This article examines the possible basis for legal liability of researchers who use the Internet in the collection of research data. In particular, it examines the potential legal issues associated with the protocols of ethnographers who use listserv, discussion board, blog, chat room and other sorts of web or Internet-based postings as the source of their data. The author assumes that the forum for participation is legitimate, in that the list, board, blog, chat, etc. is not created or otherwise concocted (...) by the researcher, but involves situations akin to off-line practices where a researcher would be listening to the conversation or watching the behavior of subjects in a public place. Since these practices do not involve direct interview or interaction with or treatment of "human subjects", much of the precedent involving negligence, informed consent, and related issues is not relevant; however, it is reviewed initially for guidance in suggesting the applicable, legal standards of conduct. This article does not discuss the use of the Internet as a collection device, e.g., in online surveys. Issues of legal harm arising from claims in negligence, privacy, and defamation for subsequent disseimination of such postings are evaluated. Although it is concluded that the likelihood for a success of such claims is small, analysis will include steps that researchers can take to ensure that such risk remains negligible. (shrink)

Law and ethics or a sense of professional responsibility are not always aligned. A characterization of the disconnect falls into one of two broad categories. At times, the law may not go far enough in achieving an ethical or professional response, at other times the law goes too far and forecloses a response based on ethical principles or professional responsibility. In the instance of the latter, ownership or control rights often conflict with other rights such as access to information, privacy, (...) or a general sense of free speech. Where the law does not go far enough an opportunity arises for gentle intervention through education and awareness-raising. The law can, however, be said to align with principles or responsibility, and while not perfect leads to a more harmonious and desirable response. Along these three characterizations the role of the information intermediary such as a library or school is examined. In addition, the characterization is assessed in three subject areas: copyright, privacy, and free speech. The discussion results in further opportunity for reflection on the purpose and role of law and preferred or professional responses. (shrink)

This paper discusses basic concepts and recentdevelopments in intellectual property ownership in theUnited States. Various philosophical arguments havepreviously been put forward to support the creation andmaintenance of intellectual property systems. However, in an age of information, access toinformation is a critical need and should beguaranteed for every citizen. Any right of controlover the information, adopted as an incentive toencourage creation and distribution of intellectualproperty, should be subservient to an overriding needto ensure access to the information. The principlesunderlying intellectual property regimes (...) in the UnitedStates recognize and embody this. In addition, thephilosophical/ethical dimensions of this debate couldalso be structured to support this attitude as well. Intellectual property is fast becoming digitalproperty. New technologies allow owners to extendtheir control of both legitimate uses and misuses ofthe intellectual property. Recent trends demonstratethat the access principle has not always beenparamount in judicial or legislative applications. Thetrend rather is to allow a proprietarianism factor todominate the analysis. Finally, several principles areforwarded which would assist adjudicators and policymakers in reaffirming the basic purpose of theintellectual property law, which is to benefit thepublic at large. (shrink)

This article explores recent developments inthe regulation of Internet speech, inparticular, injurious or defamatory speech andthe impact the attempts at regulation arehaving on the `body' in the sense of theindividual person who speaks through the mediumof the Internet and upon those harmed by thatspeech. The article proceeds in threesections. First, a brief history of the legalattempts to regulate defamatory Internet speechin the United States is presented; a shortcomparative discussion of defamation law in theUK and Australia is included. As discussedbelow, this (...) regulation has altered thetraditional legal paradigm of responsibilityand, as a result, creates potential problems forthe future of unrestricted and even anonymousspeech on the Internet. Second, an ethicalassessment is made of the defamatory speechenvironment in order to determine which actorshave moral responsibility for the harm causedby defamatory speech. This moral assessment iscompared to the developing and anticipatedlegal paradigm to identify possible conformityof moral and legal tenants or to recognize theconflict between morality and law in assigningresponsibility to defamatory actors. Thisassessment then concludes with possiblesuggestions for changes in the legal climategoverning the regulation of defamatory speechon the Internet, as well as prediction of theresult should the legal climate continue todevelop on its present course. This is not tosuggest that all law, or even the law ofdefamation, be structured to reflect thesubjectivity of a moral construct, but since itis the authors position that the legalassignment of liability in online settings ismisaligned, this reflection can serve asbeginning reassessment of that assignment. (shrink)

As the National Information Infra- structure develops new avenues for information products and services will open. Creating, identifying and protecting the information market space is a critical component to the success of information product and service developments. As a result, the producers of those products and service seek to protect their proprietary interest in the underlying information. However, these actions have broader consequences: Attempts to extend legal protection to basic facts and other public domain information demonstrate that the public information (...) space is slowly being reduced. Reviewing several information controversies as case studies is fruitful. Not only for assessing current trends in information disputes (warfare) but can form the basis for establishing several predictors useful in determining when future information ownership controversies may develop and result in the loss of public information space. One set of predictors helps define the information controversy and is descriptive. The second set of predictors characterizes the marketplace environment. It provides further nuance to the economic factors that force information owners to seek legal remedy. Identifying instances where both models suggest a change in information rights or ownership is most likely to result in the critical loss of access to public information space. (shrink)