This paper examines how the production of interactive, co-creative software such as multiplayer online games differs from conventional media production, and how stakeholders employ different discursive constructions to understand those environments. The convergence of forms and functions, and the emergence of new structures that cross pre-existent regulatory and policy boundaries, mean that the discourses adopted to describe these environments and enact regulation and control need to be examined for the particular interests they represent. The paper canvasses six different discourses about online social software such as games, and briefly discusses the implications of each for areas such as intellectual property, classification, governance, data privacy, creative industries and global crossjurisdictional infrastructures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanksJ.HumphreysS.2008, ‘The Labour of User Co-Creation: Emerging Social Network Markets?’Convergence, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 401–18.
CrawfordS.P.2004, ‘Who's in Charge of Who I Am? Identity and Law Online’, New York Law School Law Review, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 211–29.
8.
CunninghamS.2006, What Price a Creative Economy?Currency Press, Sydney.
9.
DeanM.1999, Governmentality, Power and Rule in Modern Society, Sage, London.
10.
FarleyR.2000, ‘Game’, M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture, no. 3, p. 5.
11.
FoucaultM.1994 [1978], ‘Governmentality’, in FaubionJ.D. (ed.), Michel Foucault. Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Vol. 3, Penguin, London, pp. 201–22.
12.
FrowJ.2000, ‘Public Domain and the New World Order in Knowledge’, Social Semiotics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 173–85.
13.
HardtM.NegriA.2000, Empire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
14.
HermanA.CoombeR.J.KayeL.2006, ‘Your Second Life? Goodwill and the Performativity of Intellectual Property in Online Digital Gaming’, Cultural Studies, vol. 20, nos 2–3, pp. 184–210.
15.
HuizingaJ.1950 [1938], Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, Beacon Press, Boston.
16.
HumphreysS.2005, ‘Productive Users, Intellectual Property and Governance: The Challenges of Computer Games’, Media Arts Law Review, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 299–310.
17.
HumphreysS.2008, ‘Ruling the Virtual World: Governance in Massively Multiplayer Online Games’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 149–71.
18.
JankowichA.2006, ‘Eulaw: The Complex Web of Virtual Law-making in Virtual Worlds’, Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, no. 8, pp. 1–58.
19.
JohE.E.2004, ‘The Paradox of Private Policing’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 49–133.
20.
JuulJ.2002, ‘The Open and Closed: Games of Emergence and Games of Progression’, in MayraF. (ed.), Computer Games and Digital Cultures, Tampere University Press, Tampere, Finland, pp. 323–29.
21.
KlineS.Dyer-WithefordN.de PeuterG.2003, Digital Play: The Interaction of Technology, Culture and Marketing, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.
22.
KozlovskiN.2005, ‘Designing Accountable Online Policing’, Yale Law School Information Society Project.
23.
LastowkaG.2009, ‘The Planes of Power’, International Journal of Games Studies, forthcoming.
24.
MarsdenC.CaveJ.NasonE.ParkinsonA.BlackmanC.RutterJ.2006, Assessing Indirect Impacts of the EC Proposals for Video Regulation, Ofcom, London.
25.
PostigoH.2008, ‘Of Mods and Modders: Chasing Down the Value of Fan Based Digital Game Modifications’, in RutterJ. (ed.), Digital Games Industries: Work, Knowledge and Consumption, Ashgate, Aldershot.
26.
PottsJ.CunninghamS.HartleyJ.OmerodP.2008, ‘Social Network Markets: A New Definition of the Creative Industries’, Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 167–85.
27.
RoseN.1999, Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
TaylorT.L.2002, ‘“Whose Game is This Anyway?”: Negotiating Corporate Ownership in a Virtual World’, in MayraF. (ed.), Computer Games and Digital Cultures, Tampere University Press, Tampere, Finland, pp. 227–42.
