Accessing, Obtaining and Protecting
Edited by Abbe E.L. Brown
Since the inception of the State, creativity has been of critical importance. This chapter introduces the basic concepts of how creativity has been central and continues to be so. It argues that the development of legal rules has seen a gradual shift away from the consideration of creativity as a relevant factor in regulation. This has been exacerbated through the use of proprietary and capitalistic concepts. This chapter outlines the subsequent chapters, and provides an indication of the reforms that are proposed later in the monograph
This chapter focuses upon the limits of regulation, by considering the individual - State relationship. It suggests that the main critical component of creativity is that termed ‘inner creativity’ within individuals, something which State regulation cannot normally reach. It is argued that only in what is called the ‘push button order’, where life and death is at the whim of the State, would regulation of ‘inner creativity’ be completely possible. Nonetheless, there has been a gradual influencing of ‘inner creativity’ through the regulation of expressed ‘outer creativity.’ It is argued that ‘inner creativity’ will influence the effectiveness of the regulation of general creativity, because the ‘inner creativity’ influences the perceived rationality of the State. This has an impact in the effectiveness of regulation in areas such as file sharing, or sharing of 3D & 4D printed scans and files. The chapter investigates the centrality of proprietary and economic reasoning in courts to assess how the State has sought to regulate ‘inner creativity’ and what this suggests about the future of the individual-State relationship in an age of increasing machination.
The first chapter introduces the subject matter of the book and its significance. It provides a brief introduction to the making available right as established by the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet Treaties, and explains why this right will play a central role in copyright law as we encounter increasingly advanced information technologies. In this environment, consumers are likely to seek convenient and efficient access to content, as opposed to possession of copies. The chapter sets out the objective of this book - that is, to establish clearer principles for interpreting the right - and explains why this objective matters to the sustainability of copyright in a digital environment that no longer prizes copies. It also sets out the structure of the book and delineates matters that are beyond the focus of analysis.
This chapter lays the foundation for critical analysis by introducing the relevant copyright history, theory and context. It discusses copyright’s Anglo-Saxon history, particularly the development of public performance rights, and contrasts this background with the current communications era facilitated by the Internet. It provides the theoretical framework for analysis, taking copyright’s fundamental functions as the starting point. These functions are: (1) incentivizing authorship and (2) encouraging the dissemination of content. It explains conventional and prevalent theories of copyright, and in the process highlights their lack of regard for copyright’s dissemination function. This chapter identifies existing scholarship that provides a starting point for building our understanding of copyright’s dissemination function, and reflects on how this preliminary discourse can be developed further in the context of the making available right. In introducing copyright’s dissemination function, it emphasizes the importance of this function to the sustainability of copyright in the internet age.
Hannah Y. Lim
Chapter 2 explains the generally accepted classification of automation for autonomous vehicles and provides an explanation of how autonomous vehicles function, the equipment and devices that used to help autonomous vehicles sense the environment and navigate. .
Hannah Y. Lim
Chapter 3 examines the general requirements of negligence law focusing on the standard of care required. This is then applied to autonomous vehicles in terms of the areas where the standards of care are verifiable. It sets out the required standard of care for the devices and sensors that should be on board autonomous vehicles. This standard of care established is then applied to 4 accidents involving Tesla vehicles that caused 3 deaths and the accident involving Uber’s autonomous vehicle that killed a pedestrian. Other verifiable standards of care are also expounded, including safety drivers in test autonomous vehicles.