Reading Assignments

You will be held to the professional standards outlined in "So You Want to be a Lawyer: A Play in Four Acts." If you have not yet read it, do so. If you have, review it.

Read, from "Law of Electronic Media: Concepts, Perspectives and Goals" (1997), the following sub-sections: "Information Age, Information Economy," "First Amendment: The Reasons For, and Purposes and Effects Of," "New Paradigms and 'Thinking Outside the Box,'" "Down-sizing, Out-sourcing, Entrepreneurship, Flat Organizations and the Virtual Corporation," "The Billion-Dollar Bonanza," "You Want It, You Got It," "Orders of Magnitude and the '99.9%-Off Sale," "Technological Displacement and Broadside Blows," "Globalization," and "Information Rich, Information Poor."

Supplement this with "Convergence and Cyberspace" from Johnson, "Regulating the Cyber-Journalist" (1997).

If you'd like an advance look at where much of our material for the readings will be coming from check out Cyberspace Law Seminar graduate David Loundy's "E-Law Locator."

If you're curious about your instructor check out almost anything from his main Web page and especially click on "About" --  with its links to activities reports, affiliations, bibliographies, recent publications, and resumes. His personal bookmarks are available to you. There are over 1000, and many are indexed under categories that will make it obvious to you how they relate to this seminar.

We will introduce ourselves and review the seminar expectations and assignments. We will exchange some of our background and experiences with the Internet.

We will discuss the "preliminary reading assignments," above.

We will begin our discussion of Friedman. Obtain and read from Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, the pages indicated on the Web page headed Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree (Anchor, 2000): Why we’re reading excerpts from it and what to look for. This Web page also contains a list of new vocabulary and some of the questions you should be able to answer after reading the material. Be prepared this week on the assigned pages up to page 200.

NOTE: This assignment was modified (substantially reduced) prior to January 17. See, "CLS01/Reading for January 17." What follows is the assignment as originally posted.

We will finish our discussion of Friedman (see the link immediately above).

All of the additional assigned readings are available as links off of the David Loundy "E-Law Locator" page. However, I have also provided direct links to each item from this memo as well (to save you looking for them on David's page). I refer to "pages" to give you some sense of how long these reading assignments are. But because printing differs from one computer to another the assigned sections of documents are identified by their intra-document headings.

1. What is "The Internet"? (a) To make sure we're all on the same page, (b) as introductory information for those who are new to the Internet/Web, and (c) as a review for all of us, one of the best statements is found in the Findings of Fact from a judicial opinion. The case, ACLU v. Reno, is one we may look at for its holding and legal analysis later on in the semester. (It deals with a Congressional effort to restrict obscenity and indecency on the Internet: the "Communications Decency Act.") For now, we just want to read a small portion of the opinion, Findings of Fact 1-48. (It printed out to about 7-1/2 pages for me. If you print the entire opinion it (for me) will take 60 pages.) The opinion is available from either this direct link to the eff site (electronic frontier foundation) or if that doesn't work, the ACLU site.

2. What is "privacy" and what protections are already in place for information privacy? "Privacy" is the subject of entire casebooks, a portion of my "Law of Electronic Media" course, the Restatement of Torts, and other volumes and articles, legislation, regulations, and case decisions. So we're not going to attain great expertise in the course of one evening's discussion. I'll review a little that night.

A useful overview of the implications and issues regarding electronic/information age privacy is contained in a government document. It is a "white paper" prepared for public comment by the National Information Infrastructure Task Force in 1997 called, "Options for Promoting Privacy on the National Information Infrastructure."

(There is an earlier, 1995, publication called Privacy and the NII: Safeguarding Telecommunications-Related Personal Information. ("NII" is short for "National Information Infrastructure." "GII" refers to "global" information infrastructure.) If this is a subject of special interest to you, or you are writing a paper that involves privacy issues, you will want to look at it as well. However, it is not assigned reading for Wednesday evening.)

What is assigned are selected sections from the 1997 "Options" paper, see link above. (My copy of the entire paper prints out to 49 pages.) Read: (a) I (3) "The EU Privacy Directive" (half-page); (b) II "Privacy Defined" (one page); (c) III "Information Privacy in the Electronic Age" (one page-plus); (d) IV "Privacy Protection in Four Economic Sectors" (18 pages) -- an excellent overview of what protections are already in place. (You are, of course, not forbidden to read more; it's useful and insightful brainstorming about how to proceed with public policy. But "as a concession to the shortness of life," if not our seminar period, it's not required.)

3. What cases have there been so far involving the privacy of, say, e-mail? Read the following:

(a) Andersen Consulting v. UOP (my copy is three pages)

(b) Bourke v. Nissan Motor Corp. (my copy is five pages)

(c) McVeigh v. Cohen (my copy is six pages)

(d) Quad/Graphics v. Southern Adirondack Library System  (my copy is three pages)

(e) State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Dept. (my copy is five pages)

(f) Stern v. Delphi Internet Services Corp. (my copy is six pages)

(g) Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service (my copy is nine pages)

All of the assigned readings are available as links from the David Loundy "E-Law Locator" and "EPIC" (Electronic Privacy Information Center) pages. However, I have also provided direct links to each item from this memo as well (to save you looking for them). I refer to "pages" to give you some sense of how long these reading assignments are. But because printing differs from one computer to another the assigned sections of documents are identified by their intra-document headings.

We will continue our discussion of "privacy" issues.

This means we will have additional discussion on one of the readings, and all of the cases, assigned for last week.

1. What is "privacy" and what protections are already in place for information privacy? From last week: A useful overview of the implications and issues regarding electronic/Information Age privacy is contained in a government document. It is a "white paper" prepared for public comment by the National Information Infrastructure Task Force in 1997 called, "Options for Promoting Privacy on the National Information Infrastructure." Read, or re-read especially, IV "Privacy Protection in Four Economic Sectors" (18 pages) -- an excellent overview of what protections are already in place. That is, begin to develop some sense of what the major areas of focus, and major legislative protections, have been.

2. What cases have there been so far involving the privacy of, say, e-mail? These were assigned for last week. We talked about them then in only the most general sense. We'll get into the particulars this evening.

(a) Andersen Consulting v. UOP (my copy is three pages) [We discussed this last week; but review/remind yourself what was in it as we may refer to it in discussion.]

(b) Bourke v. Nissan Motor Corp. (my copy is five pages) [Ditto to comment above about Andersen.]

(c) McVeigh v. Cohen (my copy is six pages)

(d) Quad/Graphics v. Southern Adirondack Library System  (my copy is three pages)

(e) State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Dept. (my copy is five pages)

(f) Stern v. Delphi Internet Services Corp. (my copy is six pages)

(g) Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service (my copy is nine pages)

. . . and, new this week, the Supreme Court's decision January 12, 2000, in the case of . . .

(h) Reno v. Condon (available as a link from the EPIC site; this is the direct URL; my (PDF) copy is nine-plus pages)

3. EPIC.

(a) Explore this site generally. Know that organizations like this exist -- and employ young lawyers like you. What do we mean by a "public interest organization"? What does EPIC do? How is it organized? Who's on their Board? Would this be a place you'd like to work? Why? How would you describe the organization's mission or purpose? What strategies does it seem to use to accomplish that mission? What are examples of some of the issues in which EPIC has been involved?

(b) [NOTE: You may skip this one paragraph and reading assignment if you wish -- but you'll find it an interesting read if you do read it.] Read EPIC's "Critical Infrastructure Protection and the Endangerment of Civil Liberties"? up to the section headed "Bibliography." (On my copy that is 19 pages-plus.) You may also want to (but are not required to, and will not be quizzed on) "Appendix A: White Paper on PDD-63." (It runs from page 22 through 34 on my copy.) It's the Clinton Administration's official "Policy on Critical Infrastructure Protection" referred to in the EPIC document.

This document reads like a Tom Clancy novel, so it's not as daunting as the pages may suggest.

NOTE: Come prepared to represent some group's position on these issues, such as (1) the NSA/CIA/DIA/FBI needs/interests, (2) commercial database providers (e.g., Nexis/Lexis), (3) private sector employers, (4) union representative of employees, (5) ACLU, or (6) anything I've forgotten that you think should be represented. We will have a debate/discussion of the various positions and see if we can evolve a class policy. It should be fun.

(c) Read EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg's "Preserving Privacy in the Information Society" (presented to UNESCO). My copy runs 11-plus pages.

(d) [NOTE: You may skip this document if you wish -- but it's interesting and is only one paragraph.] As an example of what you can uncover using the Freedom of Information Act, and a document relevant to Wednesday's discussion, check out the EPIC-uncovered Brent Scowcroft "Top Secret" White House memo of January 17, 1991. (It's less than one page.)

(In order of size; shortest first -- with the exception of the introductory material.)

Greg Abbott, "Basic Elements of Defamation Law" (Read through II.A; that's 2+ pages on my printout.) It's good for all of us to review and essential for those who've never before studied defamation law. The latter will benefit from reading the entirety of II as well -- an additional 3 pages. I am unfamilar with this author, but (a) this summary is adequate for our purposes and the first I found online, and (b) it is an illustration of something you, as a lawyer, can do with your own Web page.

It's in the Cards v. Fuschetto (2+ pages in my printout)

Rindos v. Hardwick (4+ pages in my printout)

Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy Services (this is an alternative URL to David's, at eff, which was busy at the time I put this together) (5 pages in my printout)

Cubby v. Compuserve (7 pages in my printout)

Zeran v. AOL  (7+ pages in my printout)

Louder v. Compuserve (8 pages in my printout)

United States v. Baker (10+ pages in my printout)

Many of you have requested that we include some material about copyright in our survey of "cyberspace law." So we'll begin that exploration February 7th, and continue it on February 14th.

Copyright law as a separate course and area of study. As you well know, but I will remind you anyway, there are entire courses devoted to copyright law -- including those at our law school taught by outstanding professors. Thick casebooks, numerous statutory provisions, regulations and court opinions contribute to this body of law. There is also an interesting history of the evolution of copyright over centuries, and its role as a part of international/global law and regulation.

If a part of the reason you are taking this seminar is because you are thinking about the possibility of specializing in intellectual property law I would definitely recommend that you include a copyright law class while you're in law school.

Copyright: The Law.

1. We will be referring to Professor Stacey L. Dogan's contributions to Learning Cyberlaw in Cyberspace: Copyright in Cyberspace. Start with the page this link takes you to: the Introduction (1 page).

2. Then read Dogan's Section One. (2 pages)

3. Next check out the U.S. Copyright Office Web page. It has links to virtually anything you'd want to know as a beginning practitioner of copyright law.

4. Click on the Copyright Office's "Copyright Basics" and read from "What is Copyright?" through "How Long Copyright Endures" (i.e., read to "Transfer of Copyright") (9 pages).

5. If you have not been clicking on the sections of the Copyright Act as they were highlighted in what you've read so far go to either the Copyright Office statutory site (offers both "text" and Adobe Acrobat Reader "pdf" versions) for Chapter 1 of the Act, or the Cornell Law link to the Legal Information Institute (Copyright Chapter 1) -- or whatever other site is your favorite way of getting to the U.S. Code online -- and make sure you have read at least sections 102, 103, 106, 107 and 117.

Copyright: Its Future on the Internet

6. Read John Perry Barlow, "The Economy of Ideas," Wired 2.03, March 1994. (This is the Pinedale, Wyoming, cattle rancher who wrote lyrics for the Grateful Dead and helped found the eff (electronic frontier foundation) with Lotus developer Mitch Kapor. A mind-stretching piece with which we begin our consideration of the role of copyright as cyberspace law. 16 pages.)

7. If you have time (it won't be part of the quiz, but will be discussed and part of the quiz next week if we don't get to it February 16 -- so you won't be wasting your time to read it now) read Eric Schlachter, "The Intellectual Property Renaissance in Cyberspace: Why Copyright Law Could be Unimportant on the Internet," 12 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 15. The text and endnotes are at two different locations. The link I've provided takes you to a page where you can click on text.html and note.html to get you to both. (18 pages text; 10 pages notes.)

All in all it should make for an interesting evening. See you then.

There are so many wonderful cases illustrating the intersection of copyright law and the Internet that it is as difficult to know where to start as where to stop. But I don't want to overload you with reading. So my compromise has been to include a relatively wide swipe of issues/contexts/cases, but then limit many of them -- sometimes assigning little more than a couple paragraphs of fact statement. In short, it's a less intimidating assignment than first appears from a list of 12 cases.

If you have time to read more than the excerpts I recommend you do. If you don't, but keep these cites, they will be a place for you to start in the future.

We will also discuss the Barlow and Schlachter pieces some more (see above). (Barlow was on last week's quiz, so won't be included this week.)

Here are the cases:

Hyperlaw v. West Publishing Co. (my copy is 3 pages plus)

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Start with "JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court." Read the following sections: I, II. A (only; not B), and III. (on my copy that makes about 6 pages of reading)

Expert Pages v. Universal Networks (my copy is 1 page)

Playboy Enterprises v. Frena Read the first 4 paragraphs. Skip the "Summary Judgment" discussion. Read I, "Copyright Infringement." Skip II, "Trademark Infringement" and III "Unfair Competition." (on my copy that makes about 5 pages)

Playboy Enterprises v. Webbworld Read only III. C. ("Discussion"/"Vicarious Copyright Infringement") (on my copy 1 page)

National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola This is such an interesting case, both from the standpoint of technology and doctrine, that I'm asking you to read it all. On my copy it's 10 pages of text -- plus footnotes.

Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes Read the first two paragraphs.

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic Read the first 5 paragraphs; II. C. 3. ("Discussion"/"The Fair Use Doctrine"/"The Amount and Substantiality . . ."), only par. 4-7 (on my copy 2 pages).

Sega Enterprises v. Maphia Read from the beginning to court's findings of fact par. 12 (on my copy 2 pages).

Tasini v. New York Times Co. Read from the beginning to (not through) "Discussion" (on my copy 5 pages).

Recording Industry Ass'n of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems Read from the beginning to (not through) II (on my copy 2 pages).

U.S. v. LaMacchia Read from the beginning to (not through) "The Copyright Law."

Although not assigned, or subject to quiz, if you're looking for a link to Monday's [February 12, 2001] Ninth Circuit decision in A&M Records v. Napster, here it is from the Ninth Circuit's Web site.

You asked that we look at some hacking law. Since much of it has arisen in the context of schools and colleges, "Readin' Writin' and Hackin'" -- samples from cyberspace law in education -- is our theme for the evening.

First, however, we'll finish up a little unfinished business from last week: be prepared to walk us through the court's analysis in National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola; and to spend a little time discussing the article originally assigned for February 7:  Eric Schlachter, "The Intellectual Property Renaissance in Cyberspace: Why Copyright Law Could be Unimportant on the Internet," 12 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 15. The text and endnotes are at two different locations. The link I've provided takes you to a page where you can click on text.html and note.html to get you to both. (18 pages text; 10 pages notes.)

Neither, however, will be subject to quiz. The first because you had a question on it last week; the latter because I forgot to ask a question on it earlier and I've already asked you to read it twice.

Start with Drash and Morris, "Hackers Vandalize CIA Home Page," a CNN Interactive "Sci-Tech" story, September 19, 1996. (It's about 1-1/2 pages.)

In U.S. v. Morris the 2d Circuit offers a walk through the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. (7 pages.)

Then, in U.S. v. Sablan, the 9th Circuit applies the same section of the Act and the Morris interpretation to another set of facts. (5 pages.)

Want to know what the Prophet and Knight Lightning intended to publish in Phrack magazine? Read U.S. v. Riggs. (4-1/2 pages.)

Or what happens when a high school junior takes on "the system" and makes it to the 7th Circuit? See, Boucher v. School Board. (5-1/2 pages plus footnotes.)

What if Justin Boucher had just limited himself to describing the assistant principal as having the "personality of sour milk"? See, "Florida High School Rescinds Suspension of Senior Who Criticized School on Private Web Site," Student Press Law Center, June 4, 1998. (1/2 page.)

Then give the Student Press Law Center's Web site a click, just to note that there is such an organization, and remind yourself that if an issue exists (a) someone has probably created an organization about it, and (b) created a resource-full Web page -- both things you will, in one context or another, be able to use as a practicing lawyer. (1 page.)

Finally, to round out (or at least expand) the range of our vision on this evening's theme, take a look at these four articles of Pamela Mendels in the New York Times "Cybertimes."

"Professor Puts Holocaust Theories Online, Prompting Accusations at Northwestern," January 10, 1997. (3 pages.)

"Los Angeles School District Accused of Software Piracy," August 12, 1998. (2 pages.)

"Student's Search for Religion Leads to Curb on 'Controversial' Sites," June 3, 1998. (3 pages.)

"Boys Will be Boys, But Does the Internet Prove Too Tempting?", March 25, 1998. (2-1/2 pages.)

I think you'll enjoy these readings and the evening's discussion.

As you'll see, most of these readings are more journalism or its equivalent than "law," and are therefore a relatively quick read. You'll also quickly discover the reasons why: There's not yet a lot of law out there.

But your goal, and assignment, is to come to class Wednesday evening (a) having thought through the issues, and (b) with your own proposal/s for balancing the interests at stake.

Begin with David Adler, "Legal Aspects of E-Commerce," via Excite.

Then take a look at the only case I've selected so far: Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). Note that although this link takes you to Justice Stevens' majority opinion, there are also two additional opinions by Justices White and Scalia that you get by clicking on links from the majority opinion main page. (On my printer the majority's is 7 pages plus some endnotes, Scalia's is one page, White's is four plus notes.) This will give you a sense of what the Supreme Court is struggling with on the related and applicable issues.

Following Quill read a student paper from CLS1999, Brad Graham's "State Sales and Use Taxation of Intangible Goods and Services Purchased via the Internet." (My copy is 12 pages plus endnotes.) It's kind of cool being able to assign a former student's paper, and besides it will provide you a good overview of the e-commerce tax questions.

Next, read the text of the "Internet Tax Freedom Act." This link takes you to a page of House Member Chris Cox, who played the major role in slipping his bill into the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1998 as Title XI. (Click on "ITFA Text and Summary." I selected the ".pdf" format which printed out as about 20 pages, double-spaced, with extremely wide margins.)

Once there, click on "Web Commerce" for a link to "Web Commerce: A Tempting Target for Tax Collectors?"

Finally, go to the Report of the California Electronic Commerce Advisory Council, "'If I'm so empowered, why do I need you?': Defining Government's Role in Internet Electronic Commerce." Once there, click on and read the "Introduction," and "Taxes." (The former prints out to three pages; the latter 11 pages of text plus endnotes.)

We're already nearing the point at which you take over the presentations in this seminar with your papers.

There is so much to "cyberspace law" that it is impossible to devote an entire evening to each subject. So I thought it might be time to deal with that legal specialty called "miscellaneous."

David Loundy's E-Law Locator page kindly has such a collection, and an interesting one at that.

What you'll find there are:

• Clue Computer, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc.Order to Dismiss Network Solution's Interpleader action. (Domain name dispute)

• Concentric Network Corp. v. Wallace. (Stipulated judgement and permanent injunction.)

• Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. Apex Global Information Services, Inc. (Sept. 30, 1997 Temporary Injunction for breach of contract.)

• Federal Trade Commission v. Audiotex Connection Inc. (Complaint) (web site with software that disconnects from Internet and reconnects to number in Moldova)

• Doherty v. Registry of Motor Vehicles (e-mail constituting a "signed" document)

• Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc. (April 3, 1998 order concerning legality of domain name registration fees) (read from p. 1 through II.A.1.)

• U.S. D.O.T. Order 95-11-37 (False advertising of air fares on the Internet)

• Securities and Exchange Commission Oct. 6, 1995 Interpretation and solicitation of comments on use of electronic media for delivery purposes (scan text; skip footnotes) and the final rules (read only I.C. and D).

• Nevada Anti-Spam law

These are all relatively short, and/or can be scanned relatively quickly, don't make your head hurt to try to figure out what they're saying -- and at least I found the variety interesting.

Napster is but one example of "peer-to-peer" computing. It is a technology that has a significance going well beyond the ability of teenagers to steal music in violation of the copyright law.

We will begin by trying to define, and understand, the basic technology and explore some of its seeming applications.

Read: Clay Sherky, "What is P2P . . . and What Isn't," Richard Koman, "Free Radical: Ian Clark Has Big Plans for the Internet" [Freenet], Tim O'Reilly, "Remaking the Peer-to-Peer Meme," and Tim O'Reilly and Richard Koman, "Code + Law: An Interview with Lawrence Lessig." And take a look at the O'Reilly P2P Directory for a listing of the range of P2P uses as of now.

We will read the Napster decisions. The 9th Circuit opinion is available in both HTML and PDF.

The following links/suggestions were added March 21 and are, therefore, not required reading nor, of course, the subject of quiz questions:

Napster's February petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc from the 9th Circuit's February 12th decision.

District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's March 5 Order responding to the 9th Circuit's decision.

Some information about "Freenet": http://freenet.sourceforge.net (and click on "What is Freenet?" and "How to publish"). And Gnutella (click on "What is Gnutella?" and "FAQ").

Randy Picker's article, "Napster and Metallica: A Third Way."

Lonnie Henderson, No Title [Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)]

Also read: Section 101 (a)-(c), E-SIGN Act, at http://www.verisign.com/repository/esign/index.html, the synopsis of E-SIGN and UETA at http://www.cybersign.com/news_news.htm, and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws site explanation of the UETA, its legislative history and purpose at http://www.nccusl.org/uniformact_summaries/uniformacts-s-ueta.htm.

Also read: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000), and look at the Web sites for the Recording Industry Association of America, http://www.riaa.com, and Metallica, http://www.metallica.com/news/2000/napfaq.html. [Note, as always, that if the indicated link for the District Court's Napster decision doesn't work you can put the case name into Google or some other search engine and find it in dozens of other places.]

Also read: Alan Sipress, "'Big Brother' Could Soon Ride Along in Back Seat; Traffic Monitoring Stirs Privacy Fears, The Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2000, p. A1; USWest, Inc. v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___ (2000) -- both provided seminar participants by Tom McMahon via e-mail (and searchable on Westlaw/Lexis if not received)..

Also read: [no additional assignments available at this time]

Brian Ekstrom, What's a Little Information Between Neighbors? -- The Policing of Offensive Content on the Internet, is available at two sites: http://www.geocities.com/brianekstrom/CyberspacePaper.htm and http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/cls01/ekstrom2.html.

Also read: Carl S. Kaplan, "French Nazi Memorabilia Case Presents Jurisdiction Dilemma,"New York Times, Aug. 13, 2000, and browse, especially the beginning of, The Yahoo Case in France [this is an English language translation of "Ordinance rendered on November 20, 2000, in urgency proceedings, Court of Great Instance of Paris"]. The original, in French, is also available.

Also read: Cem Kaner, "Why You Should Oppose UCITA"

Also read: Sony v. Connectix, ___ F.3d ___ (9th. Cir. 2000), and visit the Bleem! [http://www.bleem.com] website.

Also read: China Constitution [http://www.gchinalaw.com/cnlaw/reference/codes/constitu.htm]
China Copyright Law [http://www.chinaiprlaw.com/english/laws/laws5.htm]
China Supreme People’s Court interpretation of online copyright protection [http://www.chinaiprlaw.com/english/laws/laws3.htm]

Todd Hamer, Rough Draft

Also read: 1) Go to http://www.icann.org/. Under ICANN Resources (on the left side of the page), click on Domain-Name Dispute Resolution (UDRP). Read the section General Information. Then, under Principal Documents, click Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedures. Concentrate on "4. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding." [This is only a few pages total].

2) Lanham Act §43(c) (also 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)). You can find this a number of places. One such place is http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html.

3) Lanham Act §43(d). http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html.

4) Lanham Act §47. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1129.html.

[These three Lanham Act sections total only a few pages.]
 

Also read: Universal Service Administrative Company, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Federal Communications Commission (become familiar with what's offered on the FCC's Website)
 

Also read: Transmission of Wagering Information; Penalties, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1084, from Findlaw.com or the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute

The Sting, "Jay Cohen 60 Minute Interview Favorable," Jan. 7, 2001

Gail Appleson, "Man Jailed in 1st Online Gambling Conviction," Reuters, Aug. 10, 2000.