Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
Internet Exercise and Supplements
Answer to Internet Exercise (p. 813)
1. Students’ answers will differ based on the vendor’s web site they choose to look at. At the time
this was going to print, the following were examples that students might have found:
Answers
Answers to ‘The Digital Divide’ Questions (p. 782)
1. Students’ answers will vary. Some may say that Internet cafes are one way of approaching the
2. Students’ answers will vary. Some may say that as other countries catch up to the U.S. in terms of
Answer to ‘Net Neutrality’ Question (p. 783)
1. Students’ answers will vary. Some may say that arguments for such tiered pricing, in addition to
Answer to ‘Jurisdiction to Adjudicate’ Question (p. 784)
1. The 7th Circuit in be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011), found that there was “no
18-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
Answers to ‘Privacy Policies: Did Someone Say Privacy?’ Queestion (p. 796)
1. Customers purchase products on Amazon trusting that their data will not be hacked into, and their
Answers to ‘Top-Level Domain Name Sale’ Questions (p. 811)
1. This question needs to be looked at from various angles. The TLD should be awarded to that
entity that approaches ICANN. Giving out TLDs like .hindu, .muslim, .bah’ai and so on, just
2. Whenever something new is created technologically, there are always those who miss out due to
3. Once again, the question wishes to analyze an ethical issue. There is every chance that the
4. It does seem at this point that a company owns more than the required number of TLDs. This
Answer to “Bitcoin: The Rise and Fall of a Virtual Currency” Question (p. 813)
1. Although online currency is a novel concept, it has a long way to go before it is fit enough to be
18-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
Cases and Answers
YAHOO! v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d
1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (p. 785)
Syllabus
The defendant is a non-profit organization in France dedicated to the elimination of
anti-Semitism. It filed a civil complaint in a French court against Yahoo! for violation of a
French law against the sale of Nazi and Third Reich goods, based on the fact that Yahoo!
maintains an internet auction site. The auction site allows anyone to post an item for sale and
solicit bids from any computer user from around the globe. Yahoo! itself is never a party to any
sale. The French court entered an order which, among other things, required Yahoo! to
eliminate French citizens’ access to any of the offending material and imposed a penalty for
each day that Yahoo fails to comply. Yahoo! requested reconsideration of the order, which was
modified in part, but largely just reaffirmed by the French court. Yahoo! then filed a complaint in
a U.S. federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the French order is neither
cognizable nor enforceable in the U.S. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The issue raised, said the district court, is “whether it is consistent with the
Constitution… for another nation to regulate speech by a United States resident within the
United States on the basis that such speech can be accessed by Internet users in that nation.
In a world in which ideas and information transcend borders… the implications of this question
go far beyond the facts of this case.” It granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of
Yahoo!, concluding, “Absent a body of law that establishes international standards with respect
to speech on the Internet and an appropriate treaty or legislation addressing enforcement of
such standards to speech originating within the United States, the principle of comity is
outweighed by the Court’s obligation to uphold the First Amendment.” [Afterword: In 2006, the
Ninth Circuit ruled 8-3 that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the French
defendants, but 6 judges held that Yahoo! could not pursue its declaratory judgment action.
Three of those six said the declaratory judges was not “ripe” while the other three were the
minority that held the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court denied
review.
Answers to ‘YAHOO! v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme’ Questions (p.788)
1. To ascertain the jurisdiction over Yahoo! France is relatively easy—it regularly carries on business
in France. However, to ascertain the jurisdiction over Yahoo! Inc. is more problematic. To be
18-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
2. This question will generate a good class discussion. Obviously there is room for differences—
3. Yes, but it illustrates an exception to the general rule provided there. The Second Circuit indicated
Immunomedics v. Jean Doe, 775 A. 2d 773 (N.J. 2001) (p.790)
Syllabus
An anonymous poster, “moonshine_fr,” left a message on an Internet board maintained by
Yahoo! Finance that plaintiff, Immunomedics, Inc., alleged contained confidential and
proprietary information. Immunomedics therefore filed a complaint against “Jean Doe” alleging
breach of the company’s confidentiality agreement, breach of the duty of loyalty and negligent
revealing of confidential and proprietary information. (All of these were based on the
presumption that only an employee or former employee would have access to the posted
information.) Immunomedics then had a subpoena served on Yahoo! seeking all personally
identifiable information relating to the Yahoo! user with the identifier, “moonshine_fr.” Jean Doe
moved to quash the subpoena and now appeals the denial of her motion, claiming that
anonymous speech is constitutionally protected and Immunomedics’ complaint is insufficient to
warrant a breach of that anonymity. The court indicated this balancing had to be done on a
case-by-case basis, and that it would require any plaintiff to take certain steps notifying the
anonymous poster of its application for an order of disclosure and, also, to produce evidence
to the court supporting each element of its cause of action. Finding that Immunomedics had
produced sufficient evidence of each element (that the poster was an employee, that all
employees are bound by a confidentiality agreement that would prohibit such postings, that the
information posted was confidential and proprietary), the court affirmed the lower court’s order
that the subpoena be enforced.
Answers to ‘Immunomedics v. Jean Doe’ Questions (p. 791)
1. Whether there was intent or not, defaming or posting restricted materials, is a punishable offense.
2. No. The Supreme Court has previously held that pornography is not protected under the First
18-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
3. All of these individuals have a free speech right to which a right of anonymity is attached but, as
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005) (p. 806)
Syllabus
Grokster and StreamCast distribute free software that allows users to share electronic files
through peer-to-peer networks. MGM sued them to hold them responsible for their users’
copyright infringements using this software, alleging they knowingly and intentionally
distributed their software to enable users to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works in
violation of the Copyright Act. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and
the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court held the grand of summary judgment was in
error and vacated and remanded. It found that Grokster and StreamCast conceded the
infringement by users in most downloads. More importantly, it held that defendants were not
“merely passive recipients of information about infringing use.” Rather, they “clearly voiced the
objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to
encourage infringement.” Further, they both financially benefited from such infringement
because the more their software was used for downloading, the more advertising dollars they
received from advertisers on their websites. “[T]here is evidence of infringement on a gigantic
scale, and there is no serious issue of the adequacy of MGM’s showing on this point.”
Answers to ‘Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster’ Questions (p. 808)
1.
a. They held that one, who distributes a device with the intent of promoting its use to infringe
b. Contributory copyright infringement is intentionally inducing or encouraging direct
c.The Court distinguished the earlier Sony case which the circuit court had relied on. In the
2. No. The network Grokster helped establish and still exists and it is likely that users will still
continue to download copyrighted material. Further, other mechanisms also exist for the illegal
18-5
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
3. No. The Supreme Court did not hold that all peer-to-peer technology was illegal, only that
4. This question will result in a friendly, but intense discussion. At least one commentator believes
Grokster and its ilk have acted unethically, because their technology “was in reality specifically
Answers to Chapter Questions (p. 814)
1. The concern is that countries which do not or cannot actively enter into the information age will be
2. Over a period of time, shopping online can turn into an obsession, from what was previously
3. Although Mohrbacher claims he had no knowledge of the link containing child pornography, the 9th
Circuit Court ruled that an online bulletin board is like a shelf off which can be taken material the
4.
a. Legally speaking, the First amendment does protect online bloggers and persons
who wish to express free speech. However, there is a limit to which he or she can
b. This is a very subjective question. Students’ answers will vary. If a trade secret
5. At a minimum, Melle apparently violated the act when he put “aol.com” in the e-mail headers. The
18-6
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
6. McLaren had no reasonable expectation of privacy. McLaren’s messages were received in a
company network accessible to third parties. Thus, his messages, initially at least, weren’t
7. The court declined to assert personal jurisdiction in New York because King received no revenue
8. NAFED lost. It violated the copyright agreement on the clip art.
9. As demonstrated in this chapter, the internet raises many old issues in new contexts—and the
Supplementary Cases
I. MINK v. AAAA Development, 190 F. 3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999) (See Jurisdiction to
Adjudicate, p. 784)
Syllabus
Mink, a Texas resident, developed a specialized computer program, for which he submitted a patent
application. He was approached by a Colorado resident, Stark, at a trade show about marketing his
program. They had some continuing contact following up on the possibility and Mink gave Stark a full
demonstration of his program. Allegedly Stark then shared Mink’s ideas and information with a
Vermont resident, Middlebrook, and a Vermont corporation, AAAA Development. Mink alleges that
these Vermont entities conspired to copy Mink’s system to create a system of their own. Mink brought
suit in Texas. Middlebrook and AAAA moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Mink argued
personal jurisdiction existed because the defendants had been actively targeting customers in Texas
and AAAA’s website was accessible from Texas.
The court found that for personal jurisdiction to be had Texas must have a long-arm statute
that would reach Middlebrook and AAAA and exercise of personal jurisdiction must be
consistent with the due process clause of the Constitution. As Texas’ long-arm statute had
been interpreted to reach as far as the Constitution allows, in this case these two
considerations are identical.
For constitutional purposes, defendants must have certain minimum contacts with Texas such
that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” The court then looked at the nature and quality of contacts possible over the internet.
At one end, some entities do business by actually entering contracts over the internet with
residents of other states, contracts which involve the “knowing and repeated transmission of
18-7
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
computer files.” The court found personal jurisdiction would be proper in those cases. On the
other extreme, some individuals simply establish passive web sites that do nothing more than
advertise. In these cases, personal jurisdiction would be inappropriate. The court then found
that AAAA’s web site was more like the latter than the former and held that no personal
jurisdiction in Texas was available.
II. Urofsky v. Gilmore, 167 F. 3d 191 (4th Cir. 1999) (See Speech, p. 788)
Syllabus
Six professors, employees of public institutions of higher learning in Virginia, brought a suit
challenging under the First Amendment a Virginia law restricting state employees from
accessing sexually explicit material on computers owned by the state without prior approval in
writing from their “agency head.” The court pointed out that the professors remained free to
access this material from their own computers. It found that the Act does not regulate the
speech of citizenry in general, but rather only the speech of state employees in their capacity
as employees. As such, the court found the speech may be restricted.
III. State v. Heckel, 24 P. 3d 404 (Wash. 2001) (See Commercial Speech, p. 791)
Syllabus
Washington filed suit against Heckel, an Oregon resident, for violation of a Washington law
prohibiting anyone sending commercial e-mails from using a third party’s domain name without
permission, misrepresenting or disguising the message’s point of origin or transmission path,
or using a misleading subject line. Heckel marketed a 46-page booklet, “How to Profit from the
Internet,” by sending unsolicited commercial e-mail (spam) to potential buyers (100,000 to
1,000,000 messages per week). Both parties filed for summary judgment and the trial court
found in favor of Heckel, holding that the Washington statute violated the Commerce Clause
by being “unduly restrictive and burdensome” on interstate commerce. On appeal, the
Washington Supreme Court that the statute was not unconstitutional because (1) it was not
facially discriminatory against interstate commerce and (2) the statute’s local benefits surpass
any alleged burden on interstate commerce. Specifically, on the second point, the court found
that, to handle the increased e-mail traffic, ISPs must invest in more equipment, that owners of
the misused domain names are economically harmed when recipients of the unwanted mail try
to respond, and that the e-mail recipients themselves lose time dealing with the unwanted mail
and may suffer economic harm if they do not have flat-rate plans for internet access. On the
other side, “the only burden the Act places on spammers is the requirement of truthfulness, a
requirement that does not burden commerce at all but actually ‘facilitates it …’” The court
pointed out that spammers actually incur costs by noncompliance with the statute’s provisions
“because they must take steps to introduce forged information into the header of their
message …” Held for the state.
IV. United States of America v. Scott M. Hambrick, 55 F. Supp. 2d 504 (W.D. Va.
1999) (See Privacy, p. 792)
Syllabus
18-8
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
Hambrick, a Virginia resident, was criminally charged with illegal activities stemming from his
on-line solicitation of a minor boy from another state to come live with him. At his criminal trial,
he moved to have suppressed all evidence obtained from his internet service provider (ISP)
and all evidence discovered in his home as a result of the police having obtained identifying
information from his ISP.
Hambrick’s activities were discovered by an off-duty police officer from New Hampshire, who
encountered Hambrick in a chat room operating under an alias. The chat room activity led the
officer to believe that criminal activities were occurring. In order to identify the individual behind
the alias, the officer obtained a New Hampshire subpoena, which he then served on
Hambrick’s ISP in order to obtain Hambrick’s true identity, address and phone numbers. The
ISP complied with the subpoena, the information was obtained and ultimately a criminal suit in
Virginia was brought.
Hambrick argued use of the information violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the
information was protected unless a valid warrant was obtained. (All parties agreed the
subpoena was invalid.) The court found that the government is not required to obtain a warrant
if the information it is seeking is such that the defendant (1) does not have a subjective
expectation of privacy in the invaded place or (2) any such privacy expectation is not one
society accepts as “objectively reasonable.” Granting that Hambrick had a subjective
expectation of privacy in the information from his ISP, the court found that it was not an
expectation society would accept as reasonable. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act
could not be said to give citizens such a privacy expectation, because it only required ISPs to
be presented with a warrant before giving information to the government, but did not in any
way prohibit them from giving personal information on their users to any nongovernmental
entity. Further, Hambrick had not entered into any restrictive agreement with his ISP prohibiting
their giving his information to others. Had his ISP given the information to the government
without the subpoena (which the ISP could not have known was invalid), then Hambrick could
have sued his ISP for damages. But Hambrick had no recognizable expectation of privacy and,
thus, his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.
V. M.A. Mortenson Company v. Timberline Software Corporation, 970 P. 2d 803
(Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (Contracts and Uniform Laws, p. 802)
Syllabus
Mortenson licensed software from Timberlake for use in preparing construction bids.
Mortenson in fact used the software to prepare a particular bid and later discovered that a bug
in the software resulted in the bid they submitted being $2 million too low. When Mortenson
sued Timberline for damages, Timberline defended by pointing to the license agreement they
distribute with their software which disclaims any responsibility for consequential damages
associated with using the software. Mortenson argued that the license agreement was not part
of their contract both because (1) their contract only included the terms contained in the
purchase order, not the license agreement which was not even provided until after the
purchase was made and (2) that, in any case, the license agreement was not part of their
agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Timberline.
The court found that the purchase order was not an integrated contract and therefore did not
18-9
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
prevent the license agreement from being part of the parties’ agreement. In part the court
relied on the fact that Mortensen had licensed other software packages, which themselves
contained similar terms to Timberline’s license agreement here. The court further found that
the license terms were enforceable. It pointed to numerous accepted transactions where the
consumer did not receive all of the terms of the agreement until after the purchase was made,
including airline tickets. As the purchaser was entitled to return for a refund if they objected to
the terms of the license agreement, those terms were enforceable if the purchaser kept and
used the software.
VI. Kelly v. Arriba, 280 F. 3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (See Copyrights, p.805)
Syllabus
Kelly is professional photographer who has copyrighted many of his images and makes some
of them available over the internet both from his own site and through other licensed sites.
Defendant operates an internet search engine that displays its results in the form of small
“thumbnail” pictures, rather than in text. Defendant reproduced some of Kelly’s images to
create these thumbnails and then used them in its search engine. It further displayed Kelly’s
images through processes of both inline linking and framing, which occur when a user clicks
on the thumbnail picture brought up by the search engine. Kelly sued for copyright
infringement. Arriba defended, arguing it was entitled to rely on the fair use exception to the
claimed infringement. The court evaluated the four factors set out in the copyright law that are
to be considered in determining whether a particular use comes under the fair use exception. It
found that the thumbnails themselves did come within the exception, but that the inline linking
and framing were not permissible.
Selected Bibliography
Associated Press, “DoubleClick Retreats on Database Plan,” Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, March 3,
2000, p. C5.
Associated Press, “FTC: No Net Laws for Privacy,” Atlanta Journal and Constitution, July 13, 1999, p.
3E.
Ted Bridis, “Microsoft to Require Privacy Promises on Internet Sites,” Des Moines Register, June 24,
1999, p. 8S.
Jimmy Burns, “Electronic Crime ‘Beating Regulators’,” Financial Times, September 1, September 14,
1999, p. 2.
Anne R. Carey and Jerry Mosemak, “Clicking with Others,” USA Today, June 3, 1999, p. 1A.
Randall Davis, “The Digital Dilemma,” Communications of the ACM, February 2001, p. 77.
Thomas Donaldson, “Ethics in Cyberspace: Have We Seen This Movie Before?,” Center for Business
Ethics, Bentley College, February 5, 2001.
Carl T. Hall, “FTC Wants to Regulate Online Pharmacies, “San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 1999, p.
18-10
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 18 - Internet Law and Ethics
A2.
“Have On-Line Investing Ads Crossed the Ethics Line?,” USA Today, May 10, 1999, p. 3B.
Jessica Lee, “Bill Would Protect Trademarks, Names from Cybersquatters,” USA Today, August 3,
1999, p. 8A.
Brian McGrory, “Alienation Finds a Future on Web,” Boston Globe, July 16, 1999, p. B1.
Patrick McMahon, “Judge Agrees Web Site a Threat,” USA Today, February 26, 1999, p. 2A.
Dave Merrill, “How Marketers ‘Profile’ Users,” USA Today, November 8, 1999, p. 2A.
David Phelps, “Amazon Bookstore and Amazon.com Agree to Coexist,” Minneapolis Star Tribune,
November 5, 1999, p. 1D.
Julie Schmit, “Microsoft Makes Inroads on Pirated Software,” USA Today, March 10, 1999, p. C2.
John Simons, “FTC to Curb Medical Sale Pitches on Web,” The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1999, p.
A2.
John Simons, “New Internet Privacy Laws Appear Less Likely with Release of New Survey,” The Wall
Street Journal, May 13, 1999, p. B9.
John Snell, “Lawyers Drawn to Unsettled Internet; Lots of Legal Issues, Large and Small, Must Be
Sorted Out,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 29, 1999, p. 6D.
Noble Sprayberry, “Confronting the Cookie Monster,” San Diego Union-Tribune, August 22, 1999, p. I9.
“Student Faces Piracy Sentence,” Des Moines Register, August 21, 1999, p. 6S.
Susan Warren, “I-Spy: Getting the lowdown on your competition is just a few clicks away,” The Wall
Street Journal, January 14, 2002, p. R14.
18-11
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
