This article is well worth reflecting on. It raises the spectre that the so-called “internet of things” won’t prove out to be as ubiquitous as predicted. Using a one=size fits all template that does not not consider multiple home-dwellers and making controls more visible rather giving them more intelligence to regulate themselves in the background seems to be two of the underlying reasons.
Perhaps I might add another reason for consideration. The web may not be ideal or particularly effective in a consumer sense when it comes to what are effectively utility functions. It is in area of creativity and the availability of creative tools (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook etc.) where the digital and consumer world seem to have intersected most successfully. How far off that course will the trajectories of successful future digital/web products really be?
As we ramp up towards January’s launch of this new course, am changing the format of News of the Week. If anyone is interested in the complete list of stories similar to what has previously been posted, then click through the link (in the right hand column) which will take to you to the UBC Video Game Law website where a comparable list continues to be posted every Wednesday.
The new format for this website will be to showcase (hopefully in a more visually appealing way) the five most intriguing stories of previous week relevant to the subject matter of the course. Here goes….
Was thrilled to be among many old friends while speaking at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s biennial communications law and policy conference, which this year was in Ottawa. Every time I attend this conference, am reminded of how important it is to bring together lawyers of diverse perspectives and focus us on finding ways to move law and policy constructively forward. Appeared on a panel called “And Now For A Word…With the Audience. Social Media: Disruption and Opportunity“. The panel description was “Social media is an agile, immediate source of news, information, opinion and content. It has the ability to break down areas of interest more finely than the narrowest niche broadcast services. To what extent is social media displacing TV and radio as the “mass media middleman”? To what extent is social media enhancing “traditional” broadcasting, or even integrating into it? The CR TC has suggested that social media can be leveraged to help support its policy objectives. Is regulation far behind? This panel will look at how social media is changing the conversation, for broadcasters, their audiences, and the Commission. Moderator: Margot Patterson, C.S. , Counsel, Dentons Canada LLP. Paper: Jonathan Festinger Festinger Law & Strategy. Panellists: Raja Khanna , CEO , Television & Digital, Blue Ant Media Inc.; Jason Kee , Public Policy & Government Relations Counsel, Google Inc.; Bryan Segal , Vice President, comScore Inc.” The link to the conference site is here: https://ecom.lsuc.on.ca/cpd/product.jsp?id=CLE14-0050199 As you will see there were many amazing panels including a plenary session moderated by Sheridan Scott who was a guest in Video Game Law this past year. A version of my background paper (more of a graphic novel styled survey of issues really) is below. Thanks to Larry Bafia, my colleague at the Centre for Digital Media, for his help and suggestions (all of which are reflected).
The somewhatupdated (& shorter) Presentation Notes that I actually spoke to can be found here:
Here is a wonderful presentation that wrestles with the challenges of art, law and remixing. A wonderful jumping off point towards both the legal and conceptual underpinnings of the course.
There is family tragedy and allegations of police abuse here. That must be first and foremost.
There is also a subtext relevant to the inquiry of this course, whether real in this particular case or simply a symbolic meaning we choose to read in. That is the prejudice against art and creativity, and particularly new forms of art and creativity. For a less violent and all too civil example of how that prejudice manifests see the case of Atari v. Oman where the U.S. Register of Copyright refused to recognize the game “Breakout”.
But why? What are the roots of the prejudice against art – or is it just a prejudice against new forms? Even if only the latter, the question remains, why?
One premise of the course is to understand the impact of constraints on the creative process. Once a parent it becomes pretty obvious very early on in a child’s life that the creative force is core to the human condition. In children it is pretty easy to see creativity unconstrained. Once seen it becomes equally easy to wonder what purposes are served by restricting the modes and content of thought and expression….
Was incredibly privileged to be part of an amazing and magical team that came together to launch the first “digital” local TV station in North America. It was September of 1997 and the local Vancouver B.C. station was known as VTV. Today several corporate takeovers later it owned by Bell and known as CTV British Columbia.
What is pretty clear just about 16 years later is that even though we thought we knew what “digital” meant, we really didn’t. Digital for many us meant that our first generation digital cameras were so clear that lighting the newsroom properly was unexpectedly difficult (and of course, expensive). It meant that for almost a full year until a 2.0 version of our news editing software was finally made available by the manufacturer we could not do a “fade” to end a produced story.
Although we know about the web and even reported on it nightly (Candis Callison our “web” reporter went on to MIT and is now a Professor in the UBC Graduate School of Journalism http://journalism.ubc.ca/2009/06/10/callison_bio/) we missed the real opportunities and the deeper strategies. ” The domain “google.com” was registered September 15, 1997, while VTV launched with much pomp and circumstance a week later on September 22, 1997. Digital or not, television was a week late to the party even then.
Even at this very early stage it is becoming very clear that building this course in the open is going to make this website far more personal then the website for Video Game Law (which I about to teach for the 7th time). That site is meant for students to explore academic territories and materials as well as interact through them.
This project, at its current stage is very different. It is not a course but a course to be, which therefore carries with it some unusual challenges.
It’s a well worn cliche to say that as educators we learn from teaching. This website is a reminder that I am a student again, truly seeking to learn. It looms as reminder that there are hard subjects to think about, a syllabus to develop and course that, ultimately, will be taught. And like so many students everywhere I walk in with less then fully conscious views, biases and pre-dispositions that could be laid bare in the process. It may be a virtue of digital creativity that tools which reward reflection and tools that reward the opposite are both available, with forms of creativity to be found in either place.
This is the first real post to the developmental website for the course “Legal Constraints on (Digital) Creativity”. Or should I say the first version of the first post. Given my penchant to rewrite, revise & re-iterate, first version of the first post is almost certainly the case.
There is nothing special about this post, but there is considerable magic (albeit personal) in its existence. To put it simply, creating this site is essentially something I decided to try to do myself. This would have been unthinkable for me even six months ago despite the fact that a large part of my life has been spent in and around media. It is only possible because of the amazing people at the UBC Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology who built the website for my Video Game Law course (http://videogame.law.ubc.ca). Maintaining that site proved so easy and intuitive that it allowed me to at least attempt the initial design work here.
All of which proves how much the tools of creativity have been democratized in the digital world. Which will obviously be a significant point of departure for the course. And of course the gee-shucks of “If I can do this anyone can.” Except in my case it really is true…
Most fun (& frustrating) part – figuring out how to make the opening slideshow work – realizing there wasn’t a slide to announce the course and creating this one by using Sketchbook Pro on my iPad and importing it.
jon
P.S. True to my always revising mantra the slide above was replaced with the slide below, created in MS PowerPoint with digital effects care of iPhoto (long live “inter-op”).
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