Suchergebnisse

The article considers the legal nature of Internet law. The opinions of the scholars on the essence of Internet law are studied. It is established that the legal nature of Internet law is not comprehensively understood in the scientific literature. Internet law covers the rules of various branches of law as well as legislation of different countries, which govern relations on the Internet. It is concluded that the synonyms to Internet law are computer law, cybernetic law and virtual space law.It is also stated that the Internet does not have a single centralized administration and a single set of rules for use. Only technical rules for the use of the address space (Internet protocol, domain names) are centralized. It is proved that Internet law is a complex branch of law, a complex of legal norms contained in the international legal acts, as well as in the national legislation of different countries, other rules that regulate the relations between the participants that arise, change and terminate in the digital environment (on the Internet).In addition, it is argued that Internet law cannot be regarded solely as an institution of private law, because the rules of public law are considered also an important regulator of such relationships. It is established that Internet law contains rules from different branches of law as well as branches of legislation.It is emphasized that the Internet is a worldwide information system for general access, logically linked to the global address space and based on the Internet protocol defined by international standards. The following features of the Internet are highlighted: its technical character, universality, interoperability, availability of universal access for users regardless of location, availability of a logically linked global address space, based on Internet Protocol, the presence of an unrestricted large number of Internet users who seek information, post information on the Internet, exercising other rights on the Internet.Moreover, it is established that the principles of Internet law should include the freedom of expression on the Internet; non-compulsory intrusion into the personal sphere of life of individuals, as well as non-compulsion for misuse of technical knowledge and means of pursuing individual interests; respect for the results of intellectual property used on the Internet; non-competence in using digital media for the dissemination of ideas not permitted by the rest of the world.Consequently, it is argued that Internet law, when regulating relations, shall take into account the purpose of the Internet functioning. It is reported that the Internet performs informational, communication, advertising, commercial, entertaining, social, educational functions. The functions of the Internet determine the scope of the legal regulation of the relations under analysis, and have an indirect impact on the formation of Internet law. ; У статті проаналізовано правову природу Інтернетправа. Досліджено позиції науковців щодо сутності Інтернетправа. Доведено, що Інтернет-право – це комплексна галузь законодавства, сукупність правових норм, що містяться як у міжнародних нормативно-правових актах, так і в національному законодавстві різних країн, інших регуляторів, які регулюють відносини між учасниками правовідносин, що виникають, змінюються та припиняються у цифровому середовищі (у мережі Інтернет). Встановлено, що Інтернет-право містить норми з різних галузей права та галузей законодавства. Обґрунтовано, що ознаками Інтернету є: технічний характер, всесвітній, екстериторіальний характер, наяв­ність загального доступу для користувачів незалежно від місця перебування, наявність логічно пов'язаного глобального адресного простору, базування на Інтернет-протоколі, наявність необмеженої величезної кількості користувачів Інтернету, які шукають інфор­ма­цію, розміщають інформацію в Інтернеті, здійснюють інші права в Інтернеті. Встановлено, що до принципів Інтернет-права варто віднести свободу вираження поглядів у мережі Інтернет; неприпустимість свавільного втручання у сферу особистого життя людини, неприпустимість зловживання технічними знаннями, засобами для досягнення особистих інтересів; повагу до результатів інтелектуальної власності, яку використовують у мережі Інтернет; неприпустимість зловживання цифровим середовищем для поширення забо­ронених світовою спільнотою ідей та інші. Доведено, що Інтернет виконує інформаційну, комунікаційну, рекламну, комерційну, розважальну, соціальну, освітню функції.

Commentary: It took approximately 6 seconds, with 27 votes against 14 on the 16 May 2018 at 5:03pm for the Fiji Parliament to pass the Online Safety Bill (Fijian Parliament, 2018b). Thereafter, the Bill came into force as the Online Safety Act, 2018 (Fijian Government, 2018), despite concerns about its impact on free speech. This commentary examines how the public was conditioned by certain prominent actors, such as the Attorney-General and Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) chair, with support from government-aligned media. The Online Safety Bill had been touted as legislation designed to protect Fijians from harmful online activities (Doviverata, 2018; Nacei, 2018). However, the Bill's implementation was preceded by a set of supportive media-facilitated narratives that seems almost too convenient. This commentary scrutinises the series of media facilitated narratives that justified the Online Safety Act. The discussion briefly examines the connection between the media, blogs and social media in Fiji. It then explores the media facilitated narratives to provide a brief critique of the Act as a so-called 'Trojan Horse' for safety while risking responsible political free speech. Finally, it seeks to answer whether it is about online 'Safety' alone, or 'Regulation' of online media.

How Derek Bambauer thinks we can make online dating less painful

In November 2019, Vladimir Putin's regime introduced new regulations that create a legal framework for centralized state management of the internet within Russia's borders. Although full implementation will be extremely difficult, this framework will likely lead to tighter state control over society and additional complications for domestic and foreign companies. The regulations are expected to accelerate the fragmentation of the global internet and to increase Russian reliance on Chinese technology.

The 2020s will finally be the decade of cyberlaw, not as 'Law of the Horse', but as digital natives finally help bring the law syllabus, legal practice and even legislatures into the Information Society. In the first part of the chapter, I explain how the cyberlawyers of the 1990s dealt with regulation of the then novel features of the public Internet. Internet law was a subject of much interest in the 1990s in the US, and some specialist interest in UK and Europe. In Part 2, I explain the foundational rules for the adaptation of liability online initially focussed on absolving intermediaries of legal responsibility for end user posted content. This exceptionalist approach gradually gave way. While some US authors are hamstrung by a faith in the myth of the superuser and somewhat benign intentions of corporations as opposed to federal and state government, there has been a gradual convergence on the role of regulated self-regulation (or co-regulation) on both sides of the Atlantic. In Part 3, I argue that the use of co-regulation has been fundamentally embedded since European nations began to enforce these rules, with limited enforcement in which judges and regulators stated that business models largely focussed on encouraging illegal posting would not be protected. Settled policy on liability, privacy, trust, encryption, open Internet policies against filtering, were arrived at as a result of expert testimony and exhaustive hearings. In the final Part 4, I argue that hanging those policies on a whim results in potentially catastrophic results in terms of untying the Gordian knots of intermediary safe harbour/harbor, privacy, copyright enforcement, and open Internet European regulations.