Law of the Intarw3bz

(Note: this post was started right before finals, and I never got around to finishing it.)

I've been having a very solid semester in terms of my class choices, but by far my favorite has been Law of Cyberspace. Not only is this an incredibly relevant class (so much more likely to use the internet than own real property, at least any time soon), it has been responsible for both my knowledge of awesome YouTube clips (Google "A Fair(y) Use Tale" for educational and "I know my rules" for hilarious) and the single best reading assignment of the year.

Now, one would think this is a no-brainer: a class about the internet would obviously have the best cases. Surprisingly, there have been a few fantastic reading assignments from other classes, including:

*Decedent Estates (10/13)- Barnes was a case about how sane you have to be to write a will. Apparently, waving your junk around in public while declaring that you are the Messiah casts some slight doubt on the issue of whether you are of sound mind.
*Copyright (10/18)- Topics of the cases: Seinfeld, Harry Potter, Game Genie, Duke Nukem, and Monty Python. Enough said.

However, the winner was Cyberspace from (11/12) for three cases.

1. eBay v. Bidder's Edge
This case was about whether you could use bots or spiders to collect data. Normally, this wouldn't be this exciting, but when judges have to deal with cases they don't understand (read: everything involving the internet), they like to use analogies to stuff they DO understand. Exhibit A: "Unauthorized robot intruders into a "brick and mortar" store would be committing a trespass to real property." This ticks me off. I've had the plan of bringing Wal-Mart to its knees with a stream of robot invaders, which would leave me free of any legal action in highly unlikely event of failure, and the court closes the door on me. Bastards.

However, the court then belabored the analogy, and unwittingly redeemed itself in a big way. "for the analogy to be accurate, the robots would have to make up less than two out of every one-hundred customers in the store, the robots would not interfere with the customers' shopping experience, nor would the robots even be seen by the customers." This obviously is the seed of a burgeoning industry: robot ninja security guards. You won't be able to see them, and they won't interfere with your shopping. But just try to shoplift...

2. Topheavy v. Doe
This case is amazing, entirely aside from the party names. So "Jane Doe" was a 17-year old from Texas who decided to grab a fake ID and go to Spring Break. When she was there, she was approached by a man who offered her the opportunity to play a trivia game in which she could win money for correct answers, though she would have to lift her shirt for wrong ones. Now, leaving aside why ANYONE would think this is a good idea, she played the game after giving information from her fake ID. Despite the fact that she initially applied to play by using her real info, which she then scratched out, Topheavy figured that there was no reason to verify her information because "she did not look or act like she was as young as seventeen." Wow. That excuse has never ever worked before, not for any of the statutory rape cases in history. Who told them that this was intelligent to claim in court here? (shakes head)

3. Mosley v. New Groups

This case stands for a generally innocuous proposition: that you have a privacy right in the things you do in private. This, in general, is not problematic for me. What WAS problematic was the thing that Mr. Mosely was trying to keep private...Nazi sex orgies. You heard me right: Nazi sex orgies. Apparently, he would do Nazi role-play with groups of prostitutes, which is strange enough in itself. What is more bizzare was that the court did not consider this an entirely commercial transaction (which would have been held to a less strict level of scrutiny) because the prostitutes planned to give Mr. Mosely a free session for his upcoming birthday. There are no words. Absolutely none.

May all your hits be crits,
B