[bruce511]

While I understand that looseness of your "common law" phrase, it's precisely the newness of the field that leads us to the lack of historical precedence (ie "common law").

So I would argue that we don't need "common law", we need "actual law".

The problem is that "law" is a subject that is very, very specific. Don't want them yo sell "your data" - well then first you need to define what data is "yours" and what is "theirs". That might be harder than you think. (Do you own your docile security number? Or find the govt lend it to you? Are public records considered to be public data?)

Privacy is just one corner. What about finances - can a service cut you off? What if you never oaid for it? Can you delete posts? Can quotes from deleted posts still exist? Can advertisers target specific demographics?

The problem being that writing actual law gor this stuff is hard. Writing law that will satisfy even a majority of people is near impossible.

So I hear your call, but I suspect you won't be happy with the law when they make it.

[bangoimby]

I'm not sure, IANAL but I would say that much of what a EULA or ToS covers is not that novel, companies skate by on technicalities, and a nontrivial portion of a typical agreement may even already be invalid but lacks case law. If companies weren't worried this might be true they wouldn't need the severability clauses. For example, disassembling or repairing items you paid for or duplicating legally owned copyrighted works for personal use (not distribution) were rights that were well established, but sprinkle in the right technology (even if it has no purpose other than to interfere with these rights) and suddenly it gets a pass. It's not a novel situation, it's a loophole to opt out of established law.

You are right that we won't be happy with the new laws, as so far and with the examples I gave new laws have mostly removed consumer rights, not asserted them.

[anileated]

> duplicating legally owned copyrighted works for personal use (not distribution) were rights that were well established, but sprinkle in the right technology and suddenly it gets a pass

True in more than one way; owning copyright to your works and being able to refuse/get paid for commercial distribution was a right well established, but a sprinkle of right technology and suddenly they can charge people to copy your work on demand with minor modifications for your own commercial use (while you get nothing).

[barrysteve]

The newness of the field has nothing to do with it. The internet and tech in general has benefitted from being outside the law and doing all the old illegal sales and marketing techniques, online.

We can get into the weeds on the detail of the law, and we'll find in the end it looks something like where we started with 'common' law.

Law doesn't need to satisfy the majority of people, most don't want or care about what the law says or does. The law needs to secure some core concepts of liberty, freedom and move on.

There's nothing new under the sun, it's a lot of work. Making small changes works better than thinking about an entirely new system.