Research Topic: Is it fair to say that by and large the internet is unregulated? Why or Why not?
Internet is basically the world-wide network that connects computer worldwide via TCP/IP protocol for the purpose of exchange of information. At Global level, the Internet is highly unregulated. It lacks the common global authority that regulates the Internet at global level. Nations have law regarding what comes in and goes out through their physical national borders. However, such law does not exist in terms of Internet which is globally available to everyone. There are countries like Saudi Arabia that does regulate internet at national level for example through blocking various websites that are not good for health of nation. Although such blocking may prove effective but considering the growth of internet and number of websites, this is becoming a complex task. To regulate the internet at global level, there is strong need for the authority and framework. There are range of laws at jurisdictional level that need to be considered similar to international trade. To highlight, there are organisations in place for the governance of Internet known as Multi-Stakeholder Organisations (MSOs). One example of such organisation is Information Security Operations Centre (ISOC). However, the general public is unaware of existence of such organisations. The little utilisation of such MSOs in the governance of Internet has led to the system failure in the current legal framework. The purpose of this research paper is to examine the nature of internet and explain the requirement of self-governance along with practical rules and regulations. Internet Industry has vast amount of knowledge and in order to create self regulation and practical rules, we need to have utilise knowledge from within internet industry and apply it in making effective global laws and policies concerning the regulation of internet.
Concept of Internet
In the literature, there are ranges of definitions given for the Internet. In the case of ACLU v Reno, The Internet was described as below:
"The Internet is not a physical or tangible entity, but rather a giant network which interconnects innumerable smaller groups of linked computer networks. It is thus a network of networks. this is best understood if one considers what a linked group of computers -- referred to here as a "network" -- is, and what it does" (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/aclu-findings.html)
This definition explains that as Internet is not a physical or tangible entity, the laws of physical border does not apply to it. The global nature of internet is such that it is complex to apply border concept to Internet.

Another description of Internet was provided in Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Legislation.
"The Internet is accurately described as a "network of networks. Computer networks are interconnected individual computers that share information. Anytime two or more computer networks connect, they form an "internet........ Today, the Internet spans the globe and connects hundreds of thousands of independent networks." (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seminar/internet-client/readings/Week6/DCLK.doc.)
The definition supports the explanation of the ALCU v Reno. It states that the purpose of internet is to exchange information. It also supports the fact that Internet is at global level and includes thousands of independent networks. The ruling of Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Legislation also states that WWW and Internet are two different things but both are dependent on each other.
"The World Wide Web ("the Web" or "WWW") is often mistakenly referred to as the Internet. However, the two are quite different. The Internet is the physical infrastructure of the online world: the servers, computers, fiber-optic cables and routers through which data is shared online. The Web is data: a vast collection of documents containing text, visual images, audio clips and other information media that is accessed through the Internet."
(http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seminar/internet-client/readings/Week6/DCLK.doc.)

UK and US Approach concerning Jurisdiction Legal Liability
The rules and regulations differed from country to country. In fact, it differs from one state to another in the same country. Therefore, it becomes complicated to implement internet regulations globally. For example, in one state the rules are easily enforceable on individuals but in the another state such rules do not apply making the framework inconsistent. The improper approach is evident in Saudi Arabia where government block and filters internet contents. This include videos, blogs and almost everything. Individual caught downloading or uploading prohibited contents heavily fined. The contents available on global scale gives rise to jurisdictional tourism. For example, as UK retain multiple publication rules, it has become the chosen jurisdiction for defamation actions on the internet. This simply means that each and every act in regards to publication will give rise to liability. This demonstrates an inappropriate approach to Internet through the use of regulation. In the US for example, litigation shopping is not considered as appropriate in the absence of direct link. Another useful case is Matt Pavlovivh v. DVD copy Control Association in which it was identified that there was potential factor of liability when the data were transmitted across internet to break the protective codes. This was in relation to the movie industry in California. This means that the point of hard was California. The question of concern was whether the website was targeted for California people or was for the global level. Although it was targeted for California, the release of trade secrets had a global effect. If there is no direct intention to specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff has no right of action. The self regulation approach with international framework seems much more promising in determining jurisdiction.
There are many different approaches to jurisdiction making it complicated to understand its implications. Taubman argues that The regulation of cyberspace is ultimately reducible to national jurisdictions, without any distinct or separate international layer. On a practical plane, perhaps the essential international legal issues raised by the Internet concern the resolution of conflicts between domestic laws, to be settled by the rules of private international law – questions such as whether you can defame someone or breach censorship laws in a third country when publishing on the Internet, and which jurisdiction that you enter into a contract (and in which jurisdiction any dispute might be resolved) when you are trading on the Internet. The law is expected to change with the introduction of new technologies and businesses. The change of law helps to better respond to the implications of new technologies.
According to Birgos, "Courts adopts new form of technology through adopting existing rules. The internet is no different. It is simply on a larger global scale. There is no need for reformulated jurisdictional rules to deal specifically with wrongs committed on the internet… The internet is constantly evolving... Any complications arising from the application of territorial rules to increasingly mobile wrongdoers are neither new nor unique to the internet context. The most important consideration at this point is to create a balanced and fair system and apply it to respective jurisdictional model. Internet being global, it becomes hard to identify jurisdiction.
When it comes to emails, Under English law, there is difficulty in establishing form of liability due to the private nature of emails. The case of Pullman v Hill is the example related to emails. It was established that if an email enter to general server where it can be read by everyone, there is a liability attached. There should be some form of filters, blocking or software present to prevent illegal, inappropriate emails to come through the system. If such precautions are not taken then Internet service provider as well as sender may be held liable. The case of American library association and United states is a useful case in relation to filters of contents. In the case it was held that A school intranet has to use a web content filtering system in order to ensure that access to improper websites are restricted and improper emails cannot enter the system. Another interesting case of Reno v American Civil Liberties Union identified in what circumstance the liability can be held and in what circumstances, liability cannot be held. It was held that there should be distinction between audience of communication and postings. Both of these need to be altered depending on the audience targeted. This means that improper contents on children's website requires high interference whereas such contents on adult website does not require high interference. The court held that
"The Communication Decency Act lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the Communication Decency Act effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve." (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/521/521.US.844.96-511.html)
The regulation of internet and difference in decisions of courts across different nations make regulation of internet complex and confusing. In transmitting data on internet, many player play role. It includes servers, data, transmitters, receiver etc. Sender can be given jurisdiction as its based in a particular physical location. On the other hand, receiver can also be given jurisdiction due to its location. However, the transmission is done at the global level which makes it hard to give jurisdiction.
To ensure there is effective governance, Intermediary liability is an important tool. When an organisation take necessary action to ensure that the effective governance is in place, the liability for control is discharged. On the flip side, if actions are simply taken by users for communication without knowledge and control then the liability will not take place. In the case of MGM studio Inc v Grokster Ltd, it was held that the Mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough to subject to copyright infringement liability a distributor of a product capable of infringing uses, nor would ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability in themselves; instead, liability for inducement of infringement is premised on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct. Considering Internet Service providers, even though they might have the power to detect and illegal or actionable activity, there is no liability considered if it cannot actually remove the user. It is acceptable that removing client and continual targeting in case they change their IP is enough to prove effective supervision. In cases where permanent removal of the user in not possible in case of breach, continual targeting can be effective as user will think twice before engaging in such acts again. Considering the case of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd, four key points were decided: There has to be actual or constructive knowledge of the intermediary; This may be contextually implied; There has been a breach by a user; and There is a failure to act by the intermediary to prevent such acts. Another case of Productores de Música de España. v Telefónica de España delat with content control and prevention of software that allows illegal downloads to take place. In the case iiNet, being the ISP was not held liable as it did not have enough access to technologies to remove the accounts. The high court of Australia held that "iiNet had no direct technical power at its disposal to prevent a customer from using the BitTorrent system to download the appellants’ films on that customer’s computer with the result that the appellants’ films were made available online in breach".