Private enforcement of IP and other Rights on the Internet

Private enforcement of IP and other Rights on the Internet
During the Rose guest lecture various educational materials were presented. This paper seeks to bring out my personal perspective of the material presented. This includes the interesting bits learnt from the material and also my perspective of what I thought about it. In this paper I have used three examples to bring out my ideas clearly.
One of the most intriguing ideas from the presentation is the realization that websites are not liable for content arising from third parties. Basically this means that if someone posts something on a website he/she is solely liable for their actions. Many times most of the people especially teenagers go around posting comments or pictures in websites all over the internet. These comments or pictures may have different types of messages carried in them. These messages may vary from funny to racial messages. In the event that the message posted contravenes the rights of a certain person or group of people, it is up to them to report the website which in turn presents the third party liable. If the website’s administrators are responsible then they are responsible and appropriate action taken against them. However third parties are dealt with away from the website. This means that the website is not by any means involved in the lawsuit that is leveled against the responsible person. Citing the example of Dana Snay from the presentation it is evident that we are liable even for the posts that we post on facebook. Dana who was a college student cost her father $80,000 in a law suit settlement after she posted on facebook remarks that Gulliver was going to pay for her vacation to Europe.
Computer trespass is also discussed in the presentation. Computer trespass is described as the act in which a person knowingly accesses a computer system or network without the prior authorization by the owner. This is classified as a crime according to the Indiana code. However this is classified as major crime resulting in charges in a court of law if the trespass causes loss of more than 5000$ per year to the owner, causes any physical or medical harm, damages a government computer or threatens public health or safety. The cases of computer trespass have in the recent past have been treated with a lot of concern. Many law suits have been leveled on people found to have committed computer trespass. In the presentation the example of Aaron Swartz who committed suicide after Carmen Ortiz went on to press charges against him. This was after Aaron had downloaded millions of journals from JSTOR online database which was a violation of the terms-of-service agreement. JSTOR decided to withdraw any charges against him. However the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose computer network Aaron had used went ahead t press charges which resulted to him committing suicide. In my own thinking computer trespass should not be encouraged. The culprits behind it should be arrested and prosecuted because it infringes on the peoples’ rights to privacy.
Various creations or invents by various people are reserved the right not to be reproduced and sold without prior authority of the owner. This is achieved through the copywriting of the material reserving only the owners the full rights to their property. This property may include music, books or even movies. The rules of copyrights act as a framework to encourage creators and inventors to go about their business without getting discouraged by people who steal their property. For example sites like YouTube in the past were faced with copyright issues until recently when they developed a framework where posts with copyright issues are pulled down and the involved parties are required to settle their disputes before reposting the material. This is a move that is worth implementing worldwide to boost the creative arts and inventions industry.