the case for the right to prevent access richard warner
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Case for The Right to Prevent AccessRichard Warner
![Page 2: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
First Claim The case for the right rests on two claims. First: Internet systems contain information
that, absent a right to prevent access, receives legal protection against appropriation and use by third parties.
Purely factual compilations of data receive no copyright protection, and, absent a right to prevent access, the information can be searched and extracted by others.
![Page 3: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Second Claim Second: it would promote both freedom and
efficiency to protect this information by a right to prevent access.
The right promotes freedom by allowing the property owner to decide who can have access to and use his or her property.
![Page 4: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Protecting Freedom If we do not protect the freedom in this way,
how will we determine the extent to which Internet system owners have control over their property?
Are we going to invent a new approach? It is difficult to regulate appropriately when
confronted with rapid and revolutionary technological, cultural, and economic change.
![Page 5: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Sensible Course The sensible course is to start with a model
which is relatively well-understood and whose consequences are predictable with some accuracy; and then
adapt the model to the new situations we confront on the Internet.
![Page 6: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Promoting Efficiency A commitment to a free market economy is a
commitment to letting market participants decide to what, when, and with whom they buy and sell.
Other things being equal, letting market participants decide is more efficient than taking the decision out of their hands
![Page 7: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Efficiency and Property Rights Property rights play an essential role in placing
market decisions in the hands of market participants.
Not only do they define who is entitled to exchange what;
they also enable sellers to control with whom they share business resources and to whom they will sell, as well as where, when and how they do so.
![Page 8: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
In the brick-and-mortar world, trespass to land and trespass to chattels provide a business with a broad right to control access to its real and personal property Cullane v. State (282 Ark. 286, 668 S. W. 2d 24 (S. Ct.
Ark. 1984)
Why not do so on the Internet? Let’s look more closely at the need for such
protection.
Brick-And-Mortar Analogy
![Page 9: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The eBay Business Context eBay’s revenue depends on a network effect. To see why, ask: why do buyers go to eBay?
Because it has the most items for sale. Why is that?
Because most sellers use eBay. Why? Because most buyers use it. So . . .
![Page 10: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
A Network Effect So: most buyers and sellers use eBay because
most buyers and sellers expect most buyers and sellers to use eBay.
This ensures that most buyers and sellers do in fact continue to use eBay,
which ensures that most buyers and sellers will continue to expect most buyers and sellers to use eBay,
which ensures that . . .
![Page 11: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The Network Effect and Revenue eBay’s revenue depends on this network
effect. Its revenue comes from primarily from
transaction fees charged to sellers. The fees are relatively small, so eBay has to
have a large volume of sales. eBay’s size matters for this reason, and its
size is a function of the network effect.
![Page 12: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Bidder’s Edge’s Threat Bidder’ Edge threatened to undercut eBay’s
network effect. Imagine large numbers of buyers had begun
to use Bidder’s Edge in preference to any other site, and imagine you are a seller.
Where should you post your item for sale?
![Page 13: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
It Does Not Matter No matter where you put it, buyers will find it
on Bidder’s Edge. Hence, sellers would no longer have a
powerful motive to post on eBay. eBay’s network effect would be undercut.
![Page 14: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Defense for eBay? Should eBay be able to defend itself against
this threat? Surely it should. Does it already have adequate legal
protection?
![Page 15: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Does the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provide the desired protection?
Only if eBay lost at least $5000 as a result of Bidder’s Edge’s activities.
eBay probably lost very little if anything.
![Page 16: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
What eBay Wants eBay is looking for an injunction to stop
Bidder’s Edge before it causes significant damage.
Compare EF Cultural Travel v. Explorica, where:
There was sufficient damage; The access was discovered long after it happened.
![Page 17: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
IP Law Protection? Trademark violation? No. No trademarked
items involved. Compare Oyster Software v. Forms
Processing, which involved copying trademarked language in metatags.
![Page 18: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Copyright violation? The data Bidder’s Edge wants is factual
information complied in a database, and, under Feist, there is no copyright protection. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone
Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). The situation is the same in Register.com v.
Verio and Tickets.com v. Ticketmaster.
![Page 19: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Trespass To Chattels We can provide protection via trespass to
chattels. But should we follow eBay or Intel? eBay: any intentional, unauthorized use of
another computer system is trespass. Intel: intentional, unauthorized use is a trespass
only when it sufficiently impairs value or sufficiently harms a relevant interest. Just using computer capacity is not enough.
![Page 20: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Looks Like Intel It looks like we should follow Intel. What eBay wants to protect itself from is a
threat to its business. In the brick-and-mortar cases, we allow
businesses to protect themselves from just such a threat by finding a trespass.
So why not count the business threat as a sufficient harm?
![Page 21: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
The Problem We need to develop a systematic view of
what counts as a impairment/harm that will provide a principled ground for deciding particular cases.
This is likely to prove very difficult as there will be many different types of impairment and harm.
Why are some impairments and harms sufficient for trespass while others are not?
![Page 22: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
An Example Rex owns and runs Real Web Babes (RWB),
a web site consisting of a collection of hyperlinks to web pages with pictures of women.
RWB links to resumes containing pictures of women; to personal web sites displaying pictures of vacations; and so on.
Rex catalogues the pictures in terms of attractiveness on a 1 to 10 scale.
![Page 23: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Example Continued He collects the links using automated robot
search software which he sends to publicly accessible web sites.
Sally maintains a personal web site on which she displays pictures of her vacations.
Rex links to the site. Sally is offended, and she notifies Rex that he
is not authorized to link to her site.
![Page 24: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Trespass? Rex does not remove the link. Instead, he posts a message that quotes
Sally’s demand that RWB not link to her site, and adds “Don’t let this one tell us what we can and can’t do!” John, a visitor to Rex’s site, reads the posting and uses the link.
Should we regard Sally’s offense a sufficient impairment in value or harm to support a trespass to chattels claim?
![Page 25: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
How Broad A Right? Conclusion: an Internet system should have
the right to prevent access when there is sufficient harm to the business.
We have not argued that a system owner should be able to turn any access into a trespass simply by informing the other party that such access is no longer authorized.
![Page 26: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
A Better Alternative Go back to eBay; count any use of
computing capacity as an impairment of value.
To see how to limit the right, recall that trespass to chattels involves intentional,
unauthorized access; and, by making an Internet system publicly
accessible, the system owner impliedly consents to public access.
![Page 27: The Case for The Right to Prevent Access Richard Warner](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110209/56649e2d5503460f94b1dcc8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Limiting the Right So: we can limit the right to prevent access by
developing a doctrine about when consent is implied, and when it is, and is not, revocable.
We hold that a publicly accessible web site gives implied consent (across a wide range of cases) to receiving e-mail, searches by search engines, and to various forms of hyperlinking.
We hold that consent can be revoked in these cases only in exceptional circumstances.