Chapter Captain MKG: Thanks Paul - I think the discussion of the broadcast flag debate may be better suited to segment 4 of this Chapter where it discusses the Audio Home Recording Act. The broadcast flag debate seems to be the current example of trying to change technology (code) to satisfy law.

Basically, I do not think this segment (Segment 1) needs much updating. The only thing I wonder is whether we want to include footnotes - or some brief discussion - of those cases (Ticketmaster et al) in which companies tried to assert trespass rights in cyberspace (this was linked in some respects to web spiders & whether the searched site contained robot exclusion headers) or some 'real-life examples' of 'good' hackers trying to test locks to see if they are locked or 'bad' hackers trying to break and enter sites to steal data. This is all in the 5th paragraph. On the one hand, I'm leery of introducing these examples because I do not want to make this a treatise/encyclopeadia - one the other hand, I wonder if consideration of these specific examples may contribute to the overall analysis of Reeves' argument, to show that there have been attempts to assert trespass law in cyberspace. Thoughts/comments anyone?

Paul Gowder: Q quick note: there's an interesting discussion going starting on the cyberia-l mailing list re: the broadcast flag. That might be an example worth importing into chapter 10.

I have read this first section a few times, and I am not so sure it does not need updating.  While it is a nice introduction to the shocking idea that there may be some types of law that are completely unneeded in Cyberspace, it also clashes heavily with the rest of the chapter.  This is for two reasons.  The first is that "theft" is almost impossible in a real world sense in Cyberspace.  What most people call theft is really "unauthorized access" or "(monetarily) uncompensated access".  Rather than taking something from someone, each act of this "theft" creates more information than there previously was.  The second is that Lessig mentions determining what constitutes "trespass" in Cyberspace ex ante.  The law, however, is by definition ex post.  Crimes cannot be committed in the future.  This is precisely the current problem with all of this terrorism hype.  If there are "future terrorists", then everyone is a terrorist because everyone has the potential to become one in the future.  The law should be determining ex post whether a trespass was committed based on the locks set up by the "victim" and whether the "victim" had a right in the first place to set up those locks.  There is a large difference between denying unauthorized access to your personal computer and denying access to a file that you have distributed for money or free.  I have a really hard time accepting that some remote entity -- no matter how rich -- can claim ownership of files on my computer.

I also have my usual problem with accepting the use of the term "intellectual property" unless it is very clearly defined.  In fact, I consider that this issue is so important that a definition of "intellectual property" should be the first paragraph of the first section of the chapter if the term is to be used at all.  In the context of this chapter, "intellectual property" always means copyright, so there is really no reason to use the term at all.  If it is a given that  "Copyright doesn't cover ideas; [it covers] expression of those ideas," (Stallman) "intellectual property" must be defined as "the owned rights associated with a piece of information" or something similar.  Any other definition makes the information itself into an ownable property and is inconsistent with the tradition of copyright law.

--LuYu?

MKG comment: LuYu?, thanks for these comments which raise some interesting and complex issues.  I am a little mindful of the fact that we are not trying to rewrite the book or the chapter, but just trying to update it for those events that have taken place since the book was first published.  So, on the one hand perhaps the chapter can be more specifically title "copyright" but on the other hand, I don't know that introducing the recent attempts to completely redefine what "intellectual property" means is within the scope of this book.  Having said that, and subject to anyone else's comments, I am keen to see how you would translate your comments into updating edits to the part - be my guest!!