This article identifies the types of legal issues that result from technological change and discusses the different institutions involved in resolving those problems. It demonstrates that, despite the focus on political solutions, other institutions also have a role to play in solving legal dilemmas presented by technological change. Legislation may not always be necessary and can cause problems, especially where a technology is likely to evolve further. Even where legislative solutions are necessary, it is important to factor in the role played by other institutions when crafting legislation.
Audio Home Recording Act, 17USC §§ 1001-1010 (1992).
2.
Bennett Moses, L. (2003). Adapting the law to technological change: A comparison of common law and legislation. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 26(2), 394-417.
3.
Bennett Moses, L. (2005). Understanding legal responses to technological change: The example of in vitro fertilization. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 6(2), 505-618.
4.
Bennett Moses, L. (2006, July 6-9). Recurring dilemmas: The law's race to keep up with technological change. Paper presented at the Law and Society Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. Forthcoming University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy.
5.
Bernstein, G. (2006). The paradoxes of technological diffusion: Genetic discrimination and Internet privacy. Connecticut Law Review , 39(1), 241-295.
6.
Bonnicksen, A.L. (1989). In vitro fertilization: Building policy from laboratories to legislatures. New York: Columbia University Press.
7.
Calabresi, G. (1982). A common law for the age of statutes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Case, M.A. (1980-1981). Note, sales and use tax of computer software—Is software tangible personal property?Wayne Law Review, 27(4), 1503-1536.
9.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 865 (1984).
10.
Dworkin, R.B. (1996). Limits: The role of law in bioethical decision making. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
11.
Ely, J.W., Jr. (2001). Railroads and American law. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
12.
Gelhorn, E., & Verkuil, P. (1999). Controlling Chevron-based delegations. Cardozo Law Review, 20(3), 989-1018.
13.
Gilmore, G. (1977). The ages of American law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
Holmes, O.W. (1897). The path of the law. Harvard Law Review, 10(8), 457-478.
15.
Johnson, D.R., & Post, D. (1996). Law and borders: The rise of law in cyberspace . Stanford Law Review, 48(5), 1367-1402.
16.
Kirby, M. (1987). Medical technology and new frontiers of family law. Australian Journal of Family Law, 1(3), 196-213.
17.
Lee, E. ( 2002). Rules and standards for cyberspace. Notre Dame Law Review, 77(5), 1275-1372.
18.
Lyndon, M.L. (1995). Tort law and technology. Yale Journal on Regulation, 12(1), 137-176.
19.
Mazur, A. (1981). The dynamics of technical controversy. Washington, DC: Communications Press.
20.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2001). Genetics policy report: Reproductive technologies. Denver : Author.
21.
Nightingale, S.L. (1998, October 26). Letter from S. L. Nightingale, Associate Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration to multiple recipients. Available from http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/irbletr.html
22.
Pearson, J.H. (1999). Regulation in the face of technological advance: Who makes these calls anyway? North Dakota Journal of Law, Ethics andPublic Policy, 13, 1-8.
23.
Perry, G.E., & Ballard, C. (1993). A chip by any other name would still be a potato: The failure of the law and its definitions to keep pace with computer technology . Texas Tech Law Review, 24(3), 797-829.
24.
Pickering v. Rudd, 4 Camp 219 (U.K.) (1815).
25.
Plant, A.P. (2003). With a little help from my friends: The intersection of the gestational carrier surrogacy agreement, legislative inaction, and medical advancement. Alabama Law Review, 54(2), 639-664.
26.
Pound, R. (1907). Common law and legislation. Harvard Law Review, 21(6), 383-407.
27.
R (on the application of Quintavalle) v. Secretary of State for Health, [2003] 2 WLR 692 (U.K.).
28.
Russell, S., & Williams, R. (2002). Social shaping of technology: Frameworks, findings and implications for policy. In K. H. Sørensen & R. Williams (Eds.), Shaping technology, guiding policy (pp. 37-132). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
29.
Schauer, F. (1991). Playing by the rules: A philosophical examination of rule-based decision-making in law and in life. New York : Oxford University Press.
30.
Sørensen, K.H. (2002). Social shaping on the move? On the policy relevance of the social shaping of technology perspective. In K. H. Sørensen & R. Williams (Eds.), Shaping technology, guiding policy (pp. 19-36). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
31.
Sunstein, C.R. (1993). On analogical reasoning. Harvard Law Review, 106(3), 741-791.
32.
Sunstein, C.R. (2006). Chevron step zero. Virginia Law Review, 92(2), 187-249.
33.
Tiersma, P.M. (2005). The textualization of precedent (Loyola LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2005-6). Available from http://ssrn.uom/abstract=680901
34.
Westrum, R. (1991). Technologies and society: The shaping of people and things. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .
35.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics?Daedalus , 109(1), 121-136.
