First up is Nadia Feci and Valerie Verdoodt (KU Leuven & UGent), on the ‘Legal implications of monetising creativity on video-sharing platforms: Hobby, side-hustle or career?’ One of Nadia’s directions of research is investigating the line between professional and hobbyist in the area of user-generated videos (UGV) – typically bloggers, vloggers, influencers, game-streamers (Twitch), etc. UGV is engaging and interactive, perceived as relatable and credible; they monetise eyeballs, and had an important role in society during the pandemic. There’s a lack of level playing field re more traditional TV. Is the current reg distinction between professionals and hobbyists still workable and does it protect media consumers vis-a-vis online UGV creators? Nadia examined the audiovisual media services directive, and particularly the definition of ‘economic service’ in the sense of Art. 56 & 57 of TFEU, with interpretations of ‘remuneration’ by CJEU. She described how creativity is monetised in practice – revenue from brands, from platforms, from unmediated peer revenue, and from direct selling. There are issues in application of the law. There’s no minimum threshold for remuneration; no uniform type of content creator; what about cross-platform creators? Or one-time content creation? And finally there’s no guidance in AVMSD. Is this in conformity with CJEU interpretation? Is it desirable re the cross-border nature of this work? Her conclusion was that the legal instruments analysed are not designed for contemporary workers in this field. We need to allow creativity to flourish, but also to protect consumers. Legal certainty could be improved by more uniform interpretations, and strong cooperation between EU members states.
Next is Johanna Hoekstra, on ‘The use of blockchain tech in the supply chain: furthering business and human rights for transnational companies’. Due to tech hiccups we were under pressure of time, and I couldn’t quite keep up with Johanna, but it was a really interesting analysis. Transparency and accountability re HR is essential. Key issues include: auditing schemes, lack of legal accountability in supply chain, less prolific customers = less media attention, the number of suppliers and tiers of suppliers, different laws & jurisdictions, power (im)balances between purchasers/suppliers, and finally that primary materials are difficult to trace. Blockchain can be set up so that there are read-only permissions and write-information permissions (including different levels of access). It means that provenance of products can be more easily traked; the certification scheme approvals can be made transparent in order to process data; there is easier monitoring beyond first ier suppliers; labour standards and environmental protection can be included in required data; communities can register land ownership & usage; there is the possibility for others to observe the supply chain. Examples include cotton industries in Brazil, cobalt mining in DRC. Key blockers of blockchain use include: it’s still contractual; there are information dark holes, data input can of course be manipulated; shell companies and subsidiaries set up to avoid transparency can still operate; there’s lack of harminzed legislation, leading to forum shopping; and finally this doesn’t remove the need to monitor human rights compliance. In conclusion, there’s a need for harmonized legislation. There’s an emerging normative framework on corporate responsibility. HR due diligence is becoming more important for transnational corporations, and blockchain can make the supply chain more transparent. Tech itself shd be designed to further HR.
David Mangan was next, with the intriguing title ‘Digitalisation of work: The threshold is the place to pause’, but the hybridy f2f / online interface was causing issues, so he zipped through his slides. My impressions… We’re in Ind Rev 4.0, with major issues re digitalisation of work. Historically, we’re reprising luddites, Keynes on labour and availability and aims. Now is different: we’ll find new jobs, but not at the scale we need, where the product is data. No massive human workforce is needed to harvest this product. Eg cp Detroit 1990 autos vs Silicon valley 2014 data – massive difference re labour, consumption, production, products etc. Many more fascinating points about digital enhancement of work, darker sides of the gig economy eg debt that’s incurred right from the start of the gig contract. Legislation provided some responses; but as with GDPR there is a focus on the individual, but workers as a collective group do not seem to fit within this framwork, eg the new draft AI Act. When applied to the workplace, AI is not simply a product that manufacturers use. We don’t have the infrastructure for digitalisation of work (not least the hard structure – wires, fibre cables, broadband capacities etc). And we need to rethink routine work and the process of process of routine in the digitalisation of work.
Finally, Lien Stolle, analysing the protection offered by environmental legislation and policy against online intimidation tactics used to silence environmental defenders. She outlined the threats and violence – online threats, doxing, cyberstalking, hacking, trolling, etc – and the legislative frameworks used against them. Her research will go beyond desk research to surveys, interviews with environ. defenders. She noted that over-regulation can chill free speech. A presentation that was compressed down to less than 10 mins, fast, and was still coherent (unlike my summary…) – major achievement!