* Justin Hughes is Assistant Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, and the 2003 Hosier Distinguished Visiting Chair in Intellectual Property at DePaul College of Law, Chicago. My thanks to Kenneth Roost and Stuart Reimer for research assistance for this manuscript; my thanks to Andrew McLaughlin, Fred Yen, and all the participants of the Boston College Law School Conference on Intellectual Property, E-Commerce, and the Internet for helpful comments and a lively conversation on this Article. The remaining errors are the exclusive intellectual property of the author.
1 This also causes, in some countries, the perception that the Internet is yet another American intrusion into local or national societies. See, e.g., Andr� Lucas, Droit d’Auteur et Num�rique 7 (1998) (noting the “little polemical debate” in France over whether the Internet is a “vehicle for American thinking”).
2China Second to US in Web Traffic: Study, Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 1, 2002, available at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/01/1028157806643.html.
3 A reader may quibble that much Canadian traffic is Quebecois and, therefore, French and civil law oriented. But this bare English majority does not include Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Kenya, Nigeria, India, or South Africa (the last four being common-law countries with English being the vastly dominant language of Internet users).
4 Amy Harmon, An Internet Guru’s Lexicon, N.Y. Times, May 13, 2001, � 3, at 14.
5 Michael Pastore, Global Internet Population Moves Away from US (Jan. 11, 2001), at http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_558061,00.html.
6 See generally Milton L. Mueller, Ruling the Root (2002) (describing development of ICANN and political control issues surrounding “the root” control space for domain names, hence order on the Internet).
7 Michel Vivant et Agn�s Maffre-Baug�, Internet et la propri�t� intellectuelle: le droit, l’information et les r�seaux, Les Notes de l’IFRI 59 (Institut fran�ais des relations internationals, Paris, June 2002); see also Lucas, supra note 1, at 13 (recognizing that a comparative-law approach is necessary to the minimal harmonization of law needed on the Internet).
8 Jeremy Bentham introduced the notion of “international law” as a more rigorous concept than “law of nations.” See Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation 296 (J.H. Burns & H.L.A. Hart eds., 1970) (1789). Philip Jessup recommended replacing Bentham’s phrase with a broader concept of “transnational law.” Philip C. Jessup, Transnational Law 2 (1956).
9 See I. Trotter Hardy, The Proper Legal Regime for “Cyberspace,” 55 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 993, 1019–21 (1994) (drawing parallel to lex mercatoria); David R. Johnson & David G. Post, Law and Borders—The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367, 1389–90 (1996).
10 See infra notes 16–47 and accompanying text.
11 See infra notes 56–75 and accompanying text.
12 See infra notes 75–110 and accompanying text.
13 See infra notes 111–117 and accompanying text.
14 See infra notes 118–119 and accompanying text.
15 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, at xii (1974).
16 Reg Whitacker, The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance Is Becoming a Reality 47 (1999).
17 Michael Heim, The Erotic Ontology of Cyberspace, in Cyberspace: First Steps 59, 64 (Michael Benedikt ed., 1991).
18 Mark C. Taylor & Esa Saarinen, Imagologies: Media Philosophy 3 (1994) (“Simcult”).
19 Julian Stallabrass, Empowering Technology: The Exploration of Cyberspace, 211 New Left Rev. 3, 9 (1995).
20 As Judge Nancy Gertner characterized the Internet in 1997, “[T]he Internet has no territorial boundaries. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, as far as the Internet is concerned, not only is there perhaps ‘no there there,’ the ‘there’ is everywhere where there is Internet access.” Digital Equip. Corp. v. AltaVista Tech., Inc., 960 F. Supp. 456, 462 (D. Mass. 1997).
21 Johnson & Post, supra note 9, at 1372.
22 For example, Packetshaper software promises real time analysis and discrimination based on protocol, application, URL, etc. One can find a description of Packetshaper at http://www.packeteer.com/products/packetshaper/index.cfm. Developments in artificial intelligence will further undermine the assumption that government eyes and ears cannot be everywhere.
23 James Boyle, Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and Hardwired Censors, 66 U. Cin. L. Rev. 177, 183 (1997). Boyle’s message in this excellent article is that the “info-libertarians should not be so quick to write off the state,” a prognosis that has proved amply correct. Id. at 184.
24 See Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Ancient Law 124–26 (Univ. of Ariz. Press 1986) (1864).
25 See, e.g., Martin H. Redish, Of New Wine and Old Bottles: Personal Jurisdiction, the Internet, and the Nature of Constitutional Evolution, 38 Jurimetrics J. 575, 605–06 (1998) (“[T]he technological development of the Internet effectively renders the concept of purposeful availment both conceptually incoherent and practically irrelevant. An individual or entity may so easily and quickly reach the entire world with its message that it is simply not helpful to inquire whether, in taking such action, that individual or entity has consciously and carefully made the decision either to affiliate with the forum state or seek to acquire its benefits.”).
26 Greg Taylor, Regulatory Failure: Australia’s Internet Censorship Regime, Electronic Frontiers Australia (May 5, 2001), at http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/aba_analysis.html.
27 Id.
28 Id. (“[T]he ABA is spending over 95% of its effort on complaints about overseas sites that are then referred to filtering companies. This represents a government subsidy to a largely US-based industry that is probably already well ahead of the government anyway.”).
29 Nazila Fathi, Taboo Surfing: Click Here for Iran . . . , N.Y. Times, Aug. 4, 2002, � 4, at 5.
30 See generally William M. McBride, Technological Change and the United States Navy, 1865-1945 (2000).
31 When broadcast television was introduced, one could easily predict that the flow of technology was against small cultures, sub-cultures, and minority points of view. Cable television and rising disposable income undid these dire, technology-based predictions. The market for audiovisual works continues to fragment and differentiate as it becomes possible to deliver more and more channels into each home. In 1965, technology practically rendered publishing in some less common languages (Dutch, Danish, Swahili, Bambara, etc.) an economic dead-end, but the advent of desktop publishing technology undid some or all of those economic disadvantages.
32 Erik Eckholm, . . . And Click Here for China, N.Y. Times, Aug. 4, 2002, � 4, at 5.
33 Boyle, supra note 23, at 197.
34 See BBC News, China Internet Firms “Self-Censoring” (July 5, 2002), available at http:// news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2098530.stm.
35 Id.
36 Dr. Gunnar Bender, Bavaria v. Felix Somm: The Pornography Conviction of the Former CompuServ Manager, Int’l J. Comm. L. & Pol., Summer 1998, � 2, at http://www.digital-law.net/IJCLP/1_1998/ijclp_webdoc_14_1_1998.html; Edmund L. Andrews, CompuServ Unit Chief Is Indicted in Germany, Int’l Herald Trib., Apr. 17, 1997, at 13.
37 Eckholm, supra note 32.
38 China Jails Politically Incorrect Net User 11 Years, Mercury News (San Jose), Aug. 5, 2002, at http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/3803541.htm.
39 See generally Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999); William Mitchell, City of Bits (1995); M. Ethan Katsch, Software Worlds and the First Amendment: Virtual Doorkeepers in Cyberspace, 1996 U. Chi. Legal F. 335; Lawrence Lessig, Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace, 45 Emory L.J. 869 (1996); Joel R. Reidenberg, Governing Networks and Rule-Making in Cyberspace, 45 Emory L.J. 911 (1996); Joel R. Reidenberg, Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules Through Technology, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 553 (1998) [hereinafter Reidenberg, Lex Informatica].
40 See generally David G. Post & David. R. Johnson, Chaos Prevailing on Every Continent: Toward a New Theory of Decentralized Decision-Making in Complex Systems, 73 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1055 (1998); David R. Johnson, Let’s Let the Net Self-Regulate: The Case for Allowing Decentralized, Emergent Self-Ordering to Solve the “Public Policy” Problems Created by the Internet, at http://www.cli.org/selford/essay.htm (last visited May 9, 2003); David R. Johnson & David G. Post, And How Shall the Net Be Governed?: A Meditation on the Relative Virtues of Decentralized, Emergent Law (Sept. 5, 1996) (draft), available at http://www.cli. org/emdraft.html.
41 See, e.g., Johnson & Post, supra note 9, at 1398–1400 (noting that “exit options” from virtual communities mean that different communities could flourish with people free to move easily among them); John O. McGinnis, The Once and Future Property-Based Vision of the First Amendment, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 49, 100–07 (1996). In his article, McGinnis noted that, up until 1996, the Internet’s “growth ha[d] been achieved with no guidance from the state and little regulation outside the enforcement of private ordering through contract.” Id. at 102.
42 See generally Nozick, supra note 15.
43 Johnson & Post, supra note 9, at 1367.
44 See, e.g., Lesley Stones, Delegates Disagree About Regulation of Laws, Bus. Day (Johannesburg), Apr. 23, 2001 (describing South African national conference on e-commerce laws where some advocated “a few tweaks and twiddles to existing laws” and others sought “one new, all-embracing law covering every aspect of e-commerce”), available at http://all-africa.com/stories/200104230184.html.
45 Johnson & Post, supra note 9, at 1379.
46 See id. at 1382–84 (discussing antitrust and copyright models).
47 Joint Statement on Elec. Commerce, Jan. 30, 1999, U.S.-U.K., available at http:// www.iwar.org.uk/e-commerce/resources/usukecommerce.htm.
48 See WIPO Copyright Treaty, opened for signature Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 65, WIPO Publication No. 227(E) [hereinafter WCT], available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ ip/wct; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, opened for signature Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 76, WIPO Publication No. 227(E) [hereinafter WPPT], available at http://www. wipo.int/treaties/ip/wppt.
49 See WCT, supra note 48, arts. 6, 8, 36 I.L.M. at 69–70. Article 6 of the WCT is captioned “Right of Distribution” and establishes a general “exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies” of works; Article 8 of the WCT is captioned “Right of Communication to the Public” and establishes that authors shall enjoy an “exclusive or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their work in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.” This last phrase is intended to describe generally Internet distribution and delivery, but the interconnection of the two Articles is clear in that Article 8 equates a “making available to the public” via wire or wireless means as a “communication to the public.” See also WPPT, supra note 48, arts. 8, 10, 36 I.L.M. at 83 (showing that the WPPT has provisions that parallel those in the WCT).
50 And properly so, not just for practical reasons, but because the content of international legal norms can depend on their interpretation and implementation by nation-states. See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 31(3)(b), opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (stating that when interpreting a treaty, account shall be taken of “any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreements of the parties regarding its interpretation”).
51 WCT, supra note 48, art. 11, 36 I.L.M. at 71; WPPT, supra note 48, art. 18, 36 I.L.M. at 86.
52 See, e.g., 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright � 12A.18[A] (2002).
53 Compare Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. �� 1202–1205 (2000) with Council Directive 2001/29/EC, 2001 O.J. (L 167), available at http://www.eurorights.org/ eudmca/CopyrightDirective.html.
54 Implementation of the WCT/WPPT by the United States and the European Union may have wandered beyond the four squares of the norms established by the treaties. For example, Alain Strowel has noted that in implementing WCT Article 11, both the United States and the European Union have established prohibitions on technological protection measures that attack controls on access; however, if access is a right of copyright holders, it has usually been a right protected by real property law (control of access to cinemas and concert halls, etc.) rather than copyright law. Alain Strowel, Droit d’auteur et acc�s � l’information: de quelques malentendues et vrais probl�mes a travers l’historie et les d�veloppements r�cents, 12 Les Cahiers de Propri�t� Intellectuelle 185, 206–08 (1999) (“[L]a partie la plus importante de cette reglementation concerne les measures touchant � l’acc�s, mais, en revancne, � l’�gard de ces measures, aucune obligations n’existe en vertu des Traites de l’OMPI” and observing that this might cause a divergence in norms).
55 Reidenberg, Lex Informatica, supra note 39, at 577.
56 Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment, G.A. Res. 162, UNCITRAL, 51st Sess. (1996), available at http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/electcom/mlecomm. htm [hereinafter UNCITRAL E-Commerce Model Law].
57 See, e.g., Porsche Cars N. Am. v. Porsche.net, 302 F.3d 248, 261 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he enactment of ACPA eliminated any need to force trademark dilution law beyond its traditional bounds in order to fill a past hole . . . .”); Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 497 (2d Cir. 2000) (The ACPA “was adopted specifically to provide courts with a preferable alternative to stretching federal dilution law when dealing with cybersquatting cases.”).
58 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, ICANN (Sept. 29, 1999) [hereinafter UDRP], available at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-29sept99.htm.
59 Id. � 4(a)(i)–(iii).
60 Id. � 4(b).
61 Andre R. Bertrand, Le Droit des Marques, des Signes Distinctifs et des Noms de Domaine 578–83 (2002) (noting “the numerous contradictory decisions rendered on identical facts” and the very broad definition of “trademark” used by WIPO UDRP panels); Laurence R. Helfer & Graeme Dinwoodie, Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 141, 255–56 (2002); see also Ian L. Stewart, Note, The Best Laid Plans: How Unrestrained Arbitration Decisions Have Corrupted the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy, 53 Fed. Comm. L.J. 509, 518–22 (2001) (arguing that the arbitration process, being unrestrained, has damaged an otherwise decent dispute resolution process, using cases involving celebrities’ names as an example).
62 For example, paragraph 4(a) of the Start-Up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) for the .biz gTLD repeats the UDRP three part test.
63 Bertrand, supra note 61, at 579 (counting Romania, the Philippines, the Bahamas, and Cyprus as countries that have adopted UDRP arbitration at WIPO for their country TLDs).
64 When a “Singaporean entity” adopted dispute resolution procedures to deal with claims of cybersquatting in the “.sg” space, the Singaporeans adopted ICANN’s UDRP almost whole cloth but added a distinct mediation procedure. See Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Singapore Network Information Centre (SGNIC) (Nov. 6, 2001), available at http://www.nic.net.sg/pdf/SDRP.pdf. The Singaporean entity did, however, add a mediation process; paragraph 4(e) provides that the parties will be invited to consider whether they wish to have the dispute mediated by the Administrative Panel before the Administrative Panel is called upon to decide the dispute, then sets out procedures for such mediation. Id. � 4(e).
65 The ACPA has a non-exhaustive nine factor test that is very similar to the conditions of UDRP Article 4(a) and (b) together. Compare 15 U.S.C. � 1125(d)(1)(B)(i) (2000), with UDRP, supra note 58, �� 4(a)–(b).
66 Dispute Resolution Service, Nominet.uk: The UK Internet Names Organization, �� 3, 4, at http://www.nominet.org.uk/ref/drs-policy.html (last visited Mar. 2003).
67 Bertrand, supra note 61, at 571 (“[L]es d�cisions rendues sous l’�gide du Centre de m�diation et d’arbitrage de l’OMPI apparaissent dans ce contexte comme une source jurisprudentielle pretinente au regard du droit fran�ais.”)
68 Guidelines Set Forth for Hearing Cybersquatting Cases, Beijing Higher People’s Court (Aug. 2000), available at http://www.cpahkltd.com/Newsletter/DomainCase.html.
69 Id. art. V.
70 Id.
71 A possible example is Belgium’s proposal of, but final decision against enacting, an anti-cybersquatiing law. See Alexandre Cruquenaire, Le Reglement Extrajudicaire des Litiges Relatifs Aux Noms de Domaine 19–21 (2002).
72 For example, “.com” is the home for, in the UK, a local employment site (http://www.workfromhome.com), local telephone directory information (http://www. yell.com), and the official beer of the Edinburgh Festival (http://www.caledonian80.com); in the Netherlands, an Amsterdam restaurant (http://www.cobracafe.com); in China, a construction company (http://www.haikaigroup.com) and fashion operations (http:// www.k-boxing.com); in Japan, a gay bar (http://www.3across2.com); in South Korea, a city guide for Seoul (http://www.nmetro.com) and a restaurant (http://www.samwongarden. com). Even in France, a country often irritated by all things American, “.com” has plenty of adherents among companies who market mainly to locals, like “http://www.retro-dor.com” (an old style bread maker), “http://www.celio.com” (a Paris GAP-like chain), “http://www.recrut.com” (a France employment agency), and “http://www.cocomer.com” (a restaurant), not to mention publicly supported arts entities like “http://www.lepalais-royale.com” and “http://www.letheatreroyale.com.”
73 Ha’Aretz Daily Newspaper Ltd. v. United Websites, Ltd., (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, No. D2002-0272 (July 3, 2002) (Mueller, Arb., dissenting).
74 Space limitations do not permit me to compare, for example, the many ways UETA and E-Sign in the United States did not follow “model” approaches advocated by UNCITRAL’s 1996 document. Compare UNCITRAL E-Commerce Model Law, supra note 56, with Electronic Signatures in Global and Nat’l Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. �� 7001–7006, 7021, 7031 (2000) and Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Proposed Official Draft, 1999), available at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/ueta99.htm.
75 In 2002, UCITA’s backers continued to try to amend its provisions to make them more palatable. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law approved a series of amendments to UCITA on August 2, 2002. See Amendments to Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (Proposed Official Draft 2002), available at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/UCITA_Amds_AM02.htm; see also Ted Bridis, Group Oks Changes for Net Commerce (Aug. 6, 2002), available at http://www.siggraph. org/pub-policy/pdf/ECommerce.pdf.
76 Janet Moore & Pat Willmer, Convergent Evolution in Invertebrates, 72 Biological Revs. Cambridge Phil. Soc’y 1, 3 (1997). Whales provide an example of “convergent design” because whales, despite being genetically closer to humans than fish, are designed more like fish because they live in an aquatic environment. See also John O. Hunter & Jukka Jernvalla, Hypocone as a Key Innovation in Mammalian Evolution, 92 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. 10718 (1995) (describing convergent tooth designs in animals).
77 Moore and Willmer define “convergent evolution” as occurring “when distantly related animals evolve separately, yet produce similarity: the descendants are therefore more alike than were the ancestors.” Moore & Willmer, supra note 76, at 5; see also Simon Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation 202–03 (1998) (showing animals from divergent ancestries that converge in body design).
78 Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 WL 323710, at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995).
79 See generally Bruce Lehman, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group in Intellectual Property Rights (1995).
80 Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd., 2001 Q.B. 201, 212, 218–20 (1999). The Godfrey case was not a strict liability holding because Demon had been put on notice of the defamation. See id. at 206.
81 Technological developments are improbable because all fixed works moving through the Net are (a) eligible for copyright and (b) potential carriers of defamatory material such that it would be very hard for an automated system to screen.
82 Michael Geist, Internet “Choke Points” Put the Squeeze on Content, Globe & Mail (Toronto), July 11, 2002, at B11.
83 See, e.g., Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communication Serv., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1377 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (stating that strict liability for ISPs “would chill the use of the Internet because every access provider or user would be subject to liability when a user posts an infringing work to a Usenet newsgroup”); Niva Elkin-Koren, Copyright Law and Social Dialogue on the Information Superhighway: The Case Against Copyright Liability of Bulletin Board Operators, 13 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 345 (1995). See generally Sega Enters., Ltd. v. Maphia, 948 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Cal. 1996); Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publ’g, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
84 47 U.S.C. � 230(c)(1) (2000).
85 Id.
86 See id.
87 See Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330–35(4th Cir. 1997); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 49–53 (D.D.C. 1998) (finding that section 230(c) shielded AOL from defamation liability by Matthew Drudge, even where Drudge was paid by AOL to provide content to AOL users).
88 See 17 U.S.C. � 512 (2000).
89 See Council Directive 2000/31/EC, 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1, arts. 12–14 (on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular, Electronic Commerce, in the Internal market) [hereinafter E-Commerce Directive], available at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/internal-market/en/ecommerce/2k-442.htm; see also Draft U.K. Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, arts. 17–19, available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ industry_files/pdf/regulations.pdf.
90 Experts Working Group, First Sub-Committee, Copyright Council of Japan, Interim Report (on Recourse and Punishment) (Dec. 2000) (reporting on 1997 and 1999 Tokyo District Court cases regarding the issue of ISP liability).
91 Adjudication Commission of the Supreme People’s Court of China, 1144th mtg., Interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court of Several Issues Relating to Adjudication of and Application of Law to Cases of Copyright Disputes on Computer Network (Dec. 21, 2000), available at http://www.cpahkltd.com/Archives/nterpretation_by_the_Supreme_People.html.
92 Id. art. 5.
93 Article 8 provides that if an ISP takes down apparently infringing material at the request of a copyright owner, then a court will refuse any request from the “accused infringer . . . [that] the Internet service provider[] be liable for breach of contract.” Id. art. 8. Article 8 also transfers liability for such “claims for compensations for damages” to “the person giving the warning,” i.e. the copyright holder. Id.
94 Geist, supra note 82, at B11 (reasoning that given that ISPs are shielded from liability, the new targets are credit card companies and Internet search engines). For example, in August 2002, a number of record companies filed a complaint against Internet backbone providers seeking to force them to block a China-based Web site, “http://www. Listen4ever.com,” in Arista Records v. AT&T Broadband (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 16, 2002), available at http://www.mindspring.com/~macgill/L4Ever%20Complaint.pdf. The complaint seemed premised on 17 USC � 502(j) creating a cause of action, a reading of the DMCA statute which baffled many of us.
95 J’Accuse v. Gen. Communications, et al., T.G.I. Paris, Oct. 30, 2001, No. RG : 01/57676, note Gomez (‘[Q]u’il ne sera pas possible de diff�rer longtemps encore le d�bat sur une participation plus dynamique de l’ensemble des acteurs d’internet . . . en ceux compris les fournisseurs d’acc�s.’), available at http://www.foruminternet.org/tele-chargement/documents/tgi-par20011030.pdf. Judge Gomez’ remarks came despite a 1996 ruling from the French Constitutional Court holding an earlier law on ISP liability unconsitutional on structural grounds, but with some emphasis on free expression concerns. See Cons. const., July 23, 1996, D. 1996, 99, available at http://www.conseilconstitution-nel.fr/decision/1996/96378dc.htm.
96 See, e.g., Andrew D. Murray, Entering into Contracts Electronically: The Real W.W.W., in Law and the Internet: A Framework for Electronic Commerce 17, 19–20 (Lilian Edwards & Charlotte Waelde eds., 2d ed. 2000) (concluding that a “digital document” would have failed to meet document requirements under United Kingdom law in the late 1990s).
97 Id. at 20. As early as 1996, UNCITRAL advocated such a “functional equivalence” approach. See UNCITRAL E-Commerce Model Law, supra note 56, � 15 (explaining the “functional equivalent” approach).
98 See UNCITRAL E-Commerce Model Law, supra note 56, � 15.
99 Electronic Commerce Act, R.S.P.E.I., ch. E 4.1, art. 4 (2001).
100 Electronic Transactions Ordinance Promulgated (Sept. 11, 2002), DAWN, available at http://www.dawn.com/2002/09/12/top15.htm.
101 Cal. Civ. Code � 1633.7(a) (West Supp. 2003). Section 1633.7(b) similarly provides that “[a] contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.” Id. � 1633.7(b).
102 E-Commerce Directive, supra note 89, at art. 9(1).
103 Council Directive 1999/93/EC, 1999 O.J. (L 13) 12–20 (explaining the European Community’s framework for electronic signatures), available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_013/l_01320000119en00120020.pdf.
104 Id. For a full exploration of the E-Signatures Directive and its implementation in France, see generally Thierry Piette-Coudol, La signature �lectronique (2001).
105 See, e.g., Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer, 14 Q.B. 185, 188–89 (1849).
106 Gregoire v. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1 N.E.2d 45, 46–49 (N.Y. 1948) (finding that a publisher’s sale from stock of a copy of a book containing libelous statement was not a new publication); Wolfson v. Syracuse Newspapers, Inc., 4 N.Y.S.2d 640, 642–43 (App. Div. 1938), aff’d no op., 18 N.E.2d 676, 676 (N.Y. 1939); Restatement (Second) of Torts � 577A[3] (1977).
107 Firth v. State, 75 N.E.2d 463, 465 (N.Y. 2002) (arguing that “because publications on the Internet are available only to those who seek them, each ‘hit’ or viewing of the report should be considered a new publication that retriggers the statute of limitations.”).
108 Strowel, supra note 54, at 198.
109 Id.; see also Shira Perlmutter, Future Directions in International Copyright, 16 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 369, 370 (1998) (noting that despite variety in limitations and exceptions in national copyright laws, “certain general categories are common.”).
110 Richard J. Ross, Communications Revolutions and Legal Culture: An Elusive Relationship, 27 Law & Soc. Inquiry 637, 639 (2002).
111 UEJF et LICRA v. Yahoo!, Inc., T.G.I. Paris, Nov. 20, 2000, No. RG: 00/05308, available at http://www.cdt.org//speech/international/001120yahoofrance.pdf.
112 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1189–91 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
113 Philip Reitinger, Legal Aspects of Government-Sponsored Prohibitions Against Racist Propaganda on the Internet: the US Perspective, Presented at the Seminar on the Role of the Internet with regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in Geneva, Switzerland (Nov. 10–14, 1997), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/10/c/racism/reitinger.htm.
114 See, e.g., Associated Press, Norwegian Convicted of Racism on the Internet in a Rare Case (Apr. 24, 2002) (describing an April 24 Norwegian conviction for racist speech and a March 7 judgment in Sweden against a tabloid that allowed racist comments on its Internet chat site), available at http://www.lexis-nexis.com/universe.
115 See 521 U.S. 844 (1997); see also Am. Library Assoc. v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 2d 401, 489–90 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (characterizing the Internet as a “public forum” for First Amendment purposes and declaring unconstitutional Congressional tying of library funding to use of ineffective pornography filtering programs).
116 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19, G.A. Res. 217 A(III) U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., at 71, 74–75, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948), reprinted in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948-1988: Human Rights, The United States and Amnesty International (Amnesty International USA 1988).
117 See, e.g., Mauro F. Guillen, The Limits of Convergence (2001) (describing the non-convergence of business practices in Spain, South Korea, and Argentina).
118 For an exhaustive account, see Justin Hughes, Political Economies of Harmonization: Database Protection and Information Patents, Presented at the Institut Fran�ais de Relations Internationales (June 10, 2002), available at http://www.ssrn.com/abstract_id= 318486. The cases in question included Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), and Rudolf Jan Romme/Van Dale Lexicograpfie B.V., HR 4 Jan. 1991 (translated in Protecting Works of Fact 93 (Egbert J. Dommering & P. Bernt Hugenholtz eds., 1991)). Beginning in 1989, French courts also delivered a series of decisions denying copyright protection to factual compilations on the grounds that they did not reach “au rang de cr�ation intellectuelle” or constitute an “apport cr�atif et intellectuel.” See Lucas, supra note 1, at 40 n.79.
119 Council Directive 95/46/EC, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 31 (focusing on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/law_en.htm.
120 Harold J. Berman, World Law, 18 Fordham Int’l L.J. 1617, 1617–22 (1995).
121 Id. at 1622.
122 See Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism 38 (1991).
123 See id.
124 Lucas, supra note 1, at 13–14.