Multimedia learning is learning from words and pictures. The rationale for studying multimedia learning is that people can learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone. A goal of research on multimedia learning is to understand how to design multimedia learning environments that promote meaningful learning. The research base concerning multimedia learning is reflected in the 46 chapters of this Handbook, and includes 30 design principles that we have organized into three categories: principles based on reducing extraneous processing, principles based on managing essential processing, and principles based on fostering generative processing.

This chapter reviews the research conducted on the representation of events, from theperspectives ofnatural language processing, artificial intelligence (AI), and linguistics. AI approaches to modeling change have traditionally focused on situations and state descriptions. Linguistic approaches start with the description of the propositional content of sentences (or natural language expressions generally). As a result, the focus in the two fields has been on different problems. I argue that these approaches have common elements that can be drawn on to view event semantics from a unifying perspective, where we can distinguish between the surface events denoted by verbal predicates and what I refer to as the latent event structure of a sentence. By clearly distinguishing between surface and latent event structures of sentences and texts, we move closer to a general computational theory of event structure, one permitting a common vocabularyfor events and the relations between them, while enabling reasoning at multiple levels of interpretation.

Adequate informational privacy is essential if people are to successfully seek self-realization as they interact in a variety of social roles. Those interactions create and maintain the necessary informational privacy as people conform to shared expectations about the selective flow of information. Conformity to shared expectations about information flow requires complex group coordination, which is facilitated by informational norms. Surveillance creates a massive capacity to know. The existence of that capacity undermines self-realization by undermining the norm-based coordination on which adequate informational privacy depends. Norm-based coordination depends on common knowledge of conformity to norms. Common knowledge is the recursive belief state in which people know, know they know, know they know they know, and so on ad infinitum. Surveillance undermines common knowledge by attacking the first, nonrecursive step in that sequence – simply knowing.

I arrived at 8:30 to begin observations and interviews, and was met by Bill, the company’s chief privacy officer, a man in sneakers and jeans roughly in his mid-sixties.1

There are various definitions of privacy, and for some time now, privacy harms have been characterized as intractable and ambiguous. In this chapter, I argue that regardless of how one conceptualizes privacy the ubiquitous nature of IoT devices and the data they generate, together with corporate data business models and programs, create significant privacy concerns for all of us. The brisk expansion of the IoT has increased “the volume, velocity, variety and value of data.”1 The IoT has made new types of data that were never before widely available to organizations more easily accessible. IoT devices and connected mobile apps and services observe and collect many types of data about us, including health-related and biometric data.

The IoT allows corporate entities to colonize and obtain access to traditionally private areas and activities while simultaneously reducing our public and private anonymity.

Economic analysis understands intellectual property laws, including copyright law, as necessary to protect markets for information goods against an appropriation problem. The core value of creative and innovative product is the information on which books, movies, and inventions are based. Information is non-excludable to the extent that once it is distributed to some, it is difficult to prevent access to others.

Imagine an international instrument that does not merely oblige contracting parties to confer rights on copyright holders (permitting only optional, narrowly circumscribed, exceptions) but also mandates limitations. Imagine, too, that such an instrument requires parties to permit use of material that has been taken from existing works and incorporated in a later work, irrespective of the purpose of so doing, but only on the condition that the use is in accordance with fair practice. Imagine that the mandatory limitation allows the reuse of transformed versions of works, including parodies, and even the whole of a protected work. Imagine, indeed, a regime of global, mandatory, fair use.

This chapter is both a retrospective, and also even a requiem, for the “unregulation” argument in Internet law, and a prospective on the next twenty-five years of computer (or cyber) law. The Internet is not a lawless, special unregulated zone; it never was. Now that broadband Internet is ubiquitous, mobile, and relatively reliable in urban and suburban areas, it is being regulated as all mass media before it. While American policymakers advocated a largely deregulatory approach to the internet over the past twenty-five years, the United Kingdom and Europe have emphasized the hybrid of governmental and private market oversight known as coregulation. This approach to making regulation more adaptive addresses key dilemmas that fast-moving, slippery technologies pose for the traditional regulator’s toolkit.

Chapter 1 outlines the book’s coverage. Part 2 sets the conceptual and legal framework from which the collected world consequences of Part 1’s analysis can be examined, particularly in relation to sensor data collections from the smart home. Part 3 then examines the consequences of the collected world and the challenges it will bring for information privacy law’s dominant control model and its manifestation in information privacy laws predicated on process protections. In doing so, it puts forward a reformulated role for information privacy law based on Julie Cohen’s work of the last decade, most notably, on modulated power.