[1]For a brief history, see H. Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1993).

[2]See Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 41 VILLANOVA L. REV. 1, 2 (1996).

[3]ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 830 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

[4]MTV Networks v. Curry, 867 F. Supp 202, 204 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

[5]Id.

[6]See David G. Post, Anarchy, State, and the Internet: An Essay on Law-Making in Cyberspace, 1995 J. Online L. art 3 (visited on 9/29/99) <http://www.cornell.edu/jol.post.html>; Juliet M. Oberding & Terje Norderhaug, A Separate Jurisdiction for Cyberspace?, (visited on 9/29/99) <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue1/juris.html>.

[7]Jack Goldsmith, Professor of Law, University of Chicago School of Law, Regulating the Internet, Conference on International Law at the University of Michigan Law School, September 25, 1999.

[8]See Johanna E. Copland, Edward M. Pinter and John J. Witmeyer, III, Where the Internet Goes, Law Does Not Necessarily Follow (visited 9/29/99) <http://www.fmew.com/archive/intl/>.

[9]See generally David Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1367 (1996).

[10]See William Galkin, The Long Arm of the Law, Special to Smart Business Supersite (visited on 9/25/99) <http://smartbiz.com/sbs/columns/galkin16.html>.

[11]Id.

[12]Id.

[13]See Company Press Release, eBay Responds to Human Kidney Listings, September 3, 1999 (visited 9/29/99) <http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990903/ca_ebay_ki_1.html>.

[14]The Industry Standard, October 6, 1999 (visited on 9/25/99) <http://www.thestandard.net/articles>.

[15]Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877).

[16]International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

[17]Id. at 320.

[18]Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978).

[19]Cody v. Ward, 954 F. Supp. 43 (D. Conn. 1997). See, e.g., Resuscitation Technologies, Inc. v. Continental Health Care Corp., No. IP 96-1457, 1997 WL 148567 (S.D. Ill. March 24, 1997); Edias Software Int'l. v. Basis Int'l. Ltd., 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996).

[20]See Telco Communication v. An Apple A Day, No. 97-542-A (E.D. Va. September 24, 1997); Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Foundation, 958 F. Supp. 1 (D. D.C. 1996). But see Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd No. 96-9344, 1997 WL 560048 (2d Cir., September 10, 1997); Hearst Corporation v. Goldberger, No. 96-3620, 1997 WL 97097 (S.D.N.Y. February 26, 1997); Weber v. Jolly Hotels, No. 96-2582 (D.C.N.J. September 12, 1997).

[21]Joseph W. Glannon, Civil Procedure: Examples and Explanations 20 (1987).

[22]Id.

[23]No State may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. XIV.

[24]International Shoe v. Washington at 316.

[25]Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. Leonis Nav. Co., 1 F.3d 848, 851 n.3 (9th Cir. 1993).

[26]McDonough v. Fallon Mc Elliogott, Inc., 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1826 (S.D. Cal. 1996).

[27]Core-Vent v. Nobel, Industries, AB, 11 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1993).

[28]Id.

[29]Paccar International, Inc. v. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, 757 F.2d 1058 (9th Cir. 1985).

[30]Perritt, supra note 2, citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 145 (1971).

[31]Perrit, supra note 2, citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 188 (1971).

[32]Perritt, supra note 2, at 49.

[33]Id.

[34]Id.

[35]Maureen A. O'Rourke, Fencing Cyberspace: Drawing Borders in a Virtual World, 82 MINN. L. REV. 609, 612 (1998).

[36]Peter H. Lewis, Limiting A Medium Without Boundaries, N.Y. Times, Jan. 15, 1996, at D1.

[37]See Stephan Wilske & Teresa Schiller, International Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Which States May Regulate the Internet? (visited on 9/29/99) <http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v50/no1/wilske.html>.

[38]Dato V. L. Kandan & Chuah Jern Ern, Malaysia Prepares "Cyberlaws", Intell. Prop. Worldwide, July/Aug. 1997 (visited on 9/29/99) <http://www.ipww.com/jul97/pllmalaysia.html>.

[39]George Cole, Censorship in Cyberspace, The Financial Times, March 21, 1996 at 20.

[40]Wilske & Schiller, supra note 37.

[41]See Darrel Menthe, Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: A Theory of International Spaces, 4 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 69 (1998) (visited 9/29/99) <http://www.mttlr.org/volfour/menthe.html>.

[42]See Wilske & Schiller, supra note 37 (noting that potential defendants may go to great, and detrimental lengths, to avoid liability; that avoidance of long-arm jurisdiction "would conflict with the Internet's promise of worldwide information".)

[43]See Christopher Doran, The Two Extremes: Jurisdiction Over Cyberspace (visited 9/29/99) <http://www.law.stetson.edu/courses/computerlaw/papers/cdoranf97.html>; Telco Communications v. An Apple A Day, 977 F. Supp. 404 (E.D. Va. 1997); Inset Systems v. Instruction Set, 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996).

[44]Perritt, supra note 2, at 107-108.

[45]Perritt, supra note 2, at 98.

[46]Johnson & Post, supra note 9.

[47] See Oberding & Norderhaug, supra note 6.

[48]O'Rourke at 687. See also Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses, 68 S. CAL. L. REV. 1239, 1241 & n. 5.

[49]See ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

[50]See O'Rourke at 697 ; Allen R. Grogan, Implied Licensing Issues in the Online World, Computer L., Aug. 1997, 1.

[51]O'Rourke at 697.

[52]See, e.g., eBay User Agreement (visited on 9/29/99) <http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-user.html> (the tendering of false information obviously creates additional problems for identification and jurisdictional purposes, but those will not be dealt with here).

[53]See eBay Privacy Policy (visited on 9/29/99) <http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-priv.html> ("We do cooperate with law enforcement, as long as they go through the proper channels to request the information (such as obtaining a subpoena) that is relevant to an investigation"; "[W]e've been contacted by government agencies investigating piracy on the Internet, copyright owners, as well as concerned users about the sale of ... items. These constituencies are concerned that most CD-Rs and backup copies are being sold in violation of the copyright owner. ... [W]e will have to disallow these items to be listed on eBay, except where the seller is the copyright owner" (9/17/99); "Our goal when creating these policies is to provide guidance that will help protect buyers and sellers from liability, encourage responsible trading, and avoid any potentially unlawful sales on eBay" (9/17/99); Yahoo! Privacy Policy <available at http://docs.yahoo.com/info/privacy>.

[54]Galkin, supra note 10.

[55]D. Schuler, Community Networks: Building a New Participatory Medium, Communications of the ACM, 39 (1) 1994. See also eBay Announcement Board (visited 9/29/99) <http://www2.ebay.com/aw/announce.html> (stating that "eBay is the best place to meet people who share your interests and speak your language.")

[56]See references to the "eBay Community" (visited 9/29/99) <http://www2.ebay.com/aw/announce.html>.

[57]David R. Johnson, Due Process and Cyberjurisdiction, Cyberspace Law Institute (visited on 9/29/99) <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue1/due.html>.

[58]See supra note 1.

[59]But see Oberding & Norderhaug, supra note 6 [citing U.S. v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996), note that "prosecutors representing the same government now reject the notion of a cybercommunity within the context of an appeal for criminal pornography distribution...."].

[60]See O'Rourke at 641-646; Hans Smit, Dispute Resolution in Europe: A Comparative Context for the Resolution of Disputes Between Americans and Canadians, 17 CANADA- U.S. L J. 281 (1991).

[61]See Johnson & Post, supra note 9.

[62]See, e.g., eBay Announcement Board (visited 9/29/99) <http://www2.ebay.com/aw/announce.html>.

[63]"For example, Article 2 ('Sales') of the Uniform Commercial Code largely reflects its drafters' beliefs that law is revealed by the practices of concerned parties. See William Twining, Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement 302-40 (1973); Richard Danzig, A Comment on the Jurisprudence of the Uniform Commercial Code, 27 STAN. L. REV. 621, 626 (1975) ('Article II frequently speaks as though courts should discover the law merchant from a careful, disinterested examination of custom and fact situations.')." See O'Rourke at 641.

[64]See Johnson & Post, supra note 9.

[65]See Johnson & Post, supra note 9 (stating that due process in cyberspace "will concern a different set of persons--online personae (whether individual, corporate, or group) rather than the 'citizens' of a given nation state.")

[66]Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 41 VILLANOVA L. REV. 1 (1996).

[67]Perritt at 96.

[68]Hans Smit, Dispute Resolution in Europe: A Comparative Context for the Resolution of Disputes Between Americans and Canadians, 17 CANADA-U.S. L. J. 281 (1991).

[69]Perritt 97-98

[70]See Perrit, supra note 2, at 30 [illustrating Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991). Forum selection clauses "are unenforceable if there is evidence of their inclusion for the purpose of discouraging parties from pursuing legal claims by assigning litigation to a remote or alien forum, by proof that resisting parties lacked notice of the clause or evidence of fraud or other overreaching."]

[71]Perritt, supra note 2, at 31.

[72]RESTATEMENT SECOND OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 187(1).

[73]Johnson & Post, supra note 9.

[74]Camille Sweeny, In a Chat Room You Can Be NE1, Constructing a teen-age self, on line, New York Times Magazine, October 17, 1999 at 70.

[75]See Pamela Samuelson & Robert J. Glushko, Intellectual Property Rights for Digital Library and Hypertext Publishing Sytsems, 6 HARV. J. L. TECH. 237 (1993); O'Rourke at 686-687 (contending that "intellectual property laws are likely to remain important for a large part of the Internet".)

[76]David R. Johnson, Due Process and Cyberjurisdiction, Cyberspace Law Institute (visited on 9/29/99) <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue1/due.html>.

[77]Steven Jensen, Jurisdiction of the Internet: The Courts and Alternative Solutions, (visited 9/29/99) <http://www.suffolk.edu/law/hightech/classes/cyberlaw/sjensen/paper.html>.

[78]Perritt, supra note 2, at 101.

[79]Perritt, supra note 2, at n.504.

[80]See Jensen, supra note 77 (stating that "[t]he basic function of the Virtual Magistrate is to offer 'rapid, interim resolution of disputes' for users of online systems, those who claim to be harmed by wrongful postings, and system operators. ... The stated goal is to receive and resolve complaints within 72 hours of acceptance.").