Asia's Leading Law & Technology Review

Tag: smu Page 1 of 2

Kaelynn Kok: Reassessing the balance between creator’s rights and innovation in the age of generative AI

Reading time: 29 minutes

Written by Kaelynn Kok Chu Shuen | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

LawTech.Asia is proud to collaborate with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4060 AI Law, Policy and Ethics class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. For the class’ final assessment, students were asked to choose from a range of practice-focused topics, such as writing a law reform paper on an AI-related topic, analysing jurisdictional approaches to AI regulation, or discussing whether such a thing as “AI law” exists. The collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to analyse issues using the analytical frames taught in class, and apply them in practical scenarios combining law and policy.

This piece, written by Kaelynn Kok, considers several legal issues around the use of copyrighted material in generative AI training. These include: (a) the appropriate balance Singapore should strike between protecting the rights of creators and supporting AI innovation; (b) whether Singapore’s existing copyright defences are applicable to protect AI developers from copyright infringement claims; and (c) the best approach for Singapore to take.

Brendan Tan: Is there such a thing as AI law?

Reading time: 20 minutes

Written by Brendan Tan Liang En | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

LawTech.Asia is proud to collaborate with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4060 AI Law, Policy and Ethics class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. For the class’ final assessment, students were asked to choose from a range of practice-focused topics, such as writing a law reform paper on an AI-related topic, analysing jurisdictional approaches to AI regulation, or discussing whether such a thing as “AI law” exists. The collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to analyse issues using the analytical frames taught in class, and apply them in practical scenarios combining law and policy.

This piece, written by Brendan Tan, argues that “AI law” as a body of law exists. In doing so, Brendan explores how “AI law” should be defined, and develops reasons on why “AI law” can be seen as a legitimate social construct.

Alyssa Minjoot: Exploring and analysing South Korea’s approach to AI regulation

Reading time: 18 minutes

Written by Alyssa Asha Minjoot | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

LawTech.Asia is proud to collaborate with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4060 AI Law, Policy and Ethics class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. For the class’ final assessment, students were asked to choose from a range of practice-focused topics, such as writing a law reform paper on an AI-related topic, analysing jurisdictional approaches to AI regulation, or discussing whether such a thing as “AI law” existed. The collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to analyse issues using the analytical frames taught in class, and apply them in practical scenarios combining law and policy.

This piece, written by Alyssa Minjoot, explores and analyses South Korea’s approach to AI regulation. It examines how South Korea has been able to take a forward-thinking, proactive and novel approach in formulating AI policies and guidance, while examining the need for clearer and more stringent AI regulations to deal with higher-risk AI systems.

Eugene, Jun Hong and Alexis: Are law schools preparing students for a tech-driven world? 

Reading time: 7 minutes

Written by Eugene Yan, Yap Jun Hong and Alexis Chun | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

Conversations from the 17th International Conference on Substantive Technology in Legal Education and Practice, held in Singapore in July 2022

In July 2022, SMU Centre for Computational Law (“CCLAW“) hosted the 17th International Conference on Substantive Technology in Legal Education and Practice (“SubTech2022”). The theme for this edition was “Training lawyers (and computers) in the age of Computational Law”, and it explored how legal education, legal practice, and society at large could be supported and improved with the use of technology. Unlike most traditional conferences, SubTech2022 followed an “unconference” format where attendees also had a say in the agenda. To facilitate this, multiple “Birds of a Feather” sessions were held throughout the day, each with its own topic statement which was contributed to by participants.

This article distills the conversations which took place during SubTech2022 on the question of “Are law schools preparing students for a tech-driven world?

Unpacking the Lootbox: Legally Dubious, Ethically Odious

Reading time: 13 minutes

Written by Nigel Ang Teng Xiang | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

We’re all law and tech scholars now, says every law and tech sceptic. That is only half-right. Law and technology is about law, but it is also about technology. This is not obvious in many so-called law and technology pieces which tend to focus exclusively on the law. No doubt this draws on what Judge Easterbrook famously said about three decades ago, to paraphrase: “lawyers will never fully understand tech so we might as well not try”.

In open defiance of this narrative, LawTech.Asia is proud to announce a collaboration with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4032 Law and Technology class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. Ranging across a broad range of technology law and policy topics, the collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to think about where the law is and what it should be vis-a-vis technology.

This piece, written by Nigel Ang, explores current global regulatory measures surrounding loot boxes in video games. Question explored include: What is the problem with lootboxes that the proposed measures are attempting to solve? Who is, or should be liable for these problems? What is the next step for regulators and game developers? To answer these questions, focus will be on the interaction between both legal and non-legal regulatory measures taken, and the quirks and qualities of the technology each seeks to regulate. This includes the content of the games themselves, intermediary platforms that host such content such as app stores, and self-regulation from within the sphere of game development. The cultural and psychological phenomena that underpin the impetus for lootbox regulation will also be discussed.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén