当代码不是法律

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Virginia Law Review Pub Date : 2003-06-05 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.413201
Tim Wu
{"title":"当代码不是法律","authors":"Tim Wu","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.413201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The prominent effects of computer code have made it difficult to ignore the fact that code can be used to produce regulatory effects similar to laws. Hence, the popularity of the idea that (for computer users at least) \"code is law.\" But the idea remains extremely vague. Most problematically, none of these understandings of code and law explains the central issue of compliance. Specifically, they do not explain the shifting patterns of legal compliance in the 2000s. Explosions of non-compliance in areas such as copyright, pornography, financial fraud, and prescription drugs fuel the sense of a legal breakdown, yet the vast majority of laws remains unaffected. This Article proposes a new and concrete way to understand the relationship between code and compliance with law. I propose to study the design of code as an aspect of interest group behavior as simply one of several mechanisms that groups use to minimize legal costs. Code design, in other words, can be usefully studied as an alternative to lobbying campaigns, tax avoidance, or any other approach that a group might use to seek legal advantage. The important case of peer-to-peer (\"P2P\") filesharing, explored in depth in this Article, illustrates the possibility of using code design as an alternative mechanism of interest group behavior. The approach aims to separate two different aspects of code's relationship with law. The first is Lessig's concept of a regulatory mechanism that computer code can substitute for law or other forms of regulation. The second aspect is as an anti-regulatory mechanism tool to minimize the costs of law that certain groups will use to their advantage.","PeriodicalId":47840,"journal":{"name":"Virginia Law Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"679"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"70","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Code Isn't Law\",\"authors\":\"Tim Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.413201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The prominent effects of computer code have made it difficult to ignore the fact that code can be used to produce regulatory effects similar to laws. Hence, the popularity of the idea that (for computer users at least) \\\"code is law.\\\" But the idea remains extremely vague. Most problematically, none of these understandings of code and law explains the central issue of compliance. Specifically, they do not explain the shifting patterns of legal compliance in the 2000s. Explosions of non-compliance in areas such as copyright, pornography, financial fraud, and prescription drugs fuel the sense of a legal breakdown, yet the vast majority of laws remains unaffected. This Article proposes a new and concrete way to understand the relationship between code and compliance with law. I propose to study the design of code as an aspect of interest group behavior as simply one of several mechanisms that groups use to minimize legal costs. Code design, in other words, can be usefully studied as an alternative to lobbying campaigns, tax avoidance, or any other approach that a group might use to seek legal advantage. The important case of peer-to-peer (\\\"P2P\\\") filesharing, explored in depth in this Article, illustrates the possibility of using code design as an alternative mechanism of interest group behavior. The approach aims to separate two different aspects of code's relationship with law. The first is Lessig's concept of a regulatory mechanism that computer code can substitute for law or other forms of regulation. The second aspect is as an anti-regulatory mechanism tool to minimize the costs of law that certain groups will use to their advantage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virginia Law Review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"679\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"70\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virginia Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.413201\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virginia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.413201","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 70

摘要

计算机代码的显著作用使人们很难忽视这样一个事实,即代码可以用来产生类似法律的调节作用。因此,(至少对计算机用户来说)“法典就是法律。”但这个想法仍然非常模糊。最成问题的是,这些对法典和法律的理解都不能解释合规性的核心问题。具体来说,它们并不能解释2000年代法律合规模式的变化。在版权、色情、金融欺诈和处方药等领域,违规行为的激增加剧了法律崩溃的感觉,但绝大多数法律并未受到影响。本文提出了一种新的、具体的方式来理解规范与守法的关系。我建议将代码设计作为利益集团行为的一个方面来研究,它只是利益集团用来最小化法律成本的几种机制之一。换句话说,代码设计可以作为游说活动、避税或集团可能用于寻求法律优势的任何其他方法的替代方案进行有益的研究。本文将深入探讨点对点(“P2P”)文件共享的重要案例,说明使用代码设计作为利益集团行为的替代机制的可能性。该方法旨在分离法典与法律关系的两个不同方面。首先是莱西格的监管机制概念,即计算机代码可以取代法律或其他形式的监管。第二个方面是作为一种反监管机制工具,以尽量减少某些群体将利用的法律成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When Code Isn't Law
The prominent effects of computer code have made it difficult to ignore the fact that code can be used to produce regulatory effects similar to laws. Hence, the popularity of the idea that (for computer users at least) "code is law." But the idea remains extremely vague. Most problematically, none of these understandings of code and law explains the central issue of compliance. Specifically, they do not explain the shifting patterns of legal compliance in the 2000s. Explosions of non-compliance in areas such as copyright, pornography, financial fraud, and prescription drugs fuel the sense of a legal breakdown, yet the vast majority of laws remains unaffected. This Article proposes a new and concrete way to understand the relationship between code and compliance with law. I propose to study the design of code as an aspect of interest group behavior as simply one of several mechanisms that groups use to minimize legal costs. Code design, in other words, can be usefully studied as an alternative to lobbying campaigns, tax avoidance, or any other approach that a group might use to seek legal advantage. The important case of peer-to-peer ("P2P") filesharing, explored in depth in this Article, illustrates the possibility of using code design as an alternative mechanism of interest group behavior. The approach aims to separate two different aspects of code's relationship with law. The first is Lessig's concept of a regulatory mechanism that computer code can substitute for law or other forms of regulation. The second aspect is as an anti-regulatory mechanism tool to minimize the costs of law that certain groups will use to their advantage.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Virginia Law Review is a journal of general legal scholarship published by the students of the University of Virginia School of Law. The continuing objective of the Virginia Law Review is to publish a professional periodical devoted to legal and law-related issues that can be of use to judges, practitioners, teachers, legislators, students, and others interested in the law. First formally organized on April 23, 1913, the Virginia Law Review today remains one of the most respected and influential student legal periodicals in the country.
期刊最新文献
The God Cure: Spirituality as Therapy. Designing Business Forms to Pursue Social Goals Isolated Lambdoid Craniosynostosis. Unconstitutionally Illegitimate Discrimination Sovereign Immunity and the Constitutional Text
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1