SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology & Society
SCRIPTed is an international, interdisciplinary, open-access journal publishing high-quality scholarship at the intersection of law, technology, and society. The journal publishes peer-reviewed Articles, Analysis Pieces, and Case/Legislation Comments, alongside Book Reviews, Conference Reports, and other scholarly contributions relevant to its scope. SCRIPTed is associated with the SCRIPT Centre, the Centre for Research in Intellectual Property and Technology Law, based within the School of Law at the University of Edinburgh. Since its establishment in 2002, SCRIPT has been a leading centre for research examining the legal, social, ethical, and regulatory implications of technological change. The journal welcomes contributions from researchers and professionals across disciplines and jurisdictions. Its scope encompasses a broad range of topics, including intellectual property, privacy and data protection, digital technologies, artificial intelligence, platform governance, telecommunications, internet regulation, health technologies, biotechnology, genomics, bioethics, access to medicines, and the governance of emerging technologies more generally. Since publishing its first issue in 2004, SCRIPTed has established itself as a leading forum for interdisciplinary scholarship in law and technology. The journal has published more than forty issues featuring contributions from academics, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers from around the world. SCRIPTed is managed by postgraduate researchers at the University of Edinburgh Law School and supported by a team of LLM student Assistant Editors, reflecting the journal's longstanding commitment to developing the next generation of scholars in law and technology.
Copyright (c) 2026 Rania Djojosugito, Aubrey Wasden https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
General-Purpose AI under the EU AI Act: A Conceptual Allocation of Duties across the Value Chain
This article examines how the final version of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”, adopted 2024) allocates obligations across the AI value chain, with a focus on general-purpose AI (“GPAI”) or foundation models. It proposes a taxonomy of key actors – foundation model providers, fine-tuners, integrators, and deployers – and analyses the interfaces between them, including documentation tools (model cards, system cards) and logging requirements. Building on principles of control, foreseeability, benefit, and capability, the article argues for a principled distribution of compliance duties: those who design and train foundational AI models should bear upstream transparency and safety obligations, while those who adapt or deploy AI in specific contexts shoulder downstream risk management and oversight duties. The analysis discusses the EU Act’s enforcement model (market surveillance authorities and an EU AI Office) and contrasts it with data protection supervision, highlighting the need for coordination in areas of overlap. A comparative outlook considers the UK’s pro-innovation, context-driven approach and the evolving US regulatory landscape. Finally, the article offers recommendations for regulatory guidance and standards development (ISO/IEC, CEN/CENELEC) to support effective implementation, accounting for recent developments including the Digital Omnibus Regulation, the AI Office’s emerging guidelines, and the broader debate on EU regulatory competitiveness triggered by the Draghi Report. This approach aims to clarify how the EU AI Act’s final provisions on general-purpose AI models can serve as a global benchmark for balanced AI governance.
Copyright (c) 2026 Fabian Teichmann https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
The Limits of Buyer Protection under the CISG: An SME Perspective
This article critically evaluates whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) provides adequate protection for micro and small enterprise (SME) buyers in international business-to-business (B2B) transactions. The CISG is founded on the assumption that commercial parties possess comparable bargaining power, legal expertise, and capacity to safeguard their interests. However, this assumption increasingly diverges from commercial reality, as micro and small enterprises participate more actively in cross-border trade. Focusing on key provisions governing nonconformity and remedies, including Articles 35, 38, 39, 47, and 49, the article demonstrates that the CISG’s strict notice requirements, indeterminate legal standards, and reliance on judicial discretion can impose disproportionate procedural and legal burdens on SME buyers.Brief comparative reference to English law illustrates that, although domestic legal frameworks may offer greater doctrinal certainty in some respects, they similarly fail to recognise the structural vulnerability of SME buyers. The article contributes to existing scholarship by shifting focus from abstract doctrinal balance to the practical impact of CISG rules on vulnerable business participants. The article concludes by proposing recognition of SME buyers as a distinct category in international sales law.
Copyright (c) 2026 Dinushi Palawatta https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Book review: Chilling Effects Repression, Conformity, and Power in the Digital Age
A book review about Chilling Effects Repression, Conformity, and Power in the Digital Age, written by Jonathon W. Penney. It is a book reconstructing Chilling Effect doctrine beyond legal contexts.
Copyright (c) 2026 Te-Ying Chen https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
The Data Landscape of Aviation: Competition, Privacy, and Market Power under EU law
Competition law has long shaped the European aviation sector, from liberalisation in the 1990s to scrutiny of mergers and alliances. While past enforcement focused on slots, routes, and network structures, digitalisation has shifted competitive dynamics toward control over passenger data. Airlines and intermediaries now rely on vast datasets, raising novel issues under Article 102 TFEU. Data-driven practices, such as loyalty schemes, personalised pricing, and mandatory data sharing, can both entrench market power and undermine transparency, fairness, and privacy. Recent case law confirms that data protection concerns, particularly under the GDPR, may be relevant in competition assessments when dominant firms exploit consumers through unfair terms. In aviation, where choice is often limited and regulatory obligations complex, the intersection of competition, consumer, and privacy law is especially acute. This article examines exploitative and exclusionary abuses linked to data, arguing that data has become aviation’s “new jet fuel” and requires regulatory vigilance.
Copyright (c) 2026 Arletta Gorecka https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Book review: Arcana Technicae: El derecho y la inteligencia artificial
Copyright (c) 2026 Jorge Balmaceda Hoyos https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
From Sampling to Generative AI: The Scope of Pastiche after Pelham II
Exceptions and limitations play a pivotal role in European copyright law and have been the subject of significant developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In this context, the judgment in Pelham II (C-590/23) is particularly noteworthy. First, it provides long-awaited clarification of the notion of “pastiche” under Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/EC by recognising it as an autonomous concept of EU law and by articulating a structured framework governing its application. Secondly, the ruling may have far-reaching implications for the legal treatment of AI-generated outputs within the European copyright framework. This comment examines the Court’s interpretation of pastiche as requiring an artistic or creative dialogue with a pre-existing work that is objectively recognisable, whilst rejecting any requirement of subjective intent on the part of the user. It further analyses the emergence of the “recognisability” criterion in the CJEU’s recent case law and considers the broader implications of the judgment for transformative uses, artistic freedom, and the balancing of fundamental rights in EU copyright law. Particular attention is paid to the relevance of Pelham II for generative AI. Th comment argues that the Court’s flexible conception of pastiche may encompass certain AI-generated outputs, whilst highlighting the continuing importance of the three-step test as a potential limiting principle.
Copyright (c) 2026 Elodie Migliore https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
The Thaler Decision in India and the Crisis of Anthropocentric Patent Theory: AI, Inventorship and the Future of Innovation Governance
The Indian refusal of Stephen Thaler’s DABUS patent application represents more than a routine rejection of artificial intelligence inventorship; it exposes a foundational crisis within anthropocentric patent theory. This commentary examines the Indian Patent Office's decision against the broader transnational DABUS jurisprudence and argues that, while the refusal is doctrinally defensible under the Patents Act, 1970, it is theoretically insufficient for an era in which innovation increasingly emerges from human–machine collaboration. The Controller's reasoning rests on the statutory interdependence of inventorship, legal personality, entitlement, assignment and proof of right. Since DABUS lacks the capacity to own property, execute legal instruments or transfer rights, it cannot qualify as a "true and first inventor" under Indian law. In this respect, the decision aligns with the prevailing approach in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia, where courts have similarly confined inventorship to natural persons. However, this convergence should not be mistaken for conceptual resolution. Across jurisdictions, courts have largely avoided the normative question of whether patent law should recognise AI-generated invention, instead resolving the issue through narrow statutory interpretation. The Indian decision therefore reveals the limits of judicial minimalism in responding to technological disruption. It preserves the coherence of the existing patent framework, but only by reaffirming assumptions that invention is necessarily human, creativity is inseparable from legal personhood, and rights must flow from a human inventor. The commentary further situates the decision within India’s broader AI policy landscape. India’s developmental strategy actively promotes AI-driven innovation through initiatives. Yet its patent law remains anchored in a human-centred model of inventive activity. This creates a regulatory contradiction between India’s technological ambitions and its intellectual property architecture. The DABUS refusal thus marks a transitional moment in innovation governance: it confirms the current legal impossibility of AI inventorship while simultaneously demonstrating the inadequacy of existing patent categories. The future challenge is not simply whether AI should be named as an inventor, but how patent law should govern invention in such systems.
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr Barasha Borthakur https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Book review: Deciphering IP Law and its Conflict and Complementarity With Competition Law
This review examines Professor Liu's monograph, which advances a market-oriented theory of IP and applies it to compulsory licensing, patent and work pools, FRAND licensing of standard-essential patents, the secondhand branded-goods market, and data and algorithms. It commends Liu's governance-oriented reform proposals and comparative methodology, notes certain limitations in the book's geographic scope and some proposals that risk duplicating existing flexibilities, and situates it against recent developments. Overall, the review recommends the work as a holistic and methodical point of departure for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners navigating the intersection of IP and competition law in Asia and beyond.
Copyright (c) 2026 Qi Jun Kwong https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Book review: Law and Technology: A Methodical Approach
This book review of Law and Technology: A Methodical Approach by Ryan Calo discusses the two core contributions of Calo's work: (1) the contextualization of the field of law and technology and (2) the Methodical Approach to the study of law and technology. For (1), we examine Calo's survey of conceptual challenges that beset the study of technology, especially with respect to policy objectives and legal interventions. We also discuss Calo's situation of Science and Technology Studies (STS) as an ally to the study of law and technology, with valuable insights to contribute and exchange. For (2), we examine the four steps of the Methodical Approach as proposed by Calo: Definition, Envision, Analysis, and Intervention. We will canvass and discuss the "intellectual tasks" in each step that Calo sets out for prospective authors in law and technology. We will also contemplate potential additions or qualifications to this proposed approach. To conclude, we offer two alternative approaches to the titular Methodical Approach: the Reverse Approach, which deploys the Methodical Approach in reverse order, and the Ambiguous Approach, which leverages the Methodical Approach's recommended avenues of exploration to highlight areas of uncertainty in the topic studied.
Copyright (c) 2026 Guan Yue (Yuma) Wu https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Data Protection, Privacy and Artificial Intelligence: To Govern or to Be Governed, That Is the Question
Copyright (c) 2025 Anıl Sena Bayındır https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
The Digital Mirage: India's Evolving Legal Battle Against Deepfake Technology
The proliferation of deepfake technology in India presents unprecedented challenges to existing legal frameworks, threatening individual dignity, democratic processes, and social harmony. This research conducts a comprehensive analysis of India's legal response to Artificial Intelligence-generated (AI-generated) synthetic media through doctrinal examination, empirical case studies, and comparative jurisprudence. The study reveals critical gaps in India's current legal architecture. While provisions under the Information Technology Act 2000, Indian Penal Code 1860, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and emerging data protection laws offer partial protection, they lack specificity for deepfake-related harms. The research examines landmark cases including Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and high-profile celebrity deepfake incidents, demonstrating judicial evolution toward protective personality rights jurisprudence despite legislative ambiguity. Through systematic analysis of enforcement mechanisms, the study identifies significant implementation challenges including technical detection limitations, jurisdictional complexities, and inadequate institutional capacity. Empirical assessment of complaint data from the National Crime Records Bureau and state cybercrime cells reveals poor conviction rates and prolonged resolution timelines, highlighting the enforcement-legislation disconnect. The research proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework centred on a dedicated Synthetic Media Regulation Act, incorporating graduated harm-based penalties, platform accountability standards, and victim compensation mechanisms. The proposed multi-stakeholder governance model balances innovation promotion with fundamental rights protection through safe harbour provisions for legitimate uses while criminalizing non-consensual creation and distribution. Key contributions include the first systematic legal analysis of India's deepfake regulatory landscape, evidence-based policy recommendations, and an implementation roadmap addressing short-term enforcement needs and long-term institutional reforms. The study positions India to lead global synthetic media governance while protecting citizens from AI-generated deception in an increasingly digital society.
Copyright (c) 2025 Sommya Kashyap https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Cross-Border Data Transfers and Data Localization Mandate under the Data Protection Regime
The present paper critiques India's approach to cross-border data transfers under the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025. It highlights concerns with Rule 14 and Rule 12(4), which grant the government broad discretion to impose data localization mandates, potentially restricting the transfer of specific data types regardless of the destination country's safety. This "regressive" approach could stifle innovation and create compliance hurdles for businesses, especially social media intermediaries. The paper also points out the ambiguity in defining restrictions and the lack of provisions for "onward transfers" of data, contrasting it with the more comprehensive GDPR. It advocates for a balanced framework with clear criteria for restrictions and safeguards, aligning with international best practices to ensure both national security and economic viability.
Copyright (c) 2025 Khushi Malviya, Eeshaan Singh https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Intellectual Property Rights Protection in International Investment: Legal Risks and Strategic Responses for Multinational Companies
Against the backdrop of ongoing globalisation and the rapid development of the digital economy, the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has become a key factor in the overseas investment decisions of multinational companies (MNCs). This paper first reviews the evolution of international IPR regimes and their essential status in investment agreements. It then takes the Eli Lilly v Canada case as a core example to deeply analyse three significant difficulties currently faced in the protection of IPRs in cross-border investment: first, the uneven enforcement of laws across countries, which leads to inconsistent effectiveness in IPRs protection; second, the vague, outdated, and insufficiently adaptive provisions in existing investment and trade agreements, which fail to cover emerging technological fields effectively; third, the divergence between the application of international agreements and domestic legal systems, which increases legal uncertainty and compliance costs for multinational enterprises. Finally, the paper puts forward recommendations from both state and corporate perspectives, including strengthening international cooperation, improving the dynamic adjustment mechanisms of agreements, and urging enterprises to establish localised IPR strategies and compliance management systems. The article emphasises the need to construct a more coordinated, efficient, and forward-looking international IPR governance system to balance the protection of innovation with national sovereignty and corporate interests.
Copyright (c) 2025 Jingyi Zhang https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Copyright (c) 2025 Mihail Dishev, Aubrey Wasden https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Data Protection, Privacy and Information Law: A Practical Guide
Copyright (c) 2025 Daniela Bincheva https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Artificial Intelligence, Co-Creation and Creativity: The New Frontier for Innovation
Copyright (c) 2025 Damián Palašta https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
With the dawn of artificial intelligence (AI), it is only a matter of time before it amplifies or even replaces human decision-making in corporate governance. This threatens to subvert the core concepts of a director as laid down in the Companies Act, 2013, like director duties, accountability, and the nature of corporate leadership. This article delves into the legal ramifications of integrating AI inside the corporate boardrooms, specifically from the statutory lens of Indian corporate laws. This paper focuses on Chapter XI, where it explores the applicability–or the lack thereof, of these provisions when AI systems are engaged in board decisions. The issues revolve around AI’s decision making–the legal status and the allocation of liability for harmful decisions influenced by AI systems–in light of directors’ fiduciary duties. Additionally, it examines the challenges of ensuring transparency, particularly in relation to algorithmic biases and the Black Box Phenomenon. This article concludes by proposing recommendations for a comprehensive regulatory framework governing the ethical use of AI in corporate boards, including, but not limited to–guidelines for algorithmic accountability, regular AI system audits, and enhanced disclosure requirements for companies employing AI in governance. Through this research, the author seeks to advance the emerging field of AI governance and provide insights for policymakers, corporate directors, and AI developers working at the intersection of technology and corporate law.
Copyright (c) 2025 Vydhrithi Reddy https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Ready, Willing, and Able? Challenges Facing the Governance of Generative AI in the UK’s Legal Services Sector
In light of the increasing prominence of generative AI, this paper examines a number of critical challenges facing the stratified policy and governance frameworks shaping the adoption of this technology in the legal services sector. We argue that there are counterproductive tensions within the existing policy and governance framework, and that if we are to make the UK legal sector ‘ready, willing, and able’ to harness the potential of artificial intelligence, it is imperative that we set in place a new governance framework that is capable of setting, promoting, and supporting innovation across the legal sector as a whole. Furthermore, within this policy and governance framework we consider two critical factors that are relevant to state-of-the-art AI systems which present critical challenges to the development of legal AI: (1) data access issues in the domain of law and (2) knowledge, skills, and awareness of capabilities relating to the application of generative AI to legal problems.
Copyright (c) 2025 David Bareham, Katie Atkinson, Jeremy Marshall https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Intent, control and creative freedom in AI- Supported Output: Lessons from Photography
The advancements achieved by generative AI have marked a significant step in creative art, raising copyright law questions, particularly around issues of authorship, originality and the role of AI in the creative process. Copyright law has grappled with similar challenges before, especially with the advent of emerging technologies, as evidenced during the early days of photography. Just as photography was initially viewed as the product of a machine rather than a human creation, so is output created with the support of generative AI often seen as predominantly AI driven. By drawing an analogy with the camera, this article explores how the users’ expression of free and creative choices, a fundamental aspect of originality under EU copyright law, can be identified at various stages in the production process of AI-supported output. It argues that the stage of ‘taking a photograph’ encompasses a series of human decisions rather than being an isolated act of pressing the shutter. Similarly, if the execution stage is seen as a process of converting users’ decisions into a preliminary output—much like ‘shooting a photograph’—those decisions can also serve as an additional element for attributing originality to AI-supported outputs. In analysing the emerging standards of authorial intent and control in assessing originality for AI-supported outputs, the article explores the distinction between semantic and categorial intentions, as well as the interplay between intent, control and the predictability of the outcome. It concludes that since categorial intent is always achieved and therefore infallible, the AI-supported output will consistently align with the author’s conception or fundamental approach to the work. Moreover, while authorial control and intent alone cannot establish originality, they can nonetheless contribute to assessing the originality of AI-supported output when they are evident in the creative process or its outcomes.
Copyright (c) 2025 Adriana Berbec https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Copyright (c) 2025 Mihail Dishev, Claudia González-Márquez https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
The Internet, Internet Intermediaries and Hate Speech: Freedom of Expression in Decline?
This paper looks at the developments of hate speech regulation online, specifically its horizontalization, with private companies increasingly ruling on the permissibility levels of speech, placing the right to free speech at peril. To elucidate issues at stake, the paper will look at the meaning of hate speech, the online landscape in terms of the prevalence and removal of hate speech and recent legal and policy developments in the sphere of private regulation in Europe, critically weighing up the pros and cons of this strategy. This paper demonstrates how seeking to tackle all types of hate speech through enhanced pressures on intermediaries to remove content may come with dire effects to both freedom of expression and the right to non-discrimination. At the same time, due attention must be given to speech which may actually lead to real world harm. A perfect solution is not available since, as is the case in the real world, the Internet cannot be expected to be perfect. However, at the very least, the principles and precepts of IHRL and the thresholds attached to Article 20(2) ICCPR, as further interpreted by the Rabat Plan of Action, must inform and guide any effort in enhanced platform liability.
Copyright (c) 2023 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Regulating Manipulative Artificial Intelligence
AI scientists are rapidly developing new approaches to understanding and exploiting vulnerabilities in human decision-making. As governments around the world grapple with the threat posed by manipulative AI systems, the European Commission (EC) has taken a significant step by proposing a new sui generis legal regime (the AI Act) which prohibits certain systems with the ’significant’ potential to manipulate. Specifically, the EC has proposed prohibitions on AI systems which deploy subliminal techniques and exploit vulnerabilities in specific groups. This article analyses the EC’s proposal, finding that the approach is not tailored to address the capabilities of manipulative AI. The concepts of subliminal techniques, group-level vulnerability, and transparency, which are core to the EC’s proposed response, are inadequate to meet the threat arising from growing capabilities to render individuals susceptible to hidden influence by surfacing and exploiting vulnerabilities in individual decision-making processes. In seeking to secure the benefits of AI while meeting the heightened threat of manipulation, lawmakers must adopt new frameworks better suited to addressing new capabilities for manipulation assisted by advancements in machine learning.
Operationalizing Privacy by Design: an Indian illustration
This article identifies Privacy by Design [“PbD”] as a suitable regulatory approach to address the attack on personal data in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It proposes Privacy Engineering [“PE”] as a concrete methodology to operationalize the otherwise vague Privacy by Design. Privacy Engineering operationalizes the normative knowledge of privacy into specific use cases through layers of flexible abstract thinking, interconnected through a “web of templates”. This “web of templates” can be constructed by answering the two-fold question of relevancy and extent of data protection required. PE provides regulators with a specific language in which they can communicate with data controllers to establish privacy obligations and undertake prioritized capacity building for resource-deprived data controllers.
How Will the EU Digital Services Act Affect the Regulation of Disinformation?
This article examines the self-regulatory framework established by the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation and considers how the EU Digital Services Act [DSA] will affect that framework. Firstly, this article argues that the DSA entrenches the opacity of firms’ partnerships with fact-checking organisations and investigations of coordinated inauthentic behaviour, as well as fails to provide adequate transparency of its newly created redress mechanisms. Secondly, this article argues that, overall, the DSA fails to protect European standards of freedom of expression in the regulation of disinformation, reflecting an uncertainty of how public bodies should regulate the private gatekeepers of information. As these public bodies press private actors to address disinformation—lawful if undesirable expression—the question of the effect of informal state pressure on the horizontal application of fundamental rights gains a sense of urgency.
A Risk-based Approach to AI Regulation: System Categorisation and Explainable AI Practices
The regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) presents a challenging new legal frontier that is only just beginning to be addressed around the world. This article provides an examination of why regulation of AI is difficult, with a particular focus on understanding the reasoning behind automated decisions. We go on to propose a flexible, risk-based categorisation for AIbased on system inputs and outputs, and incorporate explainable AI (XAI) into our novel categorisation to provide the beginnings of a functional and scalable AI regulatory framework.
The Right to Repair: Patent Law and 3D Printing in Australia
Considering recent litigation in the Australian courts, and an inquiry by the Productivity Commission, this paper calls for patent law reform in respect of the right to repair in Australia. It provides an evaluation of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2019] FCAFC 115 – as well as the High Court of Australia consideration of the matter in Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2020] HCA 41. It highlights the divergence between the layers of the Australian legal system on the topic of patent law – between the judicial approach of the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, and the endorsement of the patent exhaustion doctrine by the majority of the High Court of Australia. In light of this litigation, this paper reviews the policy approach taken by the Productivity Commission in respect of patent law, the right to repair, consumer rights, and competition policy. After the considering the findings of the Productivity Commission, it is recommended that there is a need to provide for greater recognition of the right to repair under patent law. It also calls for the use of compulsory licensing, crown use, competition oversight, and consumer law protection to reinforce the right to repair under patent law. In the spirit of modernising Australia’s regime, this paper makes a number of recommendations for patent law reform – particularly in light of 3D printing, additive manufacturing, and digital fabrication. It calls upon the legal system to embody some of the ideals, which have been embedded in the Maker’s Bill of Rights, and the iFixit Repair Manifesto. The larger argument of the paper is that there needs to be a common approach to the right to repair across the various domains of intellectual property – rather than the current fragmentary treatment of the topic. This paper calls upon the new Albanese Government to make systematic reforms to recognise the right to repair under Australian law.
More on Convening Technology: Blockchain, Fashion, and the Right to Know
For many years mired in its cryptocurrency history, blockchain held little interest to those working outside the financial world. It now offers the fashion industry and its diverse publics the enticing prospect of a transparent value chain for ethical and sustainable fashion, catering to public demands for a right to know data on authenticity and provenance. Whether this is a feasible prospect remains to be seen. Nevertheless, in staking out its position, blockchain appears to be moving into an interesting phase of its short tumultuous existence. In short, it is taking on the character of a “convening technology” – becoming “the focus of a conversation that can [potentially] address issues far beyond what it may ultimately be able to address itself”, and marshalling “resources, institutions and other forms of power”. A difficulty is reconciling this beneficial function with the need for the so-called “technology of trust” to be trustworthy in practice, requiring at least a minimal governance model.
Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
[Redacted]: This Article Categorised [Harmful] by the Government
In April 2019, the UK Government’s DCMS released its White Paper for ‘Online Harms’, which would establish in law a new duty of care towards users by platforms to be overseen by an independent regulator. Our earlier research outlines how we got to this point, sets out what the White Paper proposes, and criticises its key aspects. Our objections and criticism remain applicable to the UK Government’s Online Safety Bill. The Parliament is now scrutinising the Bill. The House of Lords Report sparked some optimism that the scrutiny could address critical concerns around free speech in particular. The Draft Online Safety Bill Joint Committee Report, however, suggest otherwise. This paper returns to key arguments as to why risk-based regulation and duty of care are not appropriate for policing content and expression online. We focus on the human rights implications of the Bill, in particular, the provider duties to ‘handle’ legal but harmful content. Here, we reemphasise the vague conceptualisation and nature of this harm, as well as the inadequate duties attached to it. We argue that the independence of OFCOM cannot be guaranteed.