You just turned 21 and your friends take you on an all-expense paid vacation to Vegas. They release you to the card sharks with a blank check to gamble away whatever your heart may desire. You’re feeling lucky. So how much do you put on the table? A hundred? A thousand, maybe? How about billions?
In Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, Chicago-area appeals judge, Frank Easterbrook mocks the idea that there can be such a thing as “Property in Cyberspace” or cyber-law in general, which he compares to the law of the horse.As Easterbrook explains, there is all kinds of law involving horses: racing commissions regulations, contracts over stud fees and veterinary malpractice, yet nobody claims to be a “horse lawyer,” Similarly, as Professor Lawrence Lessig explains, Easterbrook’s view is that the law of cyberspace is nothing more than “torts in cyberspace, contracts in cyberspace, property in cyberspace, etc.” There is no “cyberlaw” any more than there is horse law. Lessig disagrees, explaining “there is an important general point that comes from thinking in particular about how law and cyberspace connect;” specifically, “the limits on law as a regulator” and the “techniques for escaping those limits.”Lessig claims cyberlaw is valuable because all law can draw from its lessons. In this article I will, using the “commodification of music” as a case study, argue Lessig is correct. And whether we can learn from these lessons is one of the central legal, cultural and policy questions facing the Internet, and society, today.
A darkened room. Row upon row of computer stacks. When most people think of supercomputers, this is likely the image that is conjured up – but a new type of technology called “Grid Computing” is giving us a new vision. In fact, many talk about “Grid Computing” as if it will be the next biggest thing since the World Wide Web (Quocirca, 2005). I disagree.