E-democracy is proclaimed as the next thing. It is taken as one of the most efficient avenues through which modern democracies can enhance their participatory profile. This assertion is driven by a broadening dissatisfaction with the state of “modern democracy.” Our democratic institutions are unable, so the critics argue, to produce the kind of legitimacy necessary for the institution of governance. They do not do a good enough job, both in terms of producing broad consent and in terms of adequately controlling those in power. This critique portrays the problem of “legitimacy” as a problem of institution-design: creating institutional structures that will allow the public to take part in a meaningful way in the game of governance, whether this game is played at the national or global level.

This article explores whether the Internet, as a new kind of communicative arena, can contribute to the development of more inclusive decision-making structures.

Cite as 4 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 275 (2003) | Download PDF

Fifteen years ago, state legislatures around the country had either recently passed, or were considering, legislation to protect consumers from purchasing “lemon” cars. In 1985, “[d]isputes over automobile warranties constitute[d] some of the most intractable problems that [arose] between manufacturers and consumers.” By 1993, all fifty states and the District of Columbia had passed lemon laws for cars. State legislatures passed these laws partially in response to considerable litigation over warranty disputes. Ten years later, the question of lemon aid resurfaces as at least three state legislatures consider whether computer purchasers, like car buyers, need protection.

Because computers have become such a common part of daily life, federal and state legislatures should safeguard consumers by providing “lemon aid” for computer purchasers. Until statutory protections are in place to protect consumers from lemon computers, consumers can take steps to help protect themselves from computer manufacturers.

Cite as 4 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 307 (2003) | Download PDF

Today, Internet-based radio broadcasters are caught in a royalty rate fight. Internet radio broadcasters are making a name for themselves by introducing America to new forms of music. The number of daily listeners continues to swell. In 1999, the Arbitron Company, a premier media and marketing research firm, estimated that thirty-five percent, or approximately 29 million Americans, had tried streaming audio or video such as Internet radio stations. In early 2003, two Internet-only radio stations finished number one and two on a weekly industry rating of online listenership by receiving more requests for their broadcasts than traditional stations based in London and New York did for their simulcasts. Additionally, the Internet radio listening options continue to grow every day. Listeners can find the widest variety of programming among some of the newest and smallest webcasters. These stations offer news, talk, Motown, UK garage electronica, swing, and Hawaiian music, among other choices. While Internet radio programming, or “webcasting,” may still be in its infancy, it has enormous potential.

This Recent Development posits that Congress should pass legislation setting special hobbyist royalty rates and reforming the CARP system to ensure equal protection for the smallest webcasters’ unique broadcasts, keeping in tune with the growth of Internet radio. The first part of this Recent Development describes Internet radio. The second part contains an overview of the relevant regulatory scheme. In its third part, this Recent Development paints a picture of a divided webcasting community and describes remaining problems related to royalty rates. Finally, this Recent Development suggests legislative intervention to both assist webcasters whose interests have not been represented in the royalty rate disputes and address similar disputes in the future.

Cite as 4 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 339 (2003) | Download PDF

On July 25, 2002, Representative Howard Berman (DCalif.) introduced a bill that would protect copyright owners from legal action stemming from “blocking, diverting or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file trading network.”2 The bill, known as H.R. 5211, has been greeted by a swirl of controversy in the Internet community.3 This article explores the potential pitfalls of enacting H.R. 5211, and discusses possible alternatives to the bill.

Part I of this article examines the technology of P2P networks and the copyright infringement problems they present for copyright owners. Part II is a thorough explanation of H.R. 5211, with a focus on the heart of the bill—the safe harbor provision and its exceptions. Part III examines the many ambiguities and possible difficulties presented by H.R. 5211, and argues that its enforcement may go beyond the scope that Representative Berman intended. Part IV provides three feasible alternatives to H.R. 5211 for copyright owners that could be combined to protect their works. Finally, Part V concludes that although Representative Berman’s motivations in proposing the bill may have been sound, it is necessary to explore these alternatives before considering enacting H.R. 5211.

Cite as 4 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 375 (2003) | Download PDF

In 1963, Nobel Prize winning geneticist Joshua Lederberg predicted that medical advances would impose “intolerable economic pressures on transplant sources.” His prophetic statement has become more undeniably true as current altruistic methods for organ donation have failed to meet organ demand for more than thirty years. As a result of these failed organ procurement methods, along with moral and legal barriers to other procurement methods, thousands of people die each year from the organ supply failure. The lost lives and recent technological advances surrounding organ transplantation are leading to a reconsideration of alternatives to altruistic donation as the most effective means of organ procurement.

Advancing medical technology is a central consideration in the discussion because human ingenuity has created immeasurable lifesaving value in organs that was not previously possible. This technology-driven value increase has contributed to a developing tension between societal and individual rights over human organs and other valuable bodily derivatives. At the center of this tension is the battle to create some form of market for human organs. Throughout this paper, “market” will be used in its broadest sense, exchanging some form of valuable consideration for a human organ. Creating or not creating such a market will necessarily involve judgments about what weight should be given to the claims of society and those of the individual over organs as property. This article discusses the possibility of creating an organ market that respects individual autonomy, prevents exploitation, acknowledges the sanctity of human life, and increases the supply of human organs. Such a market may save thousands of lives each year.

Cite as 4 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 417 (2003) | Download PDF

At first thought, Internet voting seems like an inexpensive, convenient and accurate platform for the election process. Given the current inadequacies in access to the Internet, however, remote Internet voting could potentially disenfranchise minorities. Internet voting makes voting more convenient for predominantly white voters and creates a bias that hinders minorities’ full participation in the election process.

Many argue that Internet voting would not result in inequalities because it would only be supplemental to traditional voting methods. Some also suggest that any device that improves overall voter turnout generally, necessarily improves voter turnout of minorities. Statistical data of racially disparate Internet access, however, proves that the digital divide is real and that the use of remote Internet voting, even as a supplement, will actually deny minorities full participation in the political process. The response to Internet voting presents a difficult dilemma for the civil rights community. Given the benefits of e-voting, namely convenience and efficiency, “litigating to stop such technological progress seems Paul Bunyan-esque.” Litigation, however, may be the only effective short-term strategy.

While the civil rights community should consider bringing a claim under the Voting Rights Act, the most important strategies for combating vote dilution are long-term. The use of information technologies to counter numerical disadvantages must be considered. Specifically, strategies such as assisted voting sites, Internet campaigns, and Internet language translation present the possibility of using cyberspace to gain greater minority representation.

Cite as 4 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 475 (2003) | Download PDF