Abstract
While digitization claims to provide efficiency, accessibility, expansion, speediness, and profit accumulation, it is actually colonizing every human activity. It has even become a purpose in itself. In this essay we focus on the digitization of legal practices and contents. We describe what digitization encompasses, how digitalization processes work, and to what extent they are able to replace juristic processes and produce legal outcomes. We are inspired by Walter Benjamin’s essay on the influence of mechanical reproduction of the works of Art. Parallel to Benjamin’s work on Art, we will analyze Law and the consequences of innovations such as mechanical mass (re)production and computerized digitization.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Algorithm, Key to Digitization
Not many activities in our daily lives can be imagined without digitization.Footnote 1 From the simplest to the most complex operation, it is possible to set up algorithms. An algorithm is a set of rules or instructions that takes you from an initial situation to your desired end [1: xvi]. Take for example an activity like doing laundry. Is there dirty laundry, is it sufficient, and sufficiently sorted? Is there enough detergent, is the washing program set, and the washing machine ready? These questions represent possible yes/no answers that program the next action. For instance, waiting for more dirty laundry to arrive, or preparing for a sequential wash, sorting by color or by material, buying detergent, selecting the right program, and switching on the water tap. The algorithm is thus building a yes/no (1/0) selection diagram and the person doing the laundry is not in the picture anymore. Just like the dirty laundry. The activity is zoomed in. The algorithm represents the activity, and only that activity in all its complexity of rules and instructions. What the algorithm visualizes is an isolated action that in turn consists of pieces of action: The gain of digitizability [2: 164].
In the legal profession there are also activities that are determined by step-by-step rules. Each activity can be analyzed as yes/no rules and can be sized into a digital algorithm. The work of a lawyer can therefore be reduced to a series of instructions and displayed as a composite selection diagram. The lawyer’s activities thus compartmentalized provide a template to manage an actual action. To give an example of a template filled out by lawyers who are answering the question whether a court decision is exceptional or not, from a civil law perspective they will firstly ask themself which legal question the judge has answered in the case concerning. The legal question can be analyzed by answering the following sub-questions: what is to be decided in this specific case and does it fall under the regulations of the law? These are questions on a concrete level. On a theoretical level, the following sub-questions had to be answered: Does the law want to regulate cases like this? What do the legal terms of a code, or a statute, mean and how can or should one interpret the letter of the law? To what extent is the ruling in line with the legislation and the intention of the legislator, with previous court judgments, and to what extent is the ruling supported by another legal scholar? These questions answered by ‘yes’ or ‘no’ can build an algorithm. Nevertheless, a lawyer is still needed to find these answers. Up until now, a lot of knowledge or many hours at the law library is required from the lawyer. With digitization, however, we have entered a new era; legal sources have been datafied—to a large extent. Twenty years ago, legal skills consisted of searching a library for an appropriate court ruling. Today, lecturers teach their students to search in the right legal database and to use intelligible search terms. The gain is an increased searchability of legal information that has gone above our heads.
2 Legal Information Digitalized
Legal search engines are set up in such a way that lawyers with the necessary skills (and with the set algorithms running behind the screen) can follow their trail through the various legal databases. Legislation itself can be searched digitally, as can—whether or not through hyperlinks—the drafting statutory law, and the discussions from the past on the bill in the Parliament and the Senate. Previous court rulings by both national and international judges and the comments on those rulings can also be searched digitally. Furthermore, the law journals form an easily accessible dataset with the help of portals such as LexisNexis. Lawyers who prepare a legal opinion, a plea, will anticipate a possible court judgment and will find answers to similar questions and rules for their desired end. That is, desired in a legal sense. In accordance with the binary code of law/non-law (L/~L), the non-law determining factors, such as the number of billable hours, are not considered here [3, 4: 273]. Judges can also follow these same routes if they deem it appropriate in the preparation of a ruling. Finally, it is possible to draw up an algorithm for a court hearing itself, which is largely controlled by procedural law [5: 138]. We will discuss this in more detail later.
3 Algorithmic Legal Universe
The yes/no answer program described above has two dimensions. It is certain that the selection diagram that represents the lawyer’s research is much more complex than the route following the yes or no answer direction from left to right and from top to bottom within this two-dimensional sphere. One needs to consider that the itineraries can also be traveled in a third dimension of depth; the diagram with the third dimension then forms a deeper interpretation, a large cube: ‘yes’ + ‘no’ + ‘depth’. If one adds the element of time in which the jurist starts or restarts its work, takes a different path et cetera; then this visual can be imagined as series of cubes, which precede, run parallel or diagonally and thus expand in all vectorial directions. This brings us back to the core of an algorithm: it is a collection of steps to achieve a certain goal and therefore it needs enormous amounts of data and technology. These steps thus form an algorithmic structure, which extends far into the universe, but which can be reduced to a nanochip of a few micromillimeters and can be run at a speed faster than the blink of an eye. This structure so far represents an algorithmic legal universe, with the advantage of speed and a new sense of overview—not a tangible overview but a virtual one that has concealed the taken step-by-step paths. So, if the usual paths have been programmed, then that algorithmic structure can be used to detect unusual paths in any dataset. In this way, this specific algorithmic legal universe can be used for the detection of criminal offences. A financial bank can, for instance, trace unusual money transfers in their electronic set of payment transactions [6: 16]. The algorithmic legal universe, however, will not determine whether a bank should do this or not, nor establish the duty to inform the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
4 Benjamin on Mechanical Reproduction Transponed
The digitalization process reminds us of an earlier technical revolution that arose with the introduction of mechanical reproducibility at the end of the nineteenth century and that was the subject of Walter Benjamin’s study The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In this context, we would like to recap the question that was raised in the Special Issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law: The Semiotics of Digital Law [7: 263]. The question was: Can we transplant the thesis of Benjamin on the accessibility of Art through image reproduction, to the accessibility of Law through current digitization; and can we thus reveal the loss and new manifestations that come with the digitalization of the legal world in the same way as Benjamin reveals the loss and new manifestations of the art world?
If one transplants Benjamin’s thesis on Art in the age of mechanical reproduction (the decay of its aura and the manifestations of new forms of art [8: 38]) to Law, one firstly must draw conclusions for the Law in that same age, the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. Unlike the ages of representation when Art and Law were relying on ceremonial and ritual practices, they both have no aura in the age of mass production and reproduction. The ceremonial setting required high altars, monumental staircases to celebrate Art and Law, providing aureoles and crowns to affirm their capital ‘A’ and ‘L’. Since they were engaged in the world of production, they had to become functional and instrumental for the accumulation of capital and mass (re)production. The outcome, however, consisted of new manifestations—pictures and movies for art as Benjamin noticed and social engineering by law and sociological jurisprudence for law as we put forward [9]. We will take this comparison even further into the age of digitization, transposing Benjamin’s thesis to contemporary law (and art). The use of algorithms seems beneficial, and they have thus been widely discussed in the legal world (and the art world). Algorithms have even become media stars, widely celebrated in news bulletins. What was once characterized by its aura and rites, became modern supported by reproduction, and has now become mediagenic supported by digitization. The algorithm’s appeal or power stems from the media, from the screen—and even more as appearance on the screen than as a very tool in real life [10: 105]. In this context, we will investigate the losses and new manifestations of law (and art) caused by digitization.
5 Five Cases
Our diagnostic research has focused on mediagenic events of algorithms and law. We confine ourselves to events that came to the fore in the Netherlands. Five phenomena received attention in Dutch news bulletins. We will discuss these five cases briefly in the next sections. Each case will show that the very loss caused by digitization and digitalization exists in the separation of signifiers from the signified, a distinction (signifiant and signifié) made by Ferdinand de Saussure [11: 99 et seq.]. The signifier and the signified lose their referential status [12: 39]. Law (and art) as signified is going to stand alongside, while digitization is booming.
5.1 Case 1. Lex Machina: The Lawyer Digitalized
Lex Machina is the frontrunner in the digital renaissance of legal research. Lex Machina was an interdisciplinary project between Stanford Law School and Stanford University’s Computer Science Department. The project started within the Intellectual Property Department in 2006 with the aim to make intellectual property disputes and historical patent litigation more transparent. It was mainly developed as a program of Legal Analytics that analyzes collected data to be integrated in decision-making processes. Programmers saw an opportunity to reduce to an algorithm the steps that a particular lawyer follows through the databases. What is the outcome of this Legal Analytics? No new legal content is in fact created. While new legal content is constantly being integrated into the legal machine, it is not the outcome, but only the human input. The result, however, is a program that promises matter forecasting and legal strategy: a competitive advantage over those who do not use it. By using an algorithm like this as a search query, the institution or company that employs lawyers can examine the entire dataset of computer behavior of the track seekers, offering the partners of a law firm a view of which employee is doing the best job [13: 256]. This type of analysis service can be used in all legal areas; it is even being used as an accurate prediction of case costs and thereby as evaluation of various case strategies.
Notwithstanding its name, Lex Machina, the program still highlights the necessity of human reviewers. [14: 8]. Just as Learning Analytics track and screen the learning processes of students who are using the computer for their studies, Legal Analytics provide indicators of a successful legal strategy [15: 4]. However, the learning strategy discovered with Learning Analytics does not determine whether the student has acquired knowledge. In the same way, Legal Analytics provide insight into a litigation strategy to be followed but is not in itself a decision to litigate. Whatever the analysis, the program does not create new content. Except if one suggests that the strategy itself is the content: the strategy of the strategy. Our reasoning is thus in line with Jean Baudrillard, who would have called this an ironic but ‘fatal strategy’ [10: 101]. Digitalization as signifier moves away from the legal outcome that clings to the signified, without an original, dialectical connection with the digitized content.
5.2 Case 2. Ravel Law: The Judge Digitalized
In the age of digitization, we find not only a digitalized lawyer, but also a digitalized judge. Namely, a database of court decisions can be searched in the ways that the courts have chosen and thus with algorithms. Techniques applied to legal texts, i.e., text mining, can help unravel hidden links within existing data [16: 279]. In this manner, it can be determined, for instance, which argument is most decisive for which type of judge. There is a data analysis program like Lex Machina, purchased by LexisNexis, which unravels the judicial judgement in this way and that—apparently without irony—calls itself Ravel Law [17: S10-11].
For a common-law system, on the one hand, where the law is formed by judicial decisions and precedent is elevated to case law, the analysis of judicial decisions is a necessity [18: 95]. The computer program Ravel Law is therefore welcome, but it goes against the old adage “good lawyers know their case” (signifier refers to signified), in favor of the new adage “great lawyers know their judge” (signifier meets signifier). For civil law systems, on the other hand, the unravelling of judges can be seen as a violation of the council chamber’s secrecy. This is the case in France, where the unravelling of judges has recently been forbidden [19] after the algorithm showed that some judges in asylum cases almost always said “No”, and other judges mainly said “Yes”. The consequent new Article 33 of France’s Justice Reform Act is intended to prevent anyone from publicly disclosing the pattern of judges’ behavior with respect to court decisions, stating five years of imprisonment as possible punishment.Footnote 2
5.3 Case 3. E-Court: The Litigation Digitalized
The website of the e-Court Foundation [20] presents itself as a digital independent and impartial court, offering digital arbitration or binding advice (as regulated in Article 1020 et seq. of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure and in Article 7:900 et seq. of the Dutch Civil Code). The underlying thought is that litigation can be digitalized and proceeded online. Since the party that is ruled against must pay the costs of the proceedings, it is important for the e-Court that the costs remain as low as possible. The foundation even goes as far as believing that cost reduction is a matter of consumer protection.
However, the main objection against this e-Court is that it misleads citizens by calling itself ‘court’ referring to the ‘real’ court (signified), seen by the litigants as ‘judge’ expecting a judicial decision (signified), while it actually simply is an online alternative (signifier) to formal dispute resolution (signified). At the same time online dispute resolution (ODR)—the provision of forms of ADR, i.c. arbitration and binding advice, by digital means—had been a buzzword for some time [21: 891]. The many questions raised against the e-Court reveal that its decision-making is shrouded in an atmosphere of secrecy; as Frits Bakker, the chairman of the Dutch Council of the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak), commented on the e-Court: “I think it is also a bit of a black hole how your case is handled” [22: 03′56′′]. It seems as if the e-Court has taken over the oracle-like nature of traditional law [23: 69] but what appears to be oracular is merely a renewed strategy.
Because of the denigration by the established court system, e-Court lost its share in the private litigation market. The suspicion arose that e-Court was being conspired against by the actual judges [24,25,26,27] and the e-Court Foundation started the tort case against the Council for the Judiciary (e-Court vs. the State, 2018) [20,21,22,23,24,25, 28]. In an out of court settlement reached between the two parties, the Council of the Judiciary admitted that e-Court’s knowledge and practical experience can be useful in the digitalization of the regular courts.
The fact that e-Court, nevertheless, works digitally and is embedded in the law is not the same as a digitalized court. Going online as a decision maker (signifier) is not the same as a digitalized ruling (signified). At the end, it is still the e-Court decision maker who decides the outcome on their own and not an electronic machine, i.e., again no lex ex machina.
5.4 Case 4. KEI Legislation: The Courts Digitized
Having examined the possibility of a digitalized lawyer, a digitalized judge, and a digitalized litigation as they appeared in Dutch media; we will now explore the newsfeed on the digitalized court. Many researchers consider the digitization of legal proceedings possible and even inevitable [29, 30]. In the Netherlands, the innovation of court through digitization was supported by the KEI legislation (Kwaliteit En Innovatie, Quality and Innovation). The 2016 Act Amending the Code of Civil Procedure and the General Administrative Law Act in connection with the simplification and digitization of procedural law implemented the Quality and Innovation project of the Council for the Judiciary. In practice and over time, however, it seemed to fail and on October 1st, 2019, a Dutch Act came into force that obliged the so-called digital pilot courts to stop their legal proceedings. After three years of testing and experimenting, everything had to be written on paper and stacked again, like all the other courts according to the rules of civil procedure. Nowadays, one of the courts still adhering to digital litigation is the Dutch Supreme Court [31].
However, the Dutch Council for the Judiciary did not give up and found support for a Basic Plan, which, firstly, provides the putting of procedural documents into a digital file—a unique file that the litigating parties can consult, amend, and supplement. In this way, the accessibility for the person seeking justice is digitally guaranteed. The Basic Plan, secondly, states that a procedure at an ordinary civil court can be broken down into an algorithm. It starts with the creation of, in its own words, “manageable steps per case flow” to which a work file for the judge can be linked [32: 2]. Does the Council for the Judiciary realize that the digitization must fail? That one cannot put this algorithm that represents the litigation process and has its own dynamic, in the dossier file that needs its own course of development? In law, both procedure and file are still connected as signifier (form) and signified (substance). When both are being digitized, they experience an exponential growth in their own direction, which means that they no longer come together. If a digitized form and a digitized substance must be put together, they can no longer undergo their own digital development. The moment a file is adopted in the procedure, the file has to come to a halt, and the seekers of Justice are then sidetracked. And on the other side, when a procedure is adopted in a file, the procedure cannot jump to its next step. It has to still down. This means the end of digitization. Therefore, the Council for the Judiciary is condemned to sustain the analogue connection of form and substance.
5.5 Case 5. Remote Justice
Due to the COVID-19 regulation and to severe lockdown, Dutch courts had to undergo a quick change. To reduce the growing caseload, the justice system was forced to upgrade their technologies by using smart phones and tablets for video calls, streaming technics, and digital settings for virtual conferencing [33]. As for many Dutch institutions and organizations, the most applied tool for access to online and hybrid meetings turned out to be Zoom. Suddenly, faces of administrators, moderators, clients, patients, social workers, students, teachers, and experts appeared everywhere, each surrounded by their own environments—side by side in the Zoom gallery view. Expressions such as “you have to unmute yourself” became routine. The same became true for judges, lawyers, and other people handling cases. As an aside, it coincides with zooming researchers and students who were given the opportunity to observe and record digital hearings or to interview the protagonist of the online hearings and to record these interview meetings. Their research is at the moment of our contribution not published yet [34]. Through conference talks and a master thesis however, research reveals that some judges and lawyers felt unrecognized in their role in this new setting [35, 36], others felt that their contact and communication with the juvenal litigants improved thanks to the new digital setting. These juvenile litigants had become, as we analyse it, one of the many pure signs on the screen and, as such, they are thus even no longer signifiers (since the term ‘signifier’ still refers to the signified).
By choosing to wear robes and by positioning themselves at the desk of their law office or in their chair at the courtroom, these judges are choosing for the return of an aura, but it is a virtual aura. This virtual aura has nothing to do with a ceremonial setting, but everything with the circulation as a sign among pure signs.
5.6 Conclusion: What Digitalization Does
The five mediagenic events hereabove show that digitalization is thriving, accumulating one digitization on the other. In doing so, digitalization takes its own course, leaving the legal world—i.c. the legal content, the judicial argument, the ruling, the legal procedure, the judge, and the lawyer—behind. The position of the legal world can be compared to that of a famous artwork hanging on the wall of an even more famous museum. The museum had to rebuild its entrance to receive the consequential loads of tourists. The visitors are crowding in front of the Mona Lisa, taking selfies; but the Mona Lisa is still the old Mona Lisa from another time. She must tolerate the masses who turn their back to her for the perfect picture and leave the room with their digital snapshots. In a similar manner, the legal world still has its courtrooms and its legal outcomes, but it must endure the fact that digitalization is not affected by the law and that its digitized courtrooms and legal outcomes circulates as digits among all digits.
6 Captured by Digitization
In the previous sections, we concluded with Benjamin that at the end of the nineteenth century the aura of art and law had vanished. Furthermore, we emphasized the lost and solitary position of the signified and discussed the fatal consequences of contemporary digitization. The Mona Lisa is back faced in the age of the smartphone. And law? Justice is virtually back faced by Zoom.
Benjamin’s work on mechanical reproduction instigates us to analyze more than the lost and solitary position of the signified. He also observed that mechanical reproduction captured a place of its own among artistic processes such as pictures and movies [8: 11].Footnote 3 For law, the outcome then consisted of a functional type of law that could organize society and that grounded sociological jurisprudence. In order to see if digitization captures a place of its own among the juristic processes, we had searched for and detected contemporary legal instruments. We, firstly, discuss smart contracts, then GDPR certificates, and finally NFTs.
6.1 Smart Contracts
In the real world, law regulates in a sense every daily behavior. For instance, each potential relationship is considered a contract, an exchange with a particular end, like a purchase contract, a labor contract, and a marriage contract. The terms and conditions of such a contract can be reduced to simple 1/0 decisions. This is where a contract enters the digital world. A contract adapted into the digital world, is named a ‘smart contract’, and exists of just self-enforceable and self-executable terms and conditions [37: 337–340]. In the virtual world of digitization, where every activity with an end is reduced to an algorithm, blockchains are the building blocks for complex and interconnected activities. A good marriage between a smart contract and blockchain technology is then a fact.
6.2 GDPR Certificates
According to the private law system, the next subject after ‘contract’ is, of course, ‘tort’. (Property, the third and last subject, will come next.) The EU legislator came with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in order to hold the controllers who hire processors to analyze data and to program, responsible for transparency and for data protecting, particularly personal data. The controllers can only deny their liability if the data processors, to whom they entrust processing operations, provide sufficient guarantees.Footnote 4 The data processors who are creating blockchains, use recognizable characters such as hashtags for the controllability between these different data units [38]. The law, almost synonym with control, provides instruments that can be integrated, “allowing data subjects to quickly assess the level of data protection of relevant products and services”. Hashtag tokens are being topped by juristic tokens like seals and marks, and certificates of the GDPR. As the EU Regulation says:
In order to enhance transparency and compliance with this regulation, the establishment of certification mechanisms and data protection seals and marks [emphasis added] should be encouraged, allowing data subjects to quickly assess the level of data protection of relevant products and services.Footnote 5
Since it is an EU Regulation and not an EU Directive, the EU Member State legislators are obliged to apply these juristic tokens, as provided by Article 42 of the GDPR. Being obliged is even more suitable, according to some, since EU Member State legislators would otherwise consider national legal cultures, while the mechanical 1/0 rules are not affected [39: 140–151].
6.3 NFT, Key to Mint Digital Art
Until recently, digital artists were not able to make money out of their creations since their digital painting, sculpture, photo, or hologram could circulate the whole world and be seen on every device. They could not profit from their property. NFT technology recently came to the rescue. NFT stands for ‘Non-Fungible Token’, it is a small computer program that runs somewhere in a blockchain. The program consists of a number of codes that can link a work of art that is being purchased to a personal digital wallet of the purchaser. In this manner, the authenticity is consolidated in a unique set of code characters [40: 631]. In other words, the NFT in the blockchain reflects the ownership. Artist Kenny Schachter: “[An NFT] is a digital certificate of authenticity, [that] sits on a smart contract which piggybacks on an Ethereum cryptocurrency” [41: 02′47′′]. The blockchain is therefore not only being used for the transfer of digital money like Ethereum but it can also be used to proof and to transfer ownership of a particular digital asset. The art world embraced this technology and its potential through digital markets, NFT platforms, and virtual auctions. Art Basel Miami Beach suddenly became overwhelmed by a new generation of art sellers and buyers; and NFT-ism became a media hype. Digital artists and collectors filled their wallets with cryptocurrency. One interesting aspect to this new tool was that artists received a commission on every future sale of their NFT thanks to an even smaller computer program that automatically pays out the commission to the creator and fee to the miners. These aspects, that are normally negotiated through lawyers and contracts in the boardroom, are reduced to a simple ‘smart contract’—a blockchain or data unit—in the digital universe known as the Metaverse [41: 24, 42: 185]. When the terms are fulfilled, the smart contract automatically executes.
The Metaverse consists of codes. When you enter a platform like OpenSea or Rarible you have the illusion of buying art, but when you click on an asset you only acquire a small set of bits, described as “these incredibly ugly NFTs” by Dutch digital artist Harm van den Dorpel [43: 22′00′′]. The digital artwork itself is not in your hands. It can easily circulate everywhere on the internet, and it can even be wiped out when the concerned servers go down. What rests is your virtual wallet.
Applied in the art market, NFT technology proofs its effectiveness. It can also be used in every juristic process. Each authentication can be programmed, from transferring properties, patents, and securities to paying rent, taxes, tort claims, and fines. That is, only if creditor and debtor have access to their individual digital wallet and know their password. Digitization namely only produces digits after digits, creating Metaverse after Metaverse. It builds its own ’Pataphysical Universe (for which Doctor Faustroll invented the “science of imaginary solutions” [44: 16]). Therefore, one may call the Metaverse a real ’Pataverse.
6.4 Conclusion: Digital Capturing
Benjamin had, in a way, welcomed pictures and movies as to be qualified as new art works. For him and for the era that he represented, the political function of these art forms was evident. The era of digitalization that we have inquired and analyzed, is not simply an extension of the era of mechanical reproduction, since we indicate the very vanishment of functional alliances. Smart contracts, GDPR certificates, and NFTs can be qualified as new legal instruments, but they lack actual functional intervention power or instrumental power control. It is comparable to the lack of power or control over the NFT art work for the art collector. The new legal instruments and the new NFT art works have entered the sphere of the floating signifier [45: 150].
7 Deus Ex Machina
On February 1st, 2020, Google Maps lost in favor of art. Google reported a traffic jam in the center of Berlin that in reality did not exist. As deus ex machina, artist Simon Weckert showed how easily the digital world can be manipulated [46]. Weckert collected 99 used smartphones, equipped them with SIM cards and internet access, and placed the devices in a small red handcart. He then walked slowly with this handcart through some of Berlin’s deserted streets. The actuality and perception of physical streets is simulated by Google Maps. Weckert and his collection thus caused a virtual traffic jam on Google Maps. Google Maps was at a loss [47: E3]. With this work of art, Google Maps Hack, the artist showed the hoax of Google’s famous algorithms. This deus ex machina shows that algorithms on their own does not guarantee real content. Even more, that a lex ex machina does not exist.
Notes
We use the terms ‘digitization’ or ‘digitizability’ to refer to the tranformation of analoge information into digital information and we use the terms ‘digitalization’ or ‘digitalizability’ to refer to the the use of digital technology to stimulate governance, society, and business processes.
Article 33 LOI n° 2019 − 222 du 23 mars 2019 de programmation 2018–2022 et de réforme pour la justice (1).
Walter Benjamin, Das Kunstwerk [8: 11]: “Um neunzehnhundert hatte die technische Reproduktion einen Standard erreicht, auf dem sie nicht nur die Gesamtheit der überkommenen Kunstwerke zu ihrem Objekt zu machen und deren Wirkung den tiefsten Veränderungen zu unterwerfen begann, sondern sich einen eigenen Platz unter den künstlerischen Verfahrungsweise eroberte.” [“Around 1900 technical reproduction had reached a standard that not only permitted it to reproduce all transmitted works of art and thus to cause the most profound change in their impact upon the public; it also had captured a place of its own among the artistic processes.”].
Regulation (EU) 2016/679, r. 81.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), r. 100.
References
Ebers, Martin, and Susana Navas. 2020. Preface. In Algorithms and Law, eds. Martin Ebers and Susana Navas, xvii-xx. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347846.001.
Navas, Susana. 2020. Robot Machines and Civil Liability. In Algorithms and Law, eds. Martin Ebers and Susana Navas, 157–173. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347846.006.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1969. Legitimation durch Verfahren. Neuwied and Berlin: Luchterhand.
Gray, Christopher B. 2004. No Five-Finger Exercise: Digital Law to Manage Legal Complexity. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law—Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique (special issue: The Semiotics of Digital Law) 17(3): 267–276, eds. John Brigham and Agnes T.M. Schreiner. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-004-8645-2.
Sancho, Diana. 2020. Automated Decision-Making Under Article 22 GDPR: Towards a More Substantial Regime for Solely Automated Decision-Making. In Algorithms and Law, eds. Martin Ebers, and Susana Navas, 136–156. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347846.005.
Coster, and van Voorhout, Jonquille, interviewed by Cosette Molijn. 2020. Uitbuiters zoeken tussen bankgegevens [Exploiters Search Among Bank Records]. NRC [Dutch newspaper] 6 January.
Brigham, John, and Agnes T. M. Schreiner. Introduction: The Semiotics of Digital Law. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law—Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique (special issue: The Semiotics of Digital Law) 17(3): 259–266, eds. John Brigham and Agnes T.M. Schreiner. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-004-8643-4.
Benjamin, Walter, B. S. 1963 [1935]. Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit [The Work of Art in the Age of Its Mechanical Reproducibility]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Roscoe Pound, Nathan. 1912. The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence. [Concluded.] III. Sociological Jurisprudence. Harvard Law Review 25 (6): 489–516. https://doi.org/10.2307/1324775.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1983. Les stratégies fatales [Fatal Strategies]. Paris: Éditions Grasset & Fasquelle.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1971 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale [Course in General Linguistics], eds. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1976. L’échange symbolique et la mort [Symbolic Exchange and Death]. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
Bex, Floris J., and Henry Prakken. 2020. De juridische voorspelindustrie: onzinnige hype of nuttige ontwikkeling? [The Legal Forecasting Industry: Nonsensical Hype or Useful Development?]. Ars Aequi [Dutch legal journal] (3): 255–259.
Lettieri, Nicola, Antonio Altamura, Rosalba Giugno, Alfonso Guarino, Delfina Malandrino, Alfredo Pulvirenti, and Francesco Vicidomini, and Rocco Zaccagnino. 2018. Ex Machina: Analytical platforms, Law and the Challenges of Computational Legal Science. Future Internet 10(37): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi10050037.
Wong, Jacqueline, et al. Educational Theories and Learning Analytics: From Data to Knowledge: The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64792-0_1 (2019).
Restrepo Amariles, David. 2021. Algorithmic Decision Systems: Using Automation and Machine Learning in the Public Administration. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of Algorithms, ed. Woodrow Barfield, 273–300. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347846.005.
Bokkum, Milo van. 2020. Software weet wat de judge graag hoort [Software Knows What the Judge Likes to Hear]. NRC [Dutch newspaper] 10 February. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/02/10/software-weet-wat-de-judge-graag-hoort-a3989849. Accessed 21 March 2022.
Dillon, John F. 1887. Our Legal Chaos. Political Science Quarterly 2(1): 91–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/2139319.
Skolnik, Sam. 2019. France’s Judicial Analytics Ban Unlikely to Catch On in U.S. Bloomberg Law. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/frances-judicial-analytics-ban-unlikely-to-catch-on-in-u-s. Accessed 16 March 2022.
Stichting, e-Court. 2010. E-Court: moderne private rechtspraak [E-Court: Modern Private Justice]. https://www.e-court.nl/. Accessed 16 March 2022.
Bauw, Eddy. 2018. Geschillen als handelswaar. Over cliffhangers en e-court-soap [Disputes as a commodity. On Cliffhangers and the E-court Soap]. Ars Aequi [Dutch legal journal] 67 (11): 890–893.
Dennekamp, Gert-Jan. 2018. Nieuwsuur (Dutch television news bulletin). 17 January.
Blackstone, William. 1791. Commentaries on the Laws of England. London: William Strahan, Thomas Cadell, and Daniel Prince.
Lonkhuyzen, Liza van. 2018. Vastgelopen e-Court ziet complot [Stalled E-court Sees a Conspiracy]. NRC [Dutch newspaper] 20 November. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/11/20/vastgelopen-e-court-ziet-complot-a2755836. Accessed 21 March 2022.
Jonker, Saskia. 2019. E-Court mag hoge rechters verhoren over mogelijk complot [E-Court May Hear Senior Judges on Possible Conspiracy]. Het Financieele Dagblad [Dutch financial newspaper] 24 May. https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1302431/e-court-mag-hoge-rechters-verhoren-over-mogelijk-complot-vuc2cakjssIQ. Accessed 21 March 2022.
Driessen, Camil. 2019. Rechters gehoord om complot [Judges Heard About Conspiracy]. NRC [Dutch newspaper] 25 May. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/05/25/rechters-gehoord-om-complot-a3961525. Accessed 21 March 2022.
NOS [Dutch television news bulletin]. 2020. Aandacht voor ‘robotrechter’ e-Court was journalistiek, geen complot [Attention for ‘Robot Judge’ E-Court Was Journalism, Not Conspiracy], Nieuwsuur (Dutch television news bulletin), 3 March. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2325574-aandacht-voor-robotrechter-e-court-was-journalistiek-geen-complot. Accessed 16 March 2022.
Zevenbergen, Bendert. 2018. Rechtszaak als verdienmodel [Lawsuit as a Revenue Model]. Advocatenblad 5: 20–25. https://www.advocatenblad.nl/2018/06/05/rechtszaak-als-verdienmodel/. Accessed 21 March 2022.
Zhurkina, Olga, Elena Filippova, and Tatiana Bochkareva. 2021. Digitization of Legal Proceedings: Global Trends (conference paper). Conference: 1st International Scientific Conference ‘Legal Regulation of the Digital Economy and Digital Relations: Problems and Prospects of Development. 18 March. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.210318.018.
Nikolaychenko, Olga and Viktor Nikolaychenko. 2021. Digitization of Legal Proceedings in Socio-Cultural Measurement (conference paper). Conference: International Scientific and Practical Conference «MAN. SOCIETY. COMMUNICATION». 27 May. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.02.226.
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden [Dutch Supreme Court]. 2022. https://www.hogeraad.nl/digitaal-procederen. Accessed 16 March.
Kamerstukken II [Dutch Parlementary Documents II] 2018/19, 29279, 467. https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-29279-467.html. Accessed 16 March 2022.
Jensma, Folkert. 2020. Ontregeling van het recht is hét moment voor vernieuwing [Disruption of Law is the time for Renewal]. NRC [Dutch newspaper] 18–19 April. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/04/18/ontregeling-van-het-recht-is-het-moment-voor-vernieuwing-a3997116. Accesed 24 March 2022.
Voert, Marijke ter. 2022. De impact van de coronacrisis op de rechtspraak en de positie van kwetsbare rechtszoekenden [The Impact of the Corona Crisis on the Administration of Justice and the Position of Vulnerable Litigants]. ZonMw [Dutch organization of health care research and innovation]. https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/over-zonmw/coronavirus/programmas/project-detail/covid-19-programma/de-impact-van-de-coronacrisis-op-de-rechtspraak-en-de-positie-van-kwetsbare-rechtszoekenden/resultaten/. Accesed 24 March 2022.
VSR Conference. 2022. Leuven. March 9, Session 2. Access to Justice in the Digital Era and Impact on Fundamental Rights.
Janssen, Anne. 2021. Remote Justice. Een onderzoek naar participatie en betrokkenheid in digitale en hybride civiele procedures [Remote Justice. An Examination of Participation and Engagement in Digital and Hybrid Civil Litigation]. Utrecht University, Master Thesis (Legal Research Master).
Drummer, Daniel, and Dirk Neumann. 2020. Is Code Law? Current Legal and Technical Adoption Issues and Remedies for Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contracts. Journal of Information Technology 35(4): 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396220924669.
Fu, Jinhua et al. 2020. A Study on the Optimization of Blockchain Hashing Algorithm Based on PRCA. Security and Communication Networks 8: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8876317.
Riccio, Giovanni Maria, and Federica Pezza. 2019. Certification Mechanisms and Liability Rules under the GDPR: When the Harmonisation Becomes Unification. In Digital Revolution eds. Alberto De Franceschi and Reiner Schulze, 140–151. München/Baden-Baden: Verlag C.H. Beck and Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406759048-140.
Fisher, Katya. 2019. Once Upon a Time in NFT: Blockchain, Copyright, and the Right of First Sale Doctrine. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 37(3): 629–634.
Stephenson, Neal. 2003 [1992]. Snow Crash. New York: Bantam Books.
Chalmers, David J. 2022. Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Haak, Bregtje van der (ed.). 2022. VPRO Tegenlicht [VPRO Backlight] (Dutch television documentaries). 21 February. https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/2022-2023/nft-mania.html. Accessed 14 June 2022.
Jarry, Alfred H. 1911. Gestes et opinions du docteur Faustroll, pataphysicien: roman néo-scientifique suivi de spéculations [Exploits and Opinions of Dr. Faustroll, Pataphysician: Neo-Scientific Novel Followed by Speculations]. Paris: Éditions Fasquelle.
Baudrillard, Jean, and Mike Gane. 1993. The Work of Art in the Electronic Age: Interview With la Sept. In Baudrillard Live: Selected Interviews, ed. Mike Gane, 145–151. London and New York: Routledge.
Weckert, Simon. 2020. Google Maps Hack. 1 February. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5eL_al_m7Q&t=6s. Accessed 16 March 2022.
Eijsvoogel, Juurd. 2020. Alleen Google Maps zag deze file [Only Google Maps Saw This Traffic Jam]. NRC [Dutch newspaper] 5 February. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/02/04/alleen-google-maps-zag-deze-file-a3989238. Accessed 21 March 2022.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Johanna Rietveld, Gert-Jan van Dijk, the organizers of the Doctoral Forum in Law & Humanities at the University of Lucerne, Switzerland (December 10–11, 2020), and the editors and reviewers of cognitio—studentisches Forum für Recht und Gesellschaft and of this journal for their useful conversations and comments which helped us in the early drafting of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Jansen, B., Schreiner, A. Captured by Digitization. Int J Semiot Law 36, 2179–2191 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09958-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09958-7