This essay’s purpose is to illustrate a broad understanding of legal issues and gaps in U.S. law regarding video game modifications. Digital entertainment technology develops so quickly that often new technology does not fit precisely into current law and statutes. Two different approaches to video game modification are explored pertinent to companies’ different attitudes toward modification by third parties and end-users. These two approaches include companies that encourage third party modifications, and companies that want to deter against third party modifications. Then, issues and risks of modification are explored through potential breach of contract, copyright infringement, and reverse engineering. The author analyzes the relevant court rulings on the matter of distributing these risks. Besides there are different forms of affirmative defenses such as fair use in the U.S case law which are also discussed in the article. Finally, gaps in the law and ownership issues regarding modifications are shown in the cases involving Blizzard Entertainment Inc. This essay is meant to illuminate the dichotomy of laws and courts protecting the interests of copyright holders, giving them protection and incentive to continue creating, versus anti-monopolistic rules, and providing the ultimate beneficiaries of video games the right to modify them.

Smart contracts provide some benefits, such as better facilitation for contracting parties to monitor performance of their obligation and reducing the cost spent monitoring the contract. However, it is critical to understand various limitations of this concept as well as many legal and public policy uncertainties around it. Given the non-existence of an “universal rule” that governs smart contracts, the issues vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The article applies comparative legal method to analyse the legal regulation of smart contracts in ASEAN+6 countries as well as the leading jurisdictions in the sphere of implementing digital technologies in the economy. Due to public policy considerations, there are different scenarios of smart contract development. The possible outlook is that ASEAN+6 countries would not accept smart contract as contract, cryptocurrency as property, and/or enforcing foreign awards that relate to smart contract disputes and/or cryptocurrency. Another possible way out of the deadlock is to govern relations under smart contracts by the UNIDROIT Principles. However, if the parties do not opt for such a solution, the determination of the applicable law will be left to the relevant conflict-of-laws rules with all of the uncertainties. Therefore, the author suggests that supranational laws is the better path for avoiding uncertainties in smart-contractual relationships.

The paper focuses on the defining of the co-regulation of national and supranational legal regimes’ features of data-sharing in the digital platforms’ functioning on the example of the EU’s practice with a special attention to the disintegration process of Brexit. Data-sharing is one of the most appropriate spheres to demonstrate specific traits of digital platforms — the cross-border character of their operation. This demands quid pro quo interaction of the national and supranational regulatory regimes, filling the gap associated with the lack of international regulation and the inability to harmonize law. We begin with the theoretical characterization of information and personal data, the right to privacy, and classifications of interventions in private life. The EU has been chosen as an example, acting as a flagship of interaction of national and supranational legal orders in relation to the co-regulation of cross-border data-sharing in digital platforms. Interaction of the EU on the principle of quid pro quo, based on the practice of making decisions on adequacy, is considered in the context of Brexit and the relevant law-making practice of the UK. The discussion is complemented by examples of similar EU relations with South Korea and the United States. Based on the analysis, the authors conclude that the EU supranational legal order has a high degree of influence on the national legislation of third countries, which contributes to the constant development of regulation in the sphere and the strengthening of international integration.

The article analyzes the need to establish the “right to be forgotten” as a new human right in the context of the correlation with the right to privacy. Its legislative development and global application call into question the relationship between private and public interests. The issue includes protection of an individual’s privacy, on the one hand, and freedom of information and expression on the other. In this context, the purpose of the study is to identify an approach to enshrine the “right to be forgotten” in a way that strikes an optimal balance of interests.
Exploring the evolution of the “right to be forgotten” and the problems of its enforcement, as well as its impact on free access to information and freedom of expression, the author examines the current state of this institution. As the “right to be forgotten” originally appeared in the European Union, the article examines legislation and law enforcement practice of the “right to be forgotten” in the Russian Federation and the European Union, which leads to the conclusion that the “right to be forgotten” should be considered as an independent category in the current Russian legislation. It is proposed to supplement item 1 clause 10.3 of Federal Law “On Information, Information Technology and Information Security” with a provision that the operator of a search engine has the right to refuse to satisfy requests to remove references in cases where the information is of public interest.

Review of a book Deveraz, T., Leitão J., & Sarygulov A. (2021). The Economics of Digital Transformation
and Industrial Dynamics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59959-1