A Brief Response to Susan Crawford

Last week, Prof. Susan Crawford challenged her readers to send her "samples of what a real cyberlaw course should cover" (What is cyberlaw?). This is truly a fascinating question and one I've thought much about. I've been meaning to write a significant bit on this subject, but just haven't had the time to do it justice. So, herewith are some brief, jumbled and confused thoughts on the subject.

I would take a look at cyberlaw as the law of networks, in the electronic realm. As I've frequently said, I believe that telecomm regulation, many freedom of expression issues and copyright are issues concerning the distribution of information. Distribution is about the network. This is the core of cyberlaw, as far as I am concerned. Therefore, I would study networking and the law, from a technological, economic, social and legal point of view.

Technology would be a major factor shaping all of these other aspects, so I would start with it and sprinkle it throughout the course. I would study the protocol stack, the end-to-end principle, circuit-switching vs. packet-switching, spread spectrum vs. standard broadcast, information theory and similar topics.

There is much that has been written on network economics, such as issues of positive externalities, tipping points, and etc.

Social networks are increasingly an element of study. It is social networks that shape and are shaped by technical, economic and legal networks.

Legally, I would start with some of the history of network law, such as the origin of common carriage for transportation and provision of government networks (such as highways, railroads and the postal service). Telecomm law is obvious, but then one can reimagine much of First Amendment law (particularly, but not limited to time, place and manner issues) as the law of networks. Finally, is not copyright more about distribution and networks of distribution, then copying?

Just a few brief comments on what I think a cyberlaw course should cover.