Lastowka (2011)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Lastowka (2011)
Title: Minecraft as Web 2.0: Amateur Creativity & Digital Games
Author(s): Greg Lastowka
Year: 2011
Citation: Lastowka, Greg, Minecraft as Web 2.0: Amateur Creativity & Digital Games (October 5, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1939241 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1939241
Link(s): Open Access,Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description:
Data Type:
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
Funder(s):

Abstract

The paper considers how the digital game Minecraft has both enabled and benefited from various Web 2.0 practices. Lastowka begins with an explanation of the concept of Web 2.0 and then considers how that concept applies to the space of digital games. He then looks at Minecraft specifically. As he explains, Minecraft’s surprising success as an “indie” game is largely attributable to the ways in which it draws upon amateur creativity. Lastowka finally concludes the chapter by suggesting that more games like Minecraft may be socially desirable, but notes that current intellectual property laws discourage the creation of these sorts of games.

Main Results of the Study

  • Video games are to be seen as a part of the Web 2.0, as they are an incentive for amateur creativity and user generated content.
  • Minecraft is an excellent and extraordinary example for this, since it has incetivised the creation of comprehensive content which builds the explanatory infrastructure sourounding the game; "inter alia" YouTube Videos, Skins, Mods, Wikis.
  • Amateur content and creativity is socially desirable because amateur producers are not restricted to creating commercially viable commodities, what allows their projects to be experimental, personally expressive, and politically controversial
  • Current policies do not incentivise amateur creativity.
  • Current terms of use in several video games do not allow floroushing amateur creativity.
  • The growth of the Web 2.0 concept is a threat to the business models of the traditional entertainment industry.


Policy Implications as Stated By Author

  • Terms of use in the field of video games require balanced rules in order not to stifle the creativity of users. Here, less protection is usually better at promoting creativity.
  • Copyright laws call for a better structure to promote amateur creativity within the Web 2.0.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Green-tick.png
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets