![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Advances in technology will challenge and change the current manner in which legal regulation occurs. It has always been possible to describe governance and law as a form of technology in itself, but the growth of digital technologies provides a new means by which to regulate the population. This article posits the theory that the inherent characteristics of technology will become inherent within the digitisation of law. As law becomes an increasingly digital entity, it will become more concerned with perfect reproduction of law upon the person, and so more encompassing in its scope. In addition, the increasing use of digital technologies in augmented reality, in 3D and 4D printing both in solid and biological matter, poses a fundamental change in the regulatory relationship between the State and the individual – a challenge the State will need to address.
Acknowledgements
This research is in part based around qualitative empirical interviews that were funded by BILETA, and a paper given at the 2013 BILETA conference held at the University of Liverpool. The BILETA funding was for the project ‘Property in Copyright’. My thanks to all those who contributed comments and thoughts on the paper and its underlying thesis, in particular the two anonymous reviewers and the editor of this journal.
Notes
1. Quote from research interview. The interviews were conducted on an anonymous basis, as explained within the body text under Section 3.
2. See Google Glass documentation at http://www.google.co.uk/glass/start/ and see http://googleglassforum.net/. For an example of this technology, see Matthews, http://www.geek.com/news/google-glass-becomes-your-personal-translator-with-word-lens-acquisition-1594120/
3. For reasons explained in Section 2, it is the argument of this paper that copyright law will become the most important law of the future, pre-empting most other laws.
4. For further discussion see below, this section, paragraph 4.
5. See inter alia Watson (Citation2005), Borstein (Citation1992), Shumaker, Walkup and Beck (Citation2011).
6. Heidegger (Citation1927) Note SUNY edition trans. J Stambaugh (2010) at 100–101.
7. Deleuze and Guattari (Citation1980) at 4 and at 504–508. The Rhizome analysis in Chapter 1 could apply here.
8. This analysis is similar to the notion of the visible and the articulable in Foucault (1966).
9. Meant primarily In the Heideggerian sense that technology is an outcome of our technological view of the world – Heidegger (Citation1954) but one could also focus upon the use of tools more generally within animal species, e.g. inter alia Shumaker, Walkup and Beck, Animal Tool Behavior, supra n.5.
10. Steigler, Technics and Time 1: The Fault of Epimetheus (Citation1998), B Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Citation2005).
11. Ihde (Citation1990), i.e. embodiment relations (quite literally too – he discusses glasses at 73 and 94).
12. Most works cited above skirt around the issue of legal regulation. An exception would be Susskind (Citation1996).
13. For a comprehensive overview see Caddick, Davies, and Harbottle (Citation1998), Chapter 3.
14. Caddick, Davies, and Harbottle (eds), ‘Copinger and Skone James on Copyright’ ibid., at §3–30.
15. Empirical interview, see note 1.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. A reference to the rule of recognition – Hart, Concept of Law (Citation1961).
19. See a parallel discussion on information flows, Elkin- Koren (Citation1996), N Elkin- Koren (Citation2002).
20. Empirical interview, see note 1.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
26. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (CA 9, 2001)
27. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (US Supreme Court, 2005)
28. See inter alia Lunney (Citation2014), Lessig (Citation2004, 67).
29. Consider the revelations of Snowden (Guardian 2013) and Manning (Wikileaks 2010).
30. Empirical interview, see note 1.
31. See http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/hargreaves/hargreaves-copyright/hargreaves-copyrighttechreview.htm for recent developments.
32. See Griffin and Nair (2013).
33. Empirical interview, see note 1.
34. In particular see Litman (Citation2001), Lessig (Citation1999), Vaidhyanthan (Citation2001).
35. In the UK, under s.24-s.27 CDPA 1988, in the US, under the vicarious and contributory liability doctrines.
36. In the UK, s.16 CDPA 1988, in the US, under 17 USC §106.
37. Consider in the EU, C-70/10 Scarlet v SABAM [2011] ECR I-11959 and in the US, MGM v Grokster 518 F.Supp.2d 1197 (CD Cal, 2007).
38. In the UK, the Digital Economy Act 2010, and in the US, there is the Copyright Alert System of the Center for Copyright Information – see http://www.copyrightinformation.org/the-copyright-alert-system/
39. ‘The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’, Pub. L. 105–304, 28 October 1998, 112 Stat. 2860.
40. Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167/10.
41. See 17 USC §1202, Art 7 EUCD.
42. The CMI provisions refer to ‘copyright works’, which in practice will be the whole copyright work as distributed rather than broken down to each copyright element. There is, however, no concrete authority on the point.
43. For a discussion of those types of watermark see Ferrill and Moyer (Citation2002), Jones, (Citation1999) and Page (Citation1998).
44. European Commission (Citation2013) at 15.
45. Ibid.
46. A Madrigal, How Netflix reverse engineered Hollywood, The Atlantic, available at http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/how-netflix-reverse-engineered-hollywood/282679/; Z Bulygo, ‘How Netflix Uses Analytics To Select Movies, Create Content, and Make Multimillion Dollar Decisions’ KISSmetrics blog, available at http://blog.kissmetrics.com/how-netflix-uses-analytics/, A Leonard, How Netflix is turning viewers into puppets, Salon, available at http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers_into_puppets/
47. Empirical interview, see note 1.
48. Ibid.
49. For example, see http://www.fastcodesign.com/3025318/asides/eyetracking-study-reveals-what-people-actually-look-at-when-shopping-online
50. See Google Glass documentation at http://www.google.co.uk/glass/start/ and see http://googleglassforum.net/. For an example of this technology, see Matthews, http://www.geek.com/news/google-glass-becomes-your-personal-translator-with-word-lens-acquisition-1594120/
51. Consider virtual fluid architecture – Novak (Citation1992).
52. See for instance Skylar Tibbits TED lecture of how this works – TED Lectures (Citation2013) see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gMCZFHv9v8esp. at 4”10’ for a demonstration.
53. Cf Fukuyama, Citation2002, focusing on changes to the human body.
54. Supra n. 6.
55. Chiefly a reference to Deleuze and Guattari (Citation1980) supra n 7 Chapter 12. Consider also Nietzsche (Citation1882) at §109, §110.
56. Recall Lessig (Citation1999) in particular the appendix chapter concerning architecture.
57. Both in terms of augmented technologies and the underlying physical changes caused in the body (Fukuyama, Citation2002).
58. Consider, for example, Google Glass being the only means by which to access augmented reality screens placed around city centres, access dependent on monthly subscription fee. Note the reference to Dyer in the main text is a work about the Tarkovsky film Сталкер (Stalker Citation1979).
59. Bronowski, (Citation1973) at 374.
60. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers – see www.icann.org
61. The Internet Watch Foundation – see https://www.iwf.org.uk/
62. See the proposals here: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-copyright-dce
63. Bronowski, The Ascent of Man supra n.59.
64. Empirical interview, see note 1.