The internet and the law

• Jul. 30, 2003

A recent ruling by a California judge has far reaching implications on how the internet is treated in legal terms. The case goes back almost 10 years, around the time the internet was the new buzz word.

In 1994 the domain sex.com was registered and in 1995 it was fraudulently obtained by another person who built an empire around it, no doubt making millions in the process. The judge in this case recently ruled in favor of the original registrant of the domain and ordered the person responsible for stealing the domain name to pay him US$65 million. Since the person who stole the domain fled the country, the plaintiff feels that the domain registration company should be held liable for the decision (this case will be going to trial later this year), since they made no attempt to contact the original registrant before moving the domain.

What's interesting in this case is that the judge referred to the domain name as property and that stealing a domain name is, in effect, stealing someone's personal property, hence the decision to award damages.

This leads me to a question: How involved should law makers be in the internet? After all, American legislators are passing spam laws, they are also making it illegal to share music, now they are saying that domains are property and should be treated as such.

I'm not saying such laws aren't needed, or aren't just. I'm just wondering if lawmakers are the ones to be policing the internet? Especially considering that it spans the world and different countries approach these issues differently. What you may consider unjust or immoral may be perfectly acceptable in other countries. So should American lawmakers (I pick on Americans because they seem to be the first to try and regulate the internet) be the ones who define what's "right" on the internet?

What about all the regulating bodies already out there? Aren't there enough other boards and committees out there whose primary goal is to police the internet? We have the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, the People for Internet Responsibility, and the Internet Industry Association just to name a few. Perhaps one of these bodies, many of whom have been involved in the internet since before its inception, should be tasked with the responsibility of policing the internet and enforcing these "e-laws." After all, I'd rather have a somewhat impartial body who takes the concerns of internet as a whole into consideration before developing some kind of legislation, rather than any specific countries legal system.

Aside from the fact that the American laws are virtually unenforceable outside of the US, I think some other force in the internet needs to take responsibility for policing. Where enforceable decisions are made by an independent panel with no affiliations. Kind of like the United Nations of the internet.

This would also be a more efficient system, as each country wouldn't have to write new laws pertaining to the internet on their own, they could adopt the rules of this group. Each country would agree to enforce the laws on their own soil, and would agree that if there were a ruling in favor of any individual or company the law would be enforced world wide regardless of where the offending party was located.

This system would provide a world wide consensus on such issues as spam, domain hijacking, hacking, and other activities they believe are illegal or otherwise harm the internet. Anything involving the internet and controlling it would pass through this group.

Considering that the internet is still growing at a record rate, with more people going online every day, it only makes sense that someone has to step in and start regulating. Even though I'm not a big fan of regulating the internet, I realize it is needed.

Maybe one day.

Rob Sullivan
Production Supervisor
Searchengineposition.com
Search Engine Positioning specialists