Widgets

__WIDGETS__ Law, Technology and Culture

 Social Networking Sites are an essential part in the daily lives of many individuals. Social network sites build online communities of individuals with common hobbies, goals, thoughts, activities, and interest. Generally it is a site that allows its subscribers to interact with one another by the means of instant messaging and e-mail.  Companies such as LinkedIn, Facebook Wikipedia, and MySpace are the most widely used social networking sites available to online users. With their user friendly interface and the use of many creative widgets, such features offered by these sites helps attract new members daily. A widget is a small application embedded on the forefront of a computer screen, a page of HTML, a mobile phone and other various technologies. It is commonly used by auction sites, bloggers, and social network sites. They are used as a distribution system by many companies including Google, Microsoft, YouTube, Flickr and others.  Members can indulge in many different activities through Social Networking Sites such as: communicating with their peers, posting job opportunities, looking for room mates, or just to setup a personal blog. “Even though mankind has always been social, the facilities have not always been available to enable multiple interactions.”[1] Before the discovery of Social Networking Sites, individuals did not have the resources to communicate their thoughts, ideas, and discussions to a large scope of audience unless if they were in shouting distance. With the help of Social Networking Sites, individuals can easily express their actions and feelings to millions of people around the world through the means of posting a blog on their member page of the Social Networking Site.  Social Networking sites let its members publish or post any information which they may please. Unknowingly sometimes some members tend to publish a video or music file online which may infringe many internet laws. People may also be capable of using these social network sites as a mean of defaming others. Such concerns arise many issues for the Social Networking Site. These legal issues vary because of the jurisdiction they are under. U.S.A, Canada, and the EU have different policies and concerns when it comes to these legal issues.

 **__ The Failure of Social Networks __**  There are always pros and cons regarding every aspect which needs to be researched. Before starting a Social Network Site one must consider the reasons why such sites fail and how they succeed. Many individuals believe that the only reason why a Social Network Site would fail is due to the lack of protection towards member privacy but there are many more reasons that make one wonder how social networking sites are still running successfully. The main five reasons why social networks fail are: “Walled Gardens, Not integrated with other applications, not granular enough, no real reward of penalty system, and Privacy issues.”[2]  Walled Gardens means that social network sites have a fear that if they share large amounts of information then they will not have the competitive advantage over other sites. This disables social networking sites from expanding through the means of merging with smaller sites. When merging, a social networking site should make sure that the personal information of their members is handled appropriately (Piczo and Stardoll). This could jeopardize the future of the company if they reveal too much information to public and other competitors.  Many Social Network sites are not integrated with other applications such as email, online and offline features, sharing files, etc. If such applications were integrated through the means of widgets then the amount of time an individual spends on sites like Facebook and MySpace would increase because one can now simply do all their online activities through one social networking site. Due to the lack of integration, social networking systems are not capable to cater to vast amount of users which makes chances of failure higher than usual.  Much of the information regarding many individuals found on social networking sites is not granular enough because other than knowing their name, age, gender and other basic information, one does not know as to whether the new friend is a criminal or is capable of doing major harm. For example: if one was to look for an employee online through a social networking site, then they would not know their qualifications or whether or not the person who is being interviewed has a positive image in the work environment. One could simply be interviewing a drug addict who does not seem to care about how to present them self or act appropriately but would do anything to get the job. Such a deception makes it harder for people to trust these online social networking sites because of the fear that one wrong move could ruin everything for them.  There is no real reward or penalty system when it comes to Social Networking Sites. Individuals can make more than one account in order to conduct advertising through different accounts. Deleting individual accounts is the best action networking sites can do, this does not stop the offender from making new accounts using a falsified IP address and continuing to commit cybercrime. The main goal for any Social Networking site is to have as many members in their database as possible. For example: Facebook allows users to invite their friends to join. If users were to invite their friends, there is no guarantee that he/she will be rewarded for making new members sign up. Rewarding members would create incentive; users would readily invite others to benefit themselves making the site more popular and financially sound.

**__ Internet Jurisdiction __** USA, Canada, EU  Internet jurisdiction has become an important issue in the recent years, since the cyber world has no boundaries it acts as if it is one nation. The internet has allowed for all people worldwide to access websites that are out of their nation this freedom, though it may be convenient, poses many regulation issues. The problem with this mentality is if someone violated the terms and agreements in a foreign country’s business, are they tried in their country? Or do they get tried in the country that the business operates within? “Although this potential global audience can mean great exposure for businesses, it can also translate into potential liability” [3].  Engaging in e-commerce presents a risk for e-trade as users cannot be screened for viability. The nature of commerce is vast, that being said internet business must take into account the regulations of each country it does business with and evade prohibition.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: justify;">**__ U.S. Jurisdiction __** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Jurisdiction in the United States is determined primarily by “subject matter” and secondly if the court has “personal jurisdiction”[12]. “Making a determination of personal jurisdiction if a court has subject matter jurisdiction depends on two bases: Long arm statutes [and,] Due process provisions of the US Constitution” [12]. The U.S judicial system is divided into two, state and federal, each covering different matters. It has authority over the state residence and violators within the territory will be prosecuted in the state the offence was committed within. The Supreme Court generally deduce that the basic elements for due process “as requiring that it can be established that the individual ‘purposeful avails’’ himself of the state and the law of the state in question, it is reasonable to assume that he would consider himself as subject to the jurisdiction of the court in question, and the individual has ‘minimum contacts’ with the state” [12]. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act states that, “Section 512 removes liability for copyright infringement from websites that allow users to post content, as long as the site has a mechanism in place whereby the copyright owner can request the removal of infringing content. The site must also not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.”[4] Allowing members to share data in digital form brings forth many complications. Much of the digital content published on the internet is either video or audio related. The original artists and their publishing company are usually not aware of such copyright infringement because many various sites similar to YouTube tend to allow the publishing of such materials. With the Section 512 law, even though the administrator is not held liable for the publishing of copyright material, it is still the administrator’s responsibility to ensure that such content is removed immediately to avoid any legal litigation. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Many members are unaware of their infringement since the internet has created ease in developing, sharing, selling, and stealing information. This is unfair to the original creator who is not benefiting from people modifying, using or corrupting their programming. Such an action is not acceptable under Section 512 because it does not allow protection towards the rightful owner of the idea. If data created by one could easily be taken by another for their personal benefit then it would discourage many individuals from creating and posting their ideas and innovations to a large audience. Section 512 affects the following scenario because if members are able to setup profiles and make friends in order to get help for their widgets, they are enabling themselves for being victims of copyright because it is not hard for an individual to take a creative idea and make something out of it in order to benefit. Users could abuse the non- sheltered community of social network sites by making “friends” they could simply alter a “friends” concept to create their own widget or they could be a victim of infringement. The internets virtual communities are deceiving, adding a complete stranger and befriending them online has created many problems for users. A person could act the part and convince others to share pictures, opinions, ideas, programs and many other things. The simplicity is overwhelming. If one is not benefiting from the actual idea then one can be benefiting from many other factors available. For example: there are many copyright infringement law suits being filed against YouTube because members post audio and video online without the proper consent of the original publisher of the material. YouTube being a part of Google has used Section 512 to defend itself towards these lawsuits and allegations by stating that the audio and videos are immediately taken off the website upon request. However, one could easily argue that YouTube and Google who make their revenue from online advertisements on their websites use these paid advertisements on the same page where the infringed material is being posted. This proves that the site is receiving a financial benefit directly attributing to the infringing activity. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Information regarding an individual’s online habits and surfing is readily available to many business to business (B2B) clients for marketing research without consent of the user. For example when an individual becomes a member of the well known Social Networking Site such as Facebook, they are immediately prompted to sign a privacy policy provided by the company. In Facebook’s privacy policy it clearly states that, “We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile” [5]. Meaning that such information is readily available to anyone who knows how to find it. This does not sit easy with new members, the concern of potential hackers being able to obtain personal information and possibly jeopardizing their credit or life has caused uncertainty due to the lack of privacy protection. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> With the use of an embedded cookie, websites like Facebook and MySpace can easily monitor habits on the internet without asking for consent from the user themselves. Most members and/or individuals do not know about this privacy policy because many accept the privacy policies without reading them in order to start as soon as possible without the hassle of reading the rules and regulations. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Another law which benefits Social Networking Sites is from Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, stating that: “Section 230 immunizes website from any liability resulting from the publication of information provided by another. This usually arises in the context of defamation, but several courts have expanded it to cover other sorts of claims as well.”[1] Therefore, Section 230 shields Social Networking Sites with any information which may be demeaning and defaming from one member towards another. SNS are not liable for what is said but are responsible to make sure that such actions do not occur again and the member who has committed such an act either gets banned from the site or is reprimanded for it to not occur again. However, websites that create and publish their own information are not protected by Section 230 because they have reliable sources from whom they get their information from. In such situation if information is not corrected then the website is responsible for the means of defamation.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: justify;">**__ Canadian Jurisdiction __** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Similar to that of the U.S, Canada has two different standards, “real and substantial connection”. The Canadian aspect allows violators to be prosecuted by “the law of the place where the harm takes place”. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) shelters Canadians (commercial activity) in the private sector from unethical privacy practices. Under PIPEDA commercial activity is defined as, “Any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character, including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists.”[15] PIPEDA lets Canadians hold social networking sites responsible for distributing their personal information to online advertisers or suspicious buyers. It is forbidden for a website to release personal and private information regarding an individual without their consent. However, PIPEDA does not cover “information collected for personal purposes, such as recording the telephone numbers and addresses of friends and family in a personal address book.”[16] It also does not apply, “to information collected, used, or disclosed for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes. [16] <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario or Quebec do not abide with PIPEDIA, instead these provinces protect themselves with the Province’s Privacy Act. For example: Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. These laws cover much more aspects of privacy within the province which other province may not agree upon.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: justify;"> **__ European Jurisdiction __** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> When conducting business within any EU country, the individual has the “right to bring suit against you in their own country”. The European Union Copyright Directive of 2001 “authorized the imposition of penalties against any person who attempts to circumvent security measures from digital files. Article 6 outlaws devices or products’ designed to circumvent technological measures’ that thwart privacy” [6]. This directive however allows “transient and incidental” replication of copy written materials. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> The European Union has done an outstanding job to reduce the issues that occur online on Social Networking Sites. With their addition of the Safer Internet Plus Program, the European Union has made sure that 18 Social Networking Sites came to an understanding that they are willing to take extra measures to protect the young adults from underage involvement on content, which is not suitable for them. Such an act makes sure that there is less involvement of child pornography, defamation of another, and or misuse of ones privacy. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Some well influenced companies and congress in Europe have insisted that Social Networking sites help aid government officials concerning information on individuals to help with criminal investigations. Even though such a request of revealing private information would not even be considered in the U.S.A and Canada, it is the first step to having a safer environment. Social Networking sites all over the world would take exception to revealing private information because this may lead to a decline in the amount of members which could result in lesser clicks and profits. None the less, the European Commission is strictly considering regulating social networking sites in order to protect its citizens from harm.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: justify;">**__ Sharing Widgets __** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Widgets are used widely by social networking sites in order to make their members experience easy and reliable. Widgets can be developed by programmers on any platform. For example after Facebook had opened its doors to developers, they saw their “user base grow to more than 48 million people.”[7] In such instance, Social Networking Sites benefit from enabling third party widgets because they can cater to the needs and preferences of many online users through the intellectual property of another member. Exclusively distributing widgets to the members of a Social Network Site is acceptable up to an extent. Sites like MySpace and Facebook have a strict policy towards the sharing and the using of widgets. When a PR representative was asked about MySpace’s policy, she said, “If a widget violates our TOS, we block them. Breaches would include any person, widget or software that violates copyright, poses security risks, distributes pornography or engages in commercial activity”[8]. Commercial activity refers to the advertising of sites for a small cost. Many social networking sites prohibit users from making a monetary profit by any means (advertising, selling, etc.) <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Widgets however can be purchased by members. The act of buying and selling widgets online at a fair price dependent on function does not seem harmful. However, if a Social Network Site shares various free widgets and members can share their own created widgets, users could pay for a membership, copy the widget and sell it for a profit outside of the site- which is terms for copyright infringement. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Google and Apple released products that help accommodate the use of widgets. With the Apple iPhone, a simple visit via their phone to an online application store or connecting their phone with a USB Cable to their PC they can purchase an application widget at any given time. Widgets that are sold over the internet usually have a copyright clause on them. Some websites offer individuals a trial based widget so that they can try out the widget and determine if it is or is not useful to them. It is essential for a successful Social Networking site that offers and focuses on widgets as their number one priority, to allow for a trial to determine if users are willing to pay for the service provided. Apple also uses widgets for the purchasing and downloading of music from its infamous iTunes application. Due to the popularity of widgets, companies like Apple and Google have significantly exceeded their year end revenue. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> In order to run a Social Networking Site, one has to consider the proper use of widgets. To obtain success, one should consider the use of public forums where members of the site can post their source code for widgets to be able to navigate through any site with ease. They should also have a sub page that directs members to free widgets and widgets on sale. Widgets are available in many different categories such as business, sports, music, movies, etc. It would be appropriate to organize them in fitting categories so it is easier for members to look for what they desire. Search options and the feature of allowing members to log in reduces the risk of unreliable and untrusting sources who have the intention to cause illegal actions online. It should also be a must to include a Frequently Asked Questions page and a Privacy Policy page to avoid future dealings with the law. If the member took the time to read these documents then it should be no reason for one to not abide by the basic rules and regulations set forth by Social Networking Sites.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> **__Risks and Alleviation__** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Widgets can also cause many problems for individuals who are unaware of malicious activity being taken place in the background of their computer. Shared widgets on a Social Network site are an easy target for hackers. Hackers could embed a virus in the source code of a widget; attaching it to the most appealing widgets to ensure the bug spreads. The peer to peer uploading of non-monitored widgets and digital files is the downfall of sharing networks. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">It would portray an insecure network with the possibility of exposure to a potentially malicious virus. This could make the Social Networking site lose all credentials and reputation in the online world, diminishing customer confidence in the company decrease the profit margin due to doubt and insecurity. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> The risk that Social Network site run is that of uncertainty. The site cannot pass judgment as to who is trustworthy online, many of times internet companies do not know who they are conducting business with leading to financial deprivation. Widget sharing sites could allow for fraud, bugs and infringement. Internet villains are much harder to catch they could use falsified documents such as credit cards, social insurance numbers, and bank accounts in order to attain digital documents. Embedded bugs could destroy a computer and or make private documents attainable to hackers. Viruses can be used to find individuals financial documents and be sent infecting other computers and only benefiting the creator of the virus. Unfortunately widgets can be modified to contain these errors and redistributed to unsuspecting buyers. Widgets bought or attained freely from a social networking site could be sold as is or modified, illegally, and sold at a cheaper price generate competition for the initial widget site (with there own widget). <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> The risk of finical deficiency in the widget market place is likely. In 2008, Apple Inc. filed a complaint to the U.S. Copyright Office “that it believes iPhone jailbreaking is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and infringes on its copyright, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation” [9]. Jailbreaking an iPhone is essentially allowing these phones to download applications for free and or change the fundamentals of the phone. Apple, outraged by the embezzlement of their applications has begun developing applications that lock and/or freeze jailbroken phones it response to the losses they have incurred. The iPhone is harder to infringe as apple has the niche market advantage however online widgets can be manipulated for self-gain. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Imagine that there was a virus being passed around by Facebook to its members when the site was first introduced to public. Would Facebook be able to be as successful as they are today or would they be just another Social Networking Site which barely has 10,000 members? In 2008, Facebook was infected by a “Secret Crush” application that enticed it users to download an application that would reveal one of their friends who has a crush on them. “There is no secret crush to reveal. Instead, the widget entices users to download the adware, but not before prompting them to pass the application on to their Facebook friends” [10]. Social Network sites are becoming dangerous; generally application developers do not selflessly create enjoyable widgets. They commonly add viruses, spyware and adware to benefit themselves and redirect users to malicious websites that they profit from. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> In order to alleviate risk, Social Network sites must draw up a contract that covers all aspects of the law and the rights of the host site. An agreement must be signed in the development of the website and its components from an outsourced company “Transferring copyright and other intellectual property in the site content to [the host] and overturning the dangerous default position at law under which the developer is the owner”[ 11]. Terms and conditions of being a user on the site must be established using a “policy, limiting of [the sites] liability” addressing “member responsibilities and many other issues” [11]. An agreement must be made with the advertisers funding the site, it “covers [the] relationship with advertisers on [the] site including issues of liability for content, limitation of [the sites] responsibility for internet downtime, type, location and size of advert, revenue and duration of the agreement” [11]. It is important to research other sites privacy policies in order to benefit from prior mistakes, when composing the policy it is essential to mention policies on personal data processes collected and market research being used in order to prevent litigation. A disclaimer generally “limits… liability to visitors to [the] site and asserts [the sites] rights in trademarks, content and copyright” [11]. Rules and regulations of forum’s, messaging and blogging avoid controversy and legally advise users of penalties that they could incur if these are violated.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: justify;">**__ Cases to Consider __** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> In the case of State of Wisconsin vs. Alex D Phillips (May 16th 2008), Mr. Phillips aged 17 defamed his former girlfriend on MySpace. He is now being charged with “criminal defamation, possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child” [13]. Mr. Phillips pleaded guilty to “Causing Mental Harm to Child” [14] and was acquitted of “possession of child pornography by person under the age of 18”, “child sexploitation”, and “defamation”. He is currently on Probation, and the sentence will be withheld for three years, till then the case is closed and he is on house arrest with 100 hours of community service accompanied with other conditions. MySpace, even though not involved in the law suit used its privacy clause in order to evade involvement. Social networking sites, though created for positive means can be used as an exploitation device which can defame an individual violating the tort law “Public Disclosure of Private Facts Causing Injury to Reputation” [6]. The distribution of child pornography is a criminal offence and Mr. Phillips pleaded guilty January 26th 2009, his charges are pending as he is a young offender. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> In the case of Hasbro v. Scrabulous, Hasbro filed a lawsuit against the creators of Scrabulous (Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla). The application found on Facebook resembled that of the copy written Scrabble, “the fact is that Scrabulous uses Scrabbles features, uses the same characteristics, has the look and feel of the original and therefore could be cause for copyright infringement" [17]. Even though there are differences in the two games, the similarities over power the differences. Its popularity has boomed, “Scrabulous attracts 600,000 daily users, and Texas HoldEm Poker has 435,000 players every day” [17]. When confronted the social network giant, Facebook, immediately removed the widget application to avoid breaching their privacy policy. Hasbro gave the contracted Electronic Arts to make online versions of their board games. This widget was later put on to Facebook. Due to the removal of Scrabulous, Facebook users were dissatisfied with EA’s Scrabble application, which “experienced a malicious attack this morning [July 28th 2008], resulting in the disabling of Scrabble on Facebook” [18]. The defendants earned $25,000 (£13,000) a month, Hasbro is claiming copyright infringement and loss of revenue. The case has been dropped as the brothers altered the widget, creating a new word jumble game that is unique and does not infringe with copyright laws. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> In the case of Facebook v. Guerbuez, “According to Facebook, Guerbuez fooled [Facebook] users into providing him with their usernames and passwords. One method was the use of fake Web sites that posed as legitimate destinations”. The stolen data was used to access user’s personal information; he then used a program to distribute “more than 4 million messages promoting a variety of products, including marijuana and penis enlargement products”. Even though Guerbuez has disappeared after being summoned to court, “the US$873 million judgment” against him is a warning to other spammers of the heavy consequences of privacy invasion.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; text-align: justify;">**__ BIBLIOGRAPHY: __** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[1.] <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> "Social Networking." __Dusk Before the Dawn__. Jan. 2007. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://www.duskbeforethedawn.net/2007/04/02/essay-social-networking/>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[2.] "5 reasons why social networks fail." __Welcome to TNL.net__. 15 June 2006. 10 Apr. 2009 <http://www.tnl.net/blog/2006/06/15/5-reasons-why-social-networks-fail/>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[3.] Whitehead, Roy, and Pam Spikes. "Determining Internet Jurisdiction." __NYSSCPA.org: The New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants__. 2006. University of Central Arkansas. 9 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/0703/features/f072403.htm>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[4.] Fayle, Kevin. "Understanding the Legal Issues for Social Networking Sites and Their Users." __FindLaw's Legal Technology Center__. 2007. 2 Apr. 2009 <http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/00006/010966.html>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[5.] "Privacy Policy | Facebook." __Welcome to Facebook!__ 26 Nov. 2008. Facebook. 2 Apr. 2009 <http://www.facebook.com/policy.php?ref=pf>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[6.] Ferrera, Gweald R., Stephen D. Lichtenstein, Margo E.K. Reder, Robert C. Bird, and William T. Schiano. __CyberLaw: Text and Cases__. 2nd ed. Ohio: Thomson, 2004. 100-302. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[7. ]Reuters News. "Google Taps MySpace in Facebook Widget War." __RedHerring.com ~ The Business of Technology__. 1 Nov. 2007. 10 Apr. 2009 <http://www.redherring.com/Home/23096>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[8.] Arrington, Michael. "MySpace: Why We Block Widgets." __TechCrunch__. 26 Feb. 2007. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/26/myspace-why-we-block-widgets/>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[9.] "Apple: iPhone jailbreaking violates our copyright | Apple - CNET News." __Technology News - CNET News__. 13 Feb. 2009. 1 Apr. 2009 <http://news.cnet.com/apple-iphone-jailbreaking-violates-our-copyright/>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[10.] Corbin, Kenneth. "Facebook's 'Secret Crush' is a Malware App - InternetNews.com." __InternetNews Realtime News for IT Managers__. 4 Jan. 2008. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3719851>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[11.] "Contracts for social networking: Weblaw special offer." __Internet & E-commerce Law: Weblaw - domain name disputes__. Social Networking Websites Legal Package. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://www.weblaw.co.uk/news+offers/social_networking_websites_legal_package/>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[12.] Wensley, Anthony. Lecture 2: Issues of Jurisdiction. University of Toronto, Mississauga, 15 January 2009. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[13.] Robinson, Eric P. __MLRC | Home__. 24 Mar. 2009. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://www.medialaw.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6506>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[14.] "Case Details." __Wisconsin Circuit Court Access__. 5 May 2008. 10 Apr. 2009 <http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;jsessionid=0D9BAF68B0DBB4FAADF4749AC44FFC2D.render1?caseNo=2008CF000309&countyNo=32&cacheId=3E5C1C6DD08F7D8B74CA2CB75B41C9AE&recordCount=1&offset=0&mode=details&submit=View+Case+Details>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[15.] "Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act." __Consolidated Statutes and Regulations__. 13 Apr. 2000. Department of Justice. 18 Mar. 2009 <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/P-8.6///en?page=1>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[16.] "Privacy." __Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) - Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)__. 10 Apr. 2009 <http://www.cippic.ca/privacy/>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[17. ]Jesdanun, Anick. "Creators of Scrabble knockoff on Facebook sued - Internet- msnbc.com." __Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com__. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25836583/>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[18.] Ramesh, Randeep. "Why brothers' Facebook homage to Scrabble spells L-A-W-S-U-I-T |." __Latest news, sport, business, comment and reviews from the Guardian |__. 17 Jan. 2008. 2 Apr. 2009 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/17/internet.facebook.scrabulous>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[19.] "Malicious attack takes down Scrabble on Facebook | Technology | Los Angeles Times." __Top of the Ticket | Barack Obama changes U.S. policies toward Cuba -- full text | Los Angeles Times__. 29 July 2008. 5 Apr. 2009 <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/07/scrabulous-scra.html?cid=124478776>. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">[20.] <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">"CTV.ca | Facebook wins lawsuit against Montreal spammer." __CTV.ca | CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television__. 24 Nov. 2008. 5 Apr. 2009 <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081124/facebook_spam_081124/20081124?hub=TopStories>.