As an Internet lawyer I have the task of not only staying abreast of the latest technological and business changes in the online world but also tracking many of the key Internet law cases working their way through the courts.
Every Internet lawyer must deal with a very rapid pace of change and evolution. Sometimes change happens at an imperceptably slow pace. And so, given that fifteen years have passed since the Internet came into public use, how is it that, according to the Judge in the MySpace suicide case, we don't have criminal laws to protect ourselves from online malicious attacks, even if mere words are spoken? In a world in which mere words can get you in a lot of trouble...threatening the President, or phoning in a bomb threat, or using the telephone lines to harass, why don't we have a functional equivalent for online misconduct? When will we begin to hold accountable the scofflaw who yells "fire" in a crowded theatre? That's the question an Internet lawyer interested in seeing a robust and healthy online society ought to be asking. Congress and state legislatures need to take notice.
Hi - I am thankful that you are able to stay abreast of the latest changes in the online world. I am curious as to how copyright and ownership are currently handled with interpersonal e-mails. For example, If person A sends an e-mail to person B, who owns the contents of the e-mail? From there, can person B submit the contents of the e-mail to a public website? Taking the scenerio a step farther, if the website requires some sort of copyright transfer from person B, does the website now own this original e-mail written by person A?
Posted by: Rob | 07/15/2009 at 07:41 AM