A separate jurisdiction for cyberspace?

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 1996, Pages

  Oberding, Juliet M ^a   Norderhaug, Terje ^b  

^a Law Offices of Juliet M Oberding

^b Media Design in Progress

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COPYRIGHTS; ELECTRONIC COMMUNITIES; INFORMATION SERVICES; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; STANDARDS;

COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC); CYBERCOMMUNITIES; TECHNICAL STANDARDS; TRANSBORDER TECHNOLOGY;

INTERNET;

EID: 4043172731     PISSN: 10836101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00186.x     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.S. v. Hall 466 U.S. 408 (1984).
2. Barlow, J. P. (1995). Property and speech: Who owns what you say in Cyberspace?. Communications of the ACM, 38 (12).
3. Burk, D. L. (May 18, 1995). Jurisdictional issues of the Internet. Conference on the Emerging Law of Computer Networks (CLE outline available from the author).
4. Calder v. Jones U.S. 783 (1984).
5. Communications of the ACM (1995). Editorial policies. Communications of the ACM, 38 (4).
6. Communications Decency Act of 1996 47 USC section 223.
7. Creative Technology Ltd. v. Aztech System PTE ltd. 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9814
8. Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyper reality. Translated from the Italian by William Weaver. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
9. Elkin-Koren, N. (1995). Copyright law and social dialogue on the information superhighway: The case against copyright liability of bulletin board operators. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment, 13, 345.
10. Hansen v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958).
11. Harter, P. F. (1995). Don't tread on me. On The Internet, Vol. 1, No. 3, July/August.
12. Holmes, O. W. (1934). Speeches.
13. Hurwitz, R., & Mallery, J C. (1995). The open meeting: A Web-based system for conferencing and collaboration. World Wide Web Journal (The Proceedings of the Fourth International World-Wide Web Conference), 15-36.
14. International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
15. Katsh, E. M. (1995). Cybertime, Cyberspace and cyberlaw. Journal of Online Law.
16. Mandelbaum, S. J. (1982). Too clever by far: Communications and community development. Communication, 7, 103-114.
17. National Academy of Sciences Conference (1993). Rights and responsibilites of participants in networked communities.
18. Norderhaug, T., & Oberding, J. (1995). Designing a web of intellectual property. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 27, 1037-1046. http://www..ifi.uio.no/~terien/pub/webip/950220.html.
19. Perritt, H. (1993). Metaphors for understanding rights and responsibilities in network communities: Print shops, barons, sheriffs and bureauracracies. Villanova Information Law Chronicle, http://www.law.vil l.edu/chron/articles/metafin.htm.
20. Perritt Jr. H. (1996). Law and the information superhighway. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
21. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
22. Post, D. G. (1995). Anarchy, state, and the Internet: An essay on law-making in Cyberspace. Journal of Online Law, art.3, par. 29.
23. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community : Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
24. Samuelson, P. (1996). Intellectual property rights and the global information economy. Communications of the ACM, 39 (1).
25. Schuler, D. (1994). Community networks: Building a new participatory medium. Communications of the ACM, 37 (1).
26. Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., No. 94-03163(N.Y. Sup. Nassau Cty. May 26, 1995)
27. Thomas v. U.S., Nos.94-6648 and 94-6639 (6th Cir., Jan. 20, 1995), cited in Multimedia Strategist, 1 (9).