdf.
Recommended Other Readings
C. Scott Hemphill, Network Neutrality
and the False Promise of Zero-Price Regulation, 25 YALE J. ON
REG. 135 (Summer, 2008).
Philip J. Weiser, The Next Frontier
For Network Neutrality, 60 ADMIN. L. REV.
273 (Spring, 2008).
Rob
Frieden, Internet Packet Sniffing and Its
Impact on the Network Neutrality Debate and the Balance of Power Between
Intellectual Property Creators and Consumers, 18 FORDHAM INTEL PROP. MEDIA
& ENT. L. J., No. 3. 633 (2008);
draft available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=102928.
Dan G. Barry, The Effect of Video Franchising Reform on
Net Neutrality: Does the Beginning of IP Convergence Mean That It is Time For
Net Neutrality Regulation,
24 SANTA CLARA
COMPT. & HIGH TECH. L.J. 421 (January, 2008).
T. Randolph
Beard, Network Neutrality and Industry
Structure, 29
Jerry Brito,
A Tale of Two Commissions: Net Neutrality
and Regulatory Analysis, 16 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 1 (2007).
Frieden,
Rob, A Primer on Network Neutrality,
43 INTERECON. REV. OF EUR. ECON. POL’Y.,
No. 1, 4 (Jan./Feb. 2008).
Frieden,
Rob, Keeping the Internet Neutral?: A
Response to the Wu-Yoo Debate, 59 FED. COMM. L. J., Forum (2007); available
at: http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/forum/Frieden_v59i3_forum.pdf.
Larry F.
Darby, Consumer Welfare, Capital
Formation and Net Neutrality: Paying for Next Generation Broadband Networks,
16 MEDIA L. & POL'Y 122 (Summer 2007).
Tim Wu and
Christopher S. Yoo, Keeping the Internet Neutral?: Tim Wu and
Christopher Yoo Debate, 59 FED. COMM. L. J. 575 (June, 2007).
Rob Frieden, Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions to the Network Neutrality Debate, 1 INT’L J. OF COMM., 461 (2007); available at: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/160/86.
Rob Frieden, Network Neutrality or Bias?--Handicapping the Odds for a Tiered and
Branded Internet, 29
Brett Frischmann
& Barbara van Schewick, Yoo’s Frame
and What It Ignores: Network Neutrality and the Economics of
an Information Superhighway, 47 JURIMETRICS J. 383 (2007).
Amit M. Schejter, “Justice, and Only Justice, You Shall
Pursue”: Network Neutrality, the First Amendment and John Rawls's Theory of
Justice, 14 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 137 (Fall 2007).
Robert E.
Litan, Unintended Consequences of Net
Neutrality Regulation, 5 J. TELECOM. & High Tech. L. 533 (Spring 2007).
Randolph J.
May, Net Neutrality Mandates: Neutering the
First Amendment in the Digital Age, I/S: J. L. & POL'Y FOR INFO. SOC’Y.
197 (Spring, 2007).
Barbara van
Schewick, Towards an Economic Framework
for Network
Neutrality Regulation, 5 J. ON TELECOMM. &
HIGH TECH. L. 329 (2007).
Howard A. Shelanski,
Network Neutrality: Regulating With More
Questions Than Answers, 6 J. TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 23 (Fall 2007).
C. Online
Discrimination
Assignment: Chicago
Lawyers; Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 461
F.Supp.2d 681, Case No. 06 C 0657 (N.D. Ill., November 14, 2006) aff'd __ F.3d
__(7th Cir. Mar. 14, 2008); available at: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf.
summary available at: http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case448.cfm.
Fair
Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roomates.com, Inc. 2008 WL 879293
(9th Cir. April 3, 2008); available at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F71559D8162BA7EE8825741F00771BC1/$file/0456916.pdf?openelement;
summary available at: http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case484.cfm.
April 30th Fourth Test