Our eldest daughter has a phrase she is fond of using on the frequent occasions where my understanding of her cultural touchpoints comes up empty. “It’s a thing, Dad. It really is.” she will say in order to efficiently dismiss my profound lack of knowledge while at the same time assuring me that she fully comprehends what I so clearly cannot. End of discussion. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Move on to the next topic.
Similarly the debacle that was/is the hack of Sony, the cancellation (and un-cancellation) of “The Interview” and all the censorship, privacy, ethical and geopolitical considerations seem to be “A Thing”. Meaning that they are so complex and intertwined as to be beyond easy analysis and understanding in the short term. Accordingly it seems appropriate to create a “message in a bottle” (cue The Police circa 1979) which contains an admittedly personal curation of the last three weeks of stories on the subject. The hope is that time and perspective will help our understanding of the implications to creativity of what happened, and comparing what we will know in the future to what we know know will somehow be helpful.
So without further ado a collection (in rough chronological order) of The Interview/Sony/Hack “Thing” to-date.
One of themes that seems very likely to emerge during this course is the relationship between the nature of creativity and the legal (and extra-legal) constraints on creativity. The issue, put as plainly as can be, is whether the laws and norms which serve to limit creativity should be aligned with the nature of creativity so as to limit harm and dissonance.
The following article describes a framework for creative processes recently published in an academic journal. In summary…”Bringing together lots of different research threads over the years, they identified three “super-factors” of personality that predict creativity: Plasticity, Divergence, and Convergence.” You can read more about those factors in the article here: The Messy Minds of Creative People | Beautiful Minds, Scientific American Blog Network.
A great take from Cory Doctorow in Wired magazine. The increasingly reality, as dystopian as it is, of modern day HAL 9000’s telling us in various ways “I can’t let you do that, Dave” is haunting. That we have arrived or almost arrived at that point is frightening. Worth a read: How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us to Greater Harm | WIRED.
This is a wonderful talk given December 2, 2014 through the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. It is an academic data-driven look at how creators look at intellectual property law and strategies. It illustrates many issues that are likely to comeup in the course, particularly the misalignments between creative values (+ value) and intellectual property law as it currently functions.
If someone were to do a syllabus for a course in England similar to this one, this would be a good start towards a syllabus. An excellent read on common issues however you slice it.
This is a provocative piece that might be a useful jumping off point for our contemplations in the context of the course. Reading this, the question that lies visible is where has all the great art that gives us context and guides us to action, gone? As much as A.O. Scott seems to point in economic directions, I can’t help but wonder if the answer is that and more. The “and more” being the subject matter of this course – the multiple layers of constraints that act as boiling water to the creative “lobster”. More worrisome than even the slow killing of protest inspired creativity is the possibility that traversing the gauntlet of constraints can so distort intended meanings so to leave themes of protest and change as artifacts among the various loud noises emboldened by creative entrepreneurship?
LEGAL CONSTRAINTS ON (DIGITAL) CREATIVITY: The Course
This is the website for the course "Legal Constraints on Digital Creativity" being offered at the Allard School of Law, UBC. Among the purposes of this website is near real-time engagement with and about course materials. As well as to solicit additional comments, reactions and thoughts from students as well as academic and creative colleagues regarding the content, pedagogy and delivery of the course.
The course is a cousin to Video Game Law which has recently completed its 8th academic year. That course examines how legal constructs apply to a particular advanced form of interactive media. This course is not fixed on any one digital form. It asks how law is altering, circumscribing and entwining our creative instincts and powers.
The course description reads:
This course examines the implications to the human creative process engendered by law and legalities.The invention of digital worlds has resulted in changes and advancements that could scarcely be imagined, with much more still to come. As significant as was the coming of the Internet, the development of software languages, and the growth of social media, they are only part of the story. Among the most profound changes is a fundamental shift in our conception and understanding of what “creativity” means and how it manifests. With today’s tools it is clearer than ever that everyone is a content creator.It is particularly in this light of the democratization of creativity that this course seeks to understand the content realms. Today many legal perspectives are rights based. Rather than another dialectic on rights, we will catalogue and debate the myriad ways creativity is in fact restrained, shaped, and altered even while “freedom of speech/expression” is acknowledged. Above all we will seek to specifically identify the roles of law & regulation in this process. In so doing we will deepen our understanding of censorship, its conventions and guises.We will travel with the creator on the journey their content traverses. In particular we will focus on how intended and received meanings are altered as a consequence of the constraints we identify. We will in every class proceed from the inside out, from the creation of an idea through stages of gestation, fixation, distribution, communication, reception, comprehension, interpretation, and understanding.Our classes will examine different levels of creative constraint, as well as cataloguing their consequences to creators, the creative process, and democracy itself. We will, employing various methods, survey the following layers of control, moving from purely private to state sponsored:a. Creative Models & Community Constraints (extra-legal)b. Technological & Structural Constraintsc. Copyright, Remixing & Moddingd. Trademarks, Patents & the IP Business (including "IP trolling”)e. Contractual Constraints (EULA’s, ToS’ and the “Post IP World”)f. Privacy, Defamation, & Personality Rights g. Industry & Medium Regulation in a Digital Age (net neutrality, neg regulation & the future of “Broadcasting”)h. Consumer Protection (“Big Data” as well as psychological manipulations or “brain-gaming”)i. Criminal/Obscenity/Taxation/Currency/Gambling Law & Regulationj. Internet Governance & Surveillance (and the meanings of “Hacking”)
On the site you will find sections for the Syllabus and for the materials. Both are, of necessity in this fast moving digital world, always works in progress.
jon
You agree that the comments you contribute to this website may find their way into the course, other iterations of the course, other courses, lectures, books, or anywhere at all, without any acknowledgment or obligation to you. That said, you are legally responsible for your comments you make to this site under all applicable laws. This site is not intended and must not be used as a source of legal advice. Please see the Terms of Use referenced at the bottom of the page for additional constraints. As well you will find a version of these words on the submission forms (unless you are a student in the course, in which case you will have full authorship privileges). And no, the irony of this disclaimer having regard to the subject matter of this website and the course to which it relates, is not lost on the writer.
Check out the UBC Video Game Law Course