[governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not

[Paul Lehto]

On 8/29/11, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is not really true.  As several of my past posts have
>> established, without any contradiction on this particular point, the
>> internet presently (and in the past) relies upon many governmental
>> laws in the form of contract, property, and intellectual property laws
>> to facilitate its expansion (to be sure) and arguably to support its
>> existence as we know it.
>
> I'm sure that I'm not alone in disagreeing with this statement
> as formulated here as well as with your claim that you have
> "established" it. As a clear counter-example, I would point to
> the re-establishment of the Internet in Libya.

Norbert, without something like a "Uniform Commercial Code" (as it is
called in the United States) and its legal system supporting the
clearance of checks or credit card transactions, only cash
transactions are available and e-commerce as most know it collapses.
The laws in this area are not the ONLY thing required, but it is
required.  I'll bet that Libya, in whatever shape it may be in, still
has legal structures allowing for the collection of funds other than
cash, and as such it is the technical side of the internet that was
interrupted, and not the legal system.

I do realize that the role of law, especially when it functions well,
is invisible to most everyone.  That does not mean it doesn't exist.
The reason I say that this is "established" is because it is not
reasonably debatable that such laws exist, and that they are
structural supports for all or part of the internet.

You can claim that silence is not consent, and refer to an inability
on the part of yourself and others to keep up with my volume of fact
and argument, but that is not "debate".  Even now, when you have taken
the time to respond, you have not pointed to a single instance or even
a likely instance where the internet functions without any law to
support its operations.  If you did, you'd be pointing to an all-cash
economy, and a key feature of the internet -- transactions over great
distance -- would be greatly hampered or defeated.  Even for
non-commercial internet activity, there needs to be payment for
internet connectivity (unless the government provides it for free, in
which case the government's quite involved in the internet in that
way, then).

To disprove what I say, show me an internet company without lawyers,
show me the internet with cash-only transactions, show me a part of
the internet that does not use contracts and does not put customers
into collections, nor use the governmental court system.  That and
more would be required to prove an internet without law.  But if you
could do that,  I will then show you an "internet" that is not the
internet as any of us know it on this list. It's an internet that
nowhere exists.

I'll mail you $100US if you can show a real example of the above.
Because I don't think I'll have to pay, that's why I consider the
point established that this "structural law" is required for the
internet as we know it: contract law, IP law, etc.


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t