Chapter 8 - notes


Chapter 7


p207

1. Above, ch 2.

2. Above, ch 3.

3. Above, ch 4.


p209

4. Above, p 17.

5. Above, p 26.

6. 'Spyware' Hansard (Lords) 10 January 2005.

7. Above, p 20. For a prosecution which failed on grounds of consent, see 'Case prompts fears over web use' Irish Times 14 August 1998.


p210

8. Cf Kam, S, 'Intel Corp v Hamidi: Trespass to chattels and a doctrine of cyber-nuisance' (2004) 10 BTLJ 427 (Lexis).

9. See especially Cohen, R and Hiller, J, 'Towards a theory of CyberPlace: a proposal for a new legal framework' (2003) 10 RJOLT 1; 'The Internet: Place, property or thing?' (symposium transcript) (2004) 55 Mercer LR 867 (Lexis).

10. Epstein, R, 'Cybertrespass' (2003) 70 Chi LR 73 (Lexis).

11. Hardy, I, 'The Ancient Doctrine of Trespass to Web Sites' [1996] JOL 7; Caffarelli, D, 'Crossing Virtual Lines: Trespass on the Internet' (1999) 5 BUJSTL 6.

12. eg Merrell, R, 'Trespass to Chattels in the Age of the Internet' (2002) 80 WULQ 675.

13. Above, ch 4.

14. Below, p 216.


p211

15. 203 F Supp 2d 601 (D E Virginia, 7 June 2002) (Lexis). See 'Verizon settles lawsuit against spammer' Comp Week 31 October 2002. Verizon is only one of a number of cases to the same effect.

16. 100 F Supp 2d 1058 (D N Ca, 24 May 2000) (Lexis). See 'eBay, Bidder's Edge end legal dispute' News.Com 1 March 2001. See similarly Register.com, Inc v Verio, Inc 356 F 3d 393 (2nd Ct, 23 January 2004) (Lexis), discussed below, p 249.

17. 100 F Supp 2d 1058, 1071 (Lexis).

18. 30 Cal 4th 1342 (Ca Supreme Court, 30 June 2003).

19. 2000 US Dist LEXIS 4553 (D C Ca, 27 March 2000) (Lexis); 2003 US Dist LEXIS 6483 (D C Ca, 7 March 2003) (Lexis).

20. 'Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Linking Dispute' NYT 15 February 1999.


p212

21. 30 Cal 4th 1342, 1362, Werdegar J.

22. For discussion of the US law after Hamidi see: 'Trespass to Chattels and the Internet' (2003) 17 HJOLT 283; DeGaetano, P, 'Intel Corp v Hamidi: Private Property, Keep Out' (2004) 40 CWLR 355 (Lexis); Fibbe, G, 'Screen-scraping and harmful cybertrespass after Intel' (2004) 55 Mercer LR 1011 (Lexis).

23. Walsh, K, 'Trespass to chattels - Ancient tort tackles the scourge of cyberspam' (2002) 14 ILT 219.

24. Usually associated with Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57. See Adams, J, 'Trespass in a digital environment' [2002] IPQ 1 (Westlaw UK).

25. McLeod, D, 'Regulating damage on the Internet: A tortious approach?' (2001) 27 Monash ULR 344.


p213

26. Feigin, E, 'Architecture of consent: Internet protocols and their legal implications' (2004) 56 Stan LR 901 (Lexis).

27. Below, ch 9.

28. eg Jones, G, 'Loose Strands in the Web: Meta Sites, Intellectual Property and Cyber-Consumers' (2001) 8 E-Law.


p214

29. Hardy, I, 'The Ancient Doctrine of Trespass to Web Sites' [1996] JOL 7.

30. See above, p 211.

31. eg Brock, A, 'Website linking agreements' [2001] EBL 8.


p215

32. Shetland Times Ltd v Wills [1997] FSR 604. For more detail on the case see Shetland Times v Shetland News; 'Shetland showdown'. For commentary on the case see O'Donnell, T, 'Law in the Outer Limits?' [1997] 3 WJCLI; Connolly, J and Cameron, S, 'Fair Dealing in Webbed Links of Shetland Yarns' [1998] 2 JILT.

33. On websites and copyright see generally Evans, M, 'Protection of data on the Internet' [2002] IPQ 50 (Westlaw UK).


p216

34. Above, pp 51 and 53-54.

35. Reed, C, 'Copyright in WWW pages - News from Shetland' (1997) 13 CLSR 167 (Ingenta).

36. Above, p 51.

37. See above, p 62.


p217

38. Below, p 220.

39. Above, p 192.

40. On trade mark law generally, see above, p 72.


p218

41. Konop v Hawaiian Airlines Ltd 302 F 3d 868 (9th Ct, 23 August 2002) (Lexis), cert denied 537 US 1193 (2003). For discussion see Motooka, W, 'Can the eye be guilty of a trespass? Protecting noncommercial restricted websites after Konop v Hawaiian Airlines' (2004) 37 UC Davis LR 869 (Lexis).

42. On the law of confidence see above pp 71 and 82.

43. Above, ch 2.

44. Galbraith, C, 'Access denied: Improper use of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to control information on publicly accessible Internet websites' (2004) 63 Md LR 320 (Lexis).

45. For the approach of other jurisdictions see: Fernández-Díez, I, 'Linking, Framing and Copyright: A Comparative Law Approach' (SSRN, August 2001); Volkmer, C, 'HyperLinks to and from Commercial Websites' (2002) 7 CLRTJ 65.


p219

46. Spencer, C, 'To link or not to link' (2002) 1 IJECLP (4) 37 (Lexis); Deveci, H, 'Hyperlinks oscillating at the crossroads' [2004] CTLR 82; Links and Law home page.


p220

47. Above, p 62.

48. eg NVM v De Telegraaf (Netherlands Hoge Raad, 22 March 2002), Judgment (Dutch).

49. eg Elektronische Pressespiegel (Landgericht München, 1 March 2002), Judgment (German).

50. Mainpost v NewsClub.de (Oberlandesgericht München, 12 July 2002, reversing Landgericht Berlin, 30 January 2001). See 'Deep Linking Takes Another Blow' Wired 25 July 2002. The case was later settled: see NewsClub-Prozess (broken link!).

51. Judgment (German) (Bundesgerichtshof, 17 July 2003); summary at [2003] EBL (Nov) 13. See 'Deep links are legal in Germany - Official' Register 20 July 2003.

52. 'Germany: deep linking lunacy continues' Register 13 August 2002.

53. Dagblades Forening v Newsbooster (Copenhagen Bailiff's Court, 5 July 2002), Judgment (English translation), summarised at [2002] EBL (Oct) 14. See 'Court cuts off deep linking' ZDNet UK 9 July 2002.


p221

54. Alemeene Dagblad v Eureka Internetdiensten (Krantem.com) (Rotterdam District Court, 22 August 2000), Judgment (Dutch); English translation; summarised at (2001) 1 ECLR (2) 12.

55. Havas et Cadres On Line v Keljob (26 December 2000), Judgement (French), summarised at (2001) 1 ECLR (2) 16.

56. Cadremploi v Keljob (5 September 2001, reversing the decision of the Cour d'Appel de Paris, 25 May 2001), Judgment (French).

57. StepStone v OFiR (preliminary injunction 17 January 2001, judgment 28 February 2001), Judgement (German), summarised at [2001] EBL (Jun) 13. See further 'StepStone sets precedent with hyperlink ban' Register 17 January 2001.

58. StepStone France v OFiR France (8 November 2000), Judgement (French).


p222

59. On liability for copying see above, p 52.

60. For a general review see Chan, C, 'Internet Framing: Complement or Hijack?' (1999) 5 MTTLR 143.

61. eg Washington Post v Total News, on which see Tucker, R, 'Information Superhighway Robbery: The Tortious Misuse of Links, Frames, Metatags, and Domain Names' (1999) 4 VJOLT 8 paras 55-58. See also Settlement terms (5 June 1997).

62. Futuredontics, Inc v Applied Angramics, Inc 1998 US App LEXIS 17012 (9th Ct, 23 July 1998) (Lexis), affirming 1998 US Dist LEXIS 2265 (D C Ca, 30 January 1998) (Lexis).

63. Derpoet (Landgericht Köln, 2 May 2001), Judgment (German). See also the Medizinisches Lexicon and baumarkt cases, discussed in The Database Right File.

64. Above, p 216.


p223

65. Above, p 215.

66. Above, p 216.

67. Above, p 220.

68. Above, p 26.


p224

69. Bae, E, 'Pop-up advertising online: Slaying the hydra' (2003) 29 RCTLJ 139 (Lexis).

70. See eg Federal Trade Commission v Zuccarini 2002 US Dist LEXIS 13324 (D E Pa, 10 April 2002) (Lexis). See also Shields v Zuccarini 89 F Supp 2d 634 (D E Pa, 22 March 2002) (Lexis), on which see Williams, R, 'Trademark Law on the Internet - Mousetrapped' (2002) 6 CLRTJ 329.

71. See eg D Squared Solutions (FTC, 9 August 2004), on which see 'FTC settles with pop-up ad "spammers"' InfoWorld 9 August 2004. For a review of the US position see Leon, M, 'Unauthorized pop-up advertising and the copyright and unfair competition implications' (2004) 32 Hof LR 953 (Lexis).

72. Wilson, G, 'Internet pop-up ads: Your days are numbered!' (2004) 24 Loy LR 567 (Lexis).


p225

73. For liability: 1-800 Contacts, Inc v WhenU.com, Inc 414 F 3d 400 (2nd Ct, 27 June 2005) (Lexis); against liability: U-Haul International, Inc v WhenU.com, Inc 279 F Supp 2d 723 (D E Va, 5 September 2003) (Lexis) and Wells Fargo and Co v WhenU.com, Inc 293 F Supp 2d 734 (D E Mi, 19 November 2003) (Lexis). See also Gator.com Corp v LL Bean, Inc 398 F 3d 1125 (9th Ct, 15 February 2005) (Lexis). For discussion see Chatterjee, N and Merriett, C, 'Pop-up advertising as "'use in commerce" under the Lanham Act' (2004) 20 SCCHTJ 1113 (Lexis); Lerner, J, 'Trademark infringement and pop-up ads' (2005) 20 BTLJ 229 (Lexis).

74. On 'initial interest confusion' see below, p 237.

75. See Web beacon.

76. See How Internet Cookies Work.

77. See eg 'PCs "infested" with spy programs' BBC News 16 April 2004.


p226

78. Halstead, D and Ashman, H, 'Electronic Profiling'.

79. See eg 'Google's Gmail sparks privacy row' BBC News 5 April 2004; Burnes, C, 'Google Mail - useful new service or frightening privacy invasion?' (2004) 4 PDP (6) 12 (Lexis); More on Gmail and privacy; Goldberg, M, 'The googling of online privacy: GMail, search-engine histories and the new frontier of protecting private information on the web' (2005) 9 LCLR 249 (Lexis).

80. eg 'Privacy groups target Amazon again' News.Com 8 October 2002.

81. Above, p 101. For discussion of the US position see: Siebecker, M, 'Cookies and the Common Law: Are Internet Advertisers Trespassing on Our Computers?' (2003) 76 So Calif LR 893 (Lexis); Hertzel, D, 'Don't Talk to Strangers: An Analysis of Government and Industry Efforts to Protect a Child's Privacy Online' (2000) 52 FCLJ 429; Zimmerman, R, 'The Way The Cookies Crumble: Internet Privacy And Data Protection In The Twenty-First Century' (2001) 4 LPP 439 .

82. See generally White, J, 'The search for a viable cause of action against private individuals who use cookies to obtain personal information' (2005) 55 Syr LR 653 (Lexis).

83. For an unsuccessful class action see In re Northwest Airlines Privacy Litigation 2004 US Dist LEXIS 10580 (D Minn, 6 June 2004) (Lexis).

84. In re Doubleclick Inc Privacy Litigation 154 F Supp 2d 497 (S D NY, 29 March 2001) (Lexis); for settlement of this action see In re Doubleclick Inc Privacy Litigation 2002 US Dist LEXIS 27099 (S D NY, 24 May 2002) (Lexis). See 'Cookies Remain Intact While Plaintiffs' Claims Crumble' (Shaw Pittman, April 2001).


p227

85. For the settlement terms of 26 August 2002 see Agreement. See 'DoubleClick to Open Cookie Jar' Wired 27 August 2002; Zarksy, T, 'Cookie Viewers and the Undermining of Data-Mining: A Critical Review of the DoubleClick Settlement' [2002] STLR P1.

86. Above, ch 2.

87. Above, p 209.

88. Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications, art 5(3). See King, I, 'On-line privacy in Europe - new regulation for cookies' (2003) 12 ICTL 225 (Taylor and Francis); Debussere, F, 'The EU E-Privacy Directive: A Monstrous Attempt to Starve the Cookie Monster?' (2005) 13 IJLIT 70 (Lexis). For regulation of 'information society services' see above, p 133.

89. Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (UK) SI 2003/2426 regs 6 and 30-31.


p228

90. European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks and Services) (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 2003 (IE) SI 2003/535 regs 5 and 16-19.

91. On enforcement of data protection law see above, p 88.

92. The reference is to the main Data Protection Directive 1995/46/EC; presumably the precise reference is to arts 10-11 on information to be given to data subjects on collection of data, on which see above p 90.

93. Sharpe, A, 'The way the cookie crumbles' (2002) 2 PDP (6) 6 (Lexis).

94. See 'Compliance advice - Website Frequently Asked Questions' (26 June 2001) para 6.

95. Working document on determining the international application of EU data protection law to personal data processing on the Internet by non-EU based web sites (5035/01/EN/Final, 30 May 2002).


p229

96. For a general review see Grant, H and Brownsdon, E, 'Websites: New guidance from the Information Commissioner - part 1' (2001) 1 PDP (8) 8 (Lexis) and 'part 2' (2001) 2 PDP (2) 6 (Lexis).

97. 'Top UK sites "fail privacy test"' BBC News 11 December 2003.

98. eg 'Which? under fire over security scare' BBC News 22 June 2001; 'UK Web shoppers' details exposed' ZDNet UK 13 August 2002.


p230

99. Hann, I, Hui, K, Lee, S and Png, I, 'The value of online information privacy: An empirical investigation' (SSRN, 2003); Baumer, D, Earp, J, and Evers, P, 'Tit for Tat in Cyberspace: Consumer and Website Responses to Anarchy in the Market for Personal Information' (2003) 4 NCJOLT 217.

100. Borking, J and Raab, C, 'Laws, PETs and Other Technologies for Privacy Protection' [2001] 1 JILT; Kenny, S and Borking, J, 'The Value of Privacy Engineering' [2002] 1 JILT.

101. 'Text is best for website accessibility' Register 4 August 2004.

102. Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002 (UK) (see also SI 2003/115 and SI 2003/2500).


p231

103. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (UK) ss 1, 19-21 and 25, as amended. For discussion see Mason, S and Casserley, C, 'Web site design and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995' (2002) 12 C&L (5) 16 (SCL).

104. Equal Status Act 2000 (IE) ss 1-2, 4, 5, 21 and 27.

105. See Web Accessibility Initiative.

106. For the US position see: Mendelsohn, S and Gould, M, 'When the Americans with Disabilities Act Goes Online' (2004) 8 CLRTJ 173; Moberly, R, 'The Americans With Disabilities Act in Cyberspace: Applying the "Nexus" Approach to Private Internet Websites' (2004) 55 Mercer LR 963 (Lexis).

107. The Web - Access and Inclusion for Disabled People (Disability Rights Commission, 2004).


p232

108. Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 24 August 2000). For discussion see Russell, C, 'Access to technology for the disabled: the forgotten legacy of innovation?' (2003) 12 ICTL 237 (Taylor and Francis).

109. Compare Fox v Encounters International 318 F Supp 2d 279 (D N Maryland, 25 September 2002) (Lexis) with Carafano v Metrosplash.com, Inc 339 F 3d 1119 (9th Ct, 13 August 2003) (Lexis), on which see Lipschutz, J, 'Internet Dating' (2004) 23 TELTJ 225 (Lexis).

110. Salt, J, 'Liability for information and the information society' (1997) 5 IJLIT 308 (OUP).

111. eg Leadstrom, N, 'Internet Web Sites As Products Under Strict Products Liability: A Call For An Expanded Definition Of Product' (2001) 40 WLJ 532.

112. See Directive 1985/374/EC on liability for defective products, especially art 2 (definition of 'product').


p233

113. 'How Google works' Economist 16 September 2004; Brin, S and Page, L, 'The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine'.

114. 'How good is Google?' Economist 30 October 2003; 'The weakness of Google' Economist 29 April 2004.

115. 'Yahoo! and Google escalate portal wars' Register 18 May 2004; 'Google's long-term dominance doubted' ZDNet UK 26 May 2004.

116. eg 'Emergence in Europe of a new monopoly on dissemination of information via the Internet and worrying collection of personal data' OJ 2004/C33E/224. Cf 'Life beyond Google' BBC News 6 April 2004.


p234

117. For some of the issues see Hanratty, E, 'Google Library: Beyond Fair Use?' [2005] DLTR 10.

118. eg Google's.

119. See Web Robots Pages.

120. Cruquenaire, A, 'Electronic agents as search engines: Copyright related aspects' (2001) 9 IJLIT 327 (Lexis). Cf Nautical Solutions Marketing, Inc v Boats.com 2004 US Dist LEXIS 6304 (D M Fla, 1 April 2004) (Lexis).

121. Ruse, H, 'Electronic agents and the legal protection of non-creative databases' (2001) 9 IJLIT 295 (Lexis); Groom, J, 'Are "'Agent" Exclusion Clauses a Legitimate Application of the EU Database Directive?' (2004) 1 SCRIPT-ed 1.

122. Rosenfeld, R, 'Spiders and crawlers and bots, Oh My' [2002] STLR 3.


p235

123. Above, p 216.

124. Above, p 219.

125. 336 F 3d 811 (9th Ct, 7 July 2003) (Lexis). This withdraws and replaces an earlier opinion, much commented on in legal circles (280 F 3d 934, 9th Ct, 6 February 2002) (Lexis).

126. Gierschmann, S, '"Thumbnails" - no "fair use" exception in Germany' (Bird and Bird, 12 May 2004).

127. Walker, W, 'Application of the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions to Search Engines' (2004) 9 VJOLT 2.

128. 'Google's Ethics Committee revealed' Register 17 May 2004.

129. Above, p 155.

130. 'China blocking Google' BBC News 2 September 2002.

131. 'Google admits omitting Chinese news links' ZDNet UK 27 September 2004.


p236

132. See eg Edelman, B, 'WhenU Spams Google, Breaks Google "No Cloaking" Rules'.

133. See eg 'Interview with a link spammer' Register 31 January 2005.

134. 'Spammer breaks into AOL search engine' ZDNet UK 20 June 2002.

135. Search King, Inc v Google Technology, Inc (D W Okla, 27 May 2003).


p237

136. 'Britain cracks down on paid search' News.Com 16 June 2004; cf 'Search engines could face legal action for advertorial in results' [2001] EBL (Oct) 3; ASA adjudication in respect of Freeserve plc (16 June 2004). See Sinclair, A, 'Regulation of paid listings in internet search engines: a proposal for FTC action' (2004) 10 BUJSTL 353 (Lexis).

137. McCuaig, D, 'Halve the baby: An obvious solution to the troubling use of trademarks as metatags' (2000) 18 JMJCIL 643 (Lexis).

138. For general principles of trade mark and passing-off, see above, p 72. See also Murray, A, 'The use of trade marks as meta tags: Defining the boundaries' (2000) 8 IJLIT 263 (Lexis).


p238

139. Roadtech Computer Systems Ltd v Mandata (Management and Data Services) Ltd (Chancery Division, 25 May 2000) (Lexis).

140. Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2002] EWHC 2772 Ch (Pumfrey J); [2004] EWCA Civ 159 (CA). For commentary see 'Court of Appeal - Trade Marks' (2004) 27 IPD (6) 4 (Lexis); Colman, C and Wilson, C, 'Reed Executive v Reed Business Information' (2004) 15 C&L (2) 10 (SCL).

141. For general discussion see Padawer, H, 'Google this: search engine results weave a web for trademark infringement actions on the internet' (2003) 81 WULJ 1099; 'Confusion in cyberspace: defending and recalibrating the initial interest confusion doctrine' (2004) 117 Harv LR 2387 (Lexis); Grynberg, M, 'The Road Not Taken: Initial Interest Confusion, Consumer Search Costs, and the Challenge of the Internet' (2004) 28 SULR 97 (Lexis); Marra, J, 'Making confusion a requirement for online initial interest confusion' (2005) 20 BTLJ 209 (Lexis).


p239

142. Playboy Enterprises, Inc v Welles 279 F 3d 796 (9th Ct, 1 February 2002) (Lexis).

143. JK Harris and Co v Kassel 2002 US Dist LEXIS 7862 (D N Ca, 22 March 2002) (Lexis).

144. For general discussion see 'Banner-ad blues' Economist 22 February 2001; 'Google decides banner ads, skyscrapers are not evil' Register 14 May 2004.

145. See generally Audience Measurement Metrics; Kang, J, 'Web Affiliate Arrangements' (2004) 12 ITLT (9) 8 (Lexis).


p240

146. eg 'Google Sues over "'Click Fraud"' MacNewsWorld 9 December 2004; 'Exposing click fraud' ZDNet 19 July 2004.

147. eg 'Man charged over Google blackmail attempt' Register 25 June 2004.

148. See 'Click Fraud: Problem and Paranoia' Wired 10 March 2005; 'Exposing click fraud' News.Com 19 July 2004.

149. For discussion see Miller, N, 'Has your trademark been Googled?' (2004) 15 C&L (1) 36 (SCL); Tyacke, N and Higgins, R, 'Searching for trouble - Keyword advertising and trade mark infringement' (2004) 20 CLSR 453 (Ingenta).

150. For one action still ongoing see Playboy Enterprises, Inc v Netscape Communications Corp 354 F 3d 1020 (9th Ct, 14 January 2004) (Lexis).

151. Brittin, J, 'Google v American Blind: Trademark Infringement Litigation in the Search Engine World' (Holland and Knight, April 2004); Abrahamson, T, 'Trademark Owners Keyed-up after Latest Google Move' (Alameda County Bar Association, September 2004).

152. See eg 'Google back in court over Adwords' Register 26 April 2004; 'French court says Non! to Google's adwords' Register 21 January 2005. For one ruling (in French) see 'Google / Viaticum, Luteciel' (Cour d'appel de Versailles, 10 mars 2005).

153. 'Is Google's Adwords Search System Legal' (2004) 12 ITLT (2) 7 (Lexis).

154. 'Google Germany wins Adwords trademark fight' Register 22 September 2004.


p241

155. See generally Morgan, S, 'Caught in the web' [2004] LSGI (Jan) 38; Thünken, A, 'Multi-state advertising over the Internet and the private international law of unfair competition' (2002) 51 ICLQ 909 (Lexis).

156. See especially Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (UK); Consumer Information Act 1978 (IE).

157. Clarke, S, 'E-commerce pharmacy law' (2001) 6 BR 357; Hörnle, J, 'Online pharmacies - at the borderline of legality?' [2004] EBL (Jul) 6.

 

FURTHER READING

Bellia, P, 'Defending cyberproperty' (2004) 79 NYULR 2164 (Lexis).

Dahm, A, 'Database Protection v Deep Linking' (2004) 82 Tx LR 1053 (Lexis).

Dockins, M, 'Internet Links: The Good, The Bad, The Tortious, and a Two-Part Test' (2005) 36 UTLR 367 (Lexis).

Dogan, S and Lemley, M, 'Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet' (2004) 41 Houston LR 777 (Lexis).

Fritch, D, 'Click Here for Lawsuit - Trespass to Chattels In Cyberspace' (2004) 9 JTLP.

Lipton, J, 'Mixed Metaphors in Cyberspace: Property in Information and Information Systems' (2004) 35 LUCLJ 235 (Lexis).

Reid, P, '"Regulating" Online Data Privacy' (2004) 1 SCRIPT-ed 3.

Rowland, R and Campbell, C, 'Content and access agreements: An analysis of some of the legal issues arising from linking and framing' (2002) 16 IRLCT 171 (Taylor and Francis).


p242

Short, J, 'An Economic Analysis of the Law Surrounding Data Aggregation in Cyberspace' (2004) 56 Maine LR 61 (Lexis).

Sloan, M, 'Web Accessibility and the DDA' [2001] 2 JILT.

Suh, J, 'Intellectual Property Law And Competitive Internet Advertising Technologies: Why "Legitimate" Pop-Up Advertising Practices Should Be Protected' (2005) 79 SJLR 161 (Lexis).

Yung, J, 'Virtual spaces formed by literary works: should copyright or property rights (or neither) protect the functional integrity and display of a web site?' (2004) 99 Nw ULR 495 (Lexis).


Chapter 9