Defining what is within and what is outside the scope of Entertainment law has become increasingly problematic. The rise of new technologies, from the crucial landmarks of the Home Video Cassette Recorder and the Sony Walkman through to the development of Web 2.0 have dramatically reshaped the industry itself and the key relationships within it. Consequently, new powerful multimedia companies such as Apple, Amazon and Google have emerged. Their origins are interesting and diverse, Apple as a computer manufacturer, Amazon as an online store, and Google as an internet search engine. All three now offer both hardware devices and increasingly content. Alongside Microsoft these tech companies have developed digital dominance (Moore and Tambini 2018). Perhaps most significantly, the nature of consumption and the role of the consumer have seemingly shifted ‘control’ towards the audience. Similarly, traditional regulatory frameworks that controlled content have been bypassed by new methods of distribution via the internet. New areas of entertainment have emerged, most notably the computer games industry, which has in term created e-sports (Hallman and Giel 2018). Garon, in a detailed and considered analysis exploring the development of regulation, argues that the state has three identifiable goals; ‘health and safety concerns; content and cultural control; and monopoly power restrictions on those who control the media’ (2020: 3). The first two areas have become far more problematic as the industry has fractured both in terms of the site of production and the method of distribution. The third goal provides an ongoing challenge with an increased emphasis on the power of social media.

Contemporaneously English higher education and more specifically legal education has been subject to structural changes which have been driven by ideological and political considerations rather than purely technology. The COVID pandemic provided a significant rationale for technological innovation in the provision of university education, though it is not clear whether this will produce a more restricted and conservative approach to the curriculum and assessment. The marketisation of higher education has been driven by a form of consumerism rooted in a transactional relationship. The rise of the ‘student as consumer’ mirrors the greater authority wielded by consumers within the entertainment industry. Just as consumerism has disrupted the traditional and longstanding entertainment organisations, universities are disrupted not least by fear of complaints and the intervention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.1 Consumerism may produce unrealistic expectations in terms of both experience and outcome for students (Nixon et al. 2018). But just as Web 2.0 has permitted interactivity in terms of entertainment, the concept of co-creation has also been developed within Higher Education though not without its critics (Nixon et al. 2018). Just as the entertainment consumer now expects an ‘on demand’ model delivered through streaming services the student consumer ‘demands’ downloadable recorded lectures. The new model of learning is not without concerns from all parties (O’Callaghan et al. 2017). Just as the music industry struggled to address the downloading and exchange of MP3 files the downloaded lecture may also be exchanged and even sold which has raised concerns over control of the ‘product’. Universities and lecturing staff will have to resolve issues around intellectual property ownership of recording and the underlying material with likely conflicts arising. The lecturer as recording artist rather than live performer has been pushed to the fore by COVID -19.

Legal education and the legal profession are facing a new set of challenges, which writers have described as another ‘crisis’ (Bowyer 2019; Davies and Woo 2018). The formal relationship between academia and the legal profession is becoming increasingly marginalised, accelerated by the introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE). Astonishingly, a law degree will no longer be a prerequisite to train and qualify as a solicitor (Davies 2018). Ironically, a Qualifying Law Degree (or Graduate Diploma in Law) will still be required for qualification as a barrister, which creates a fresh division between the two branches that had been moving increasingly closer together. The removal of the requirement for a QLD opens the potential for the traditional law curriculum to be adapted and revised if university law schools have the appetite. An alternative approach will be to effectively batten down the hatches and restate the importance of the traditional curriculum based on the core subjects though the inclusion of EU law could be seen as an anomaly post Brexit. For those working in legal education for the past 30 years, numerous crises have come and gone, and many cynics will doubt that this situation is genuinely any different. Concentration on graduate skills and employability, driven by marketisation, may prove a more significant catalyst than the uncoupling of the QLD from the profession. Legal publishers who deliver the lucrative textbook model will undoubtedly be enthusiastic partners in promoting the central core. Outside of the core subjects, which always seem to resist radical change, the question is the theoretical or pedagogical framework that is aligned to the content.

An obvious possibility is to embrace a socio-legal studies approach, however that is interpreted. Collier, drawing on the work of Tony Bradney, described the liberal law school as an ‘institution marked by methodological and epistemological diversity; a commitment to a distinctive academic (as opposed to vocational) stage of legal education; a less deferential relation to the legal profession and legal hierarchy than has existed in the past; and, importantly, an institutional acceptance of original, often interdisciplinary, legal research.’ (2004: 519). It is not clear though why the interdisciplinary aspect should be reserved for research and not encompass teaching and learning. There are also alternatives to a purely vocational or academic strategy even if the latter has a socio-legal hue. Parts of Entertainment Law have been sculpted from a broader Law and Popular Culture agenda.2 The case for Law and Popular Culture is eloquently presented by David Fraser, who sets out a bold opening criticism of the status quo: ‘Much of what passes for legal scholarship these days continues to be, quite simply, boring. More important, however, than its distinct lack of aesthetic appeal, is its continuing irrelevance’ (Fraser 2004: 15). As he notes, the relationship between law and popular culture creates an opportunity to learn about both elements from the opposite field and the amalgam of the two. Edward Grayson, a pioneer of the Sports Law (or is it Sport and the Law?) movement also saw a link, albeit a much more limited one, to two concepts: ‘justice in the Rule of law and Fair Play in sport are not only the twin sides of the same coin: alongside Britain’s constitution they are also part of the nation’s unwritten heritage’ (1988: viii). A course or module covering Law and Popular Culture is relatively straightforward; there is no shortage of material (Asimow and Silbey 2020). Similarly, a traditional Entertainment Law course can draw upon numerous practitioner-based texts, whether general (Biederman et al. 2007) or more specific to one sector (Harrison 2017). This piece draws from both areas but seeks to strike out in a new direction by setting a different agenda. There are clear similarities between entertainment and education consumers which provides a stimulus for considering what a relevant teaching and research agenda in the field of Entertainment Law could now encompass. There needs to be a more thoughtful analysis of the potential boundaries to construct a holistic view of the subject and consider the interaction with other disciplines and legal practice in all its forms. A critical account of the subject needs to also recognise some of the external constraints most obviously the changed face of higher education and the ongoing upheaval within legal education.

This piece sets out the challenges faced by the entertainment industry and the parallel altered role of law. What amounts to entertainment and how it is created, produced, distributed, and consumed is at the centre of the inquiry. The second half of the equation is to consider what the legal dimension to the subject is or could consist of and most importantly the disciplinary context. This forms the framework for teaching and research. It argues that the nature of the industry is such that the analysis needs to move beyond the rigid and limited doctrinal perspective provided by a single discipline. Thus, the learning strategy needs to be brought into line with a movement away from law as the sole dimension. It offers a holistic view as to what the curriculum encompasses and how it can be delivered drawing upon the broad concept of transdisciplinarity.

Defining ‘entertainment’ itself is not now a straightforward task. One of the great attractions is the sheer volume and diversity of the subject matter and the old boundaries of high and low culture are no longer sufficient to categorise material as a participatory culture has developed. There is a lack of a precise stable definition of ‘entertainment’ as the industry has become reconfigured largely through technological change. There is enormous flexibility and diversity with, for example, the meteoric rise of YouTube influencers who have sidestepped the original regulatory framework on advertising (MacRury 2020). The concept of what entertainment can be has altered the legal dimension and has become similarly uncertain. Entertainment law is no longer, if it ever was, a coherent stable subject with an agreed-upon content. A simple original starting point was the legal dimension to the entertainment businesses, which was originally fixed around the hugely influential and American-dominated industries of literature, theatre, film, TV and music publishing and recording. Settled business structures were coupled with a static consumption model; consumers visited the cinema, concerts, and the theatre, watched television broadcasts, read books, and listened to the radio and music largely at home but also on the move post Walkman (Bull 2006). This coupled with fixed ideas about copyright created the opportunity for a business-based law programme encompassing the fundamentals of licensing and copyright and a wide variety of contracts with many standard industry agreements. In the UK the gap between the two Copyright Acts was over 30 years, from 1956 to 1988 reflecting a period of relative stability.

Entertainment Law is bordered by the ever-expanding Intellectual Property Law on one side (Bainbridge 2018) and Sports Law on the other (James 2017), both of which encroach onto its natural territory. There is also the relevance of Media Law to consider, though the content of this area itself is problematic with the convergence of social media. Indeed, social media itself is becoming a form of entertainment in its own right (Cunningham and Craig 2019). At some points the different areas combine most obviously with the litigation over the protection of sports broadcasting rights, Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Communications Plc. Is this to be classified an intellectual property case, a sports law dispute, or an entertainment law issue? Distribution of access to unlawfully streamed matches was primarily via social media. Arguably the key words in the header (blocking injunctions; copyright; football matches; infringement; Internet service providers; proportionality; streaming media) locate it within all areas. In the global digital world, intellectual property is debatably too large and complex to be considered one holistic subject, and there is a clear case for splitting it into its constituent parts: copyright, designs, and patents as the title of the 1988 law outlined. Copyright as a concept is becoming increasingly problematic; with new methods of creation, application, and distribution, there are simply too many grey areas appearing; fan fiction has emerged as a novel area where existing literary copyright is deliberately reused to create new material (Tushnet 1997). There exists the first novel written by artificial intelligence, I The Road, and collaborations with the production of music between AI and humans. The creation of entertainment products is no longer just due to human endeavour and the artificial input is steadily progressing. The changing nature of the entertainment industry and most importantly its dynamic nature requires a constant re-evaluation of its parameters but more importantly a recognition that law, on its own, can only offer a limited understanding of the problems and potential solutions.

In order to try and construct some useful boundaries to the subject, this section explores four threads. First, the colossal impact of technology that has forced radical change especially post analogue though technology has always been a key driver for both the film and music industry. Second, the nature of the content itself and the regulation by both the state and/or industry-based organisations and increasingly hosting platforms. Third, the process of the creation and exploitation of works encompassing copyright and contractual problems. Lastly, the changed nature of consumption and the altered role of the consumer. For each of these elements the aim is to sketch out the fundamentals of the framework and the relevance of law but also the limitations of law as a single discipline in evaluating the issues.

There are number of fundamental questions that need to be addressed when setting out how a subject is to be taught, assessed, and investigated. Research informed/led teaching is often identified as a desirable goal linking together different aspects that were often kept apart. Furthermore, the role of the students – the learning dimension to teaching and learning- needs to be reconsidered with an agenda of self-determination and co-creation. It is certainly no longer just about the relevance and coherence of the curriculum. Some of these questions are bound up with new pedagogical ideas and others institutional requirements. A revised glossary of language has appeared so assessment needs to not just test the learning objectives but must also be ‘authentic’. This is part of the move to integrate graduate skills firmly into the syllabus. Principles of Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity are being applied to ‘decolonise the curriculum’. A reflective reconsideration of any subject is to be welcomed and is essentially what has driven this article. Joining up the different elements does, it seems to me, require a fairly radical review rather than tinkering with the old model. The starting point is to consider Entertainment Law within the context of law as a discipline in itself.

If many law academics are now apparently ‘socio-legal’ in outlook that suggests a ride into the interdisciplinary sunset has already taken place with the incorporation of aspects of ‘sociology’ into law. Ignoring claims as to whether this applies to teaching as well as research (even if the latter can be defined and substantiated) this is an apparent example of some form of boundary shifting. An alternative explanation looking at the curriculum, is that the breadth has changed with ‘new’ subjects added (such as Environmnetal Law?) rather than the integration of other disciplines into law to provide a more thorough interrogation. This may be an overly critical view and there are signs of aspects of criminology and even psychology being incorporated though again an easier option is to add the two subjects together under an umbrella degree. Law, because of the link to the profession and the prescribed curriculum (and assessment) was able to sidestep the moves supporting an interdisciplinarity approach that took place in social science from the 1970s. The problem for law and many law teachers is the predominance of doctrinal law within the traditional subjects that pays little attention to even context but firmly concentrates on the core legal principles – exploring what they are and how they are applied rather than even considering why they might exist. Whilst undergraduate teaching has been rather left behind there are new challenges to break open disciplinary boundaries when it comes to research. The terminology of a more expansive approach has several versions namely interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, crossdisciplinarity and transdisciplinary. These have different contextual interpretations though the variations are not always apparent. Interdisciplinary studies or even an interdisciplinary approach to a recognised subject is now seen as desirable even if it creates logistical and pedagogical issues. Klein draws out an interesting point with respect to the rationale for disciplines:

Add in law’s professional dimension and with it the origins of legal study and there is not only a formidable barrier to embracing interdisciplinarity but an innate conservatism towards the existing subject matter. Homogeneity perhaps being a lauded attribute. New areas of law can take time to be established whether they emerge out of practice such as housing law or from another discipline such as the grouping of subjects around law and (popular) culture. Scholars such as Redhead attempted to create a new area of exploration beyond a module or two (Redhead 1995). This seemed to provide an alternative cross disciplinary opportunity to set some area of law in a broader cultural context. This field or area accurately represented the characteristics of a freer, less rigid subject not constrained by its history, largely because it had little identifiable history. This provided a freedom to draw in ideas and materials with little restriction:

One reviewer of Unpopular Cultures however reconstructed the two parts into a discipline which consisted of; ‘three main foci: governance, transgression and disappearance’ (Howes 1996: 293). With conservatism as the essence of core legal studies popular culture seemed to offer the possibility of an exciting alternative drawing ideas, theory, and practice from other disciplines wherever they existed. It also promoted the opportunities for empirical research including participant observation and football fandom/hooliganism is a prime example of the value of such an approach (Pearson 2009). An obvious question, if this is such a potentially rich area to explore, why the growth appears to have been limited certainly in terms of outputs. There is the possibility that those working within the area in their eagerness overstated the potential or perhaps it just wasn’t that interesting to that many legal academics. The most obvious answer is that within a broad and ill-defined field, scholars pursue their narrower interests rather than any grander project. It was defined by lawyers interested in popular culture rather than those coming in the other direction. Law is an unforgiving discipline with numerous barriers to entry not least the language and specialist materials. One of the unsaid attractions of the law and popular culture agenda (one hesitates to call it a movement) was the severance of any link to legal practice and by association the core tenets of legal study. It was rebellious in nature defined as much by what it expressly wasn’t and tied into the generally nonconformity of popular culture and especially its myriad sub-cultures (Tsitsos 1999). This begs the question as to whether entertainment law has similar inherent restrictions that will limit its development and attractiveness.

New courses and modules undoubtedly need strong academic justification, market worth is a key requirement as universities have developed as commercial organisations (Brown and Carasso 2013). Marketisation can create conflicting principles concerning the aim of a university education: ‘At its heart, the tension is between the conception of HE as a financial investment and those who believe it ought to be understood in terms of intellectual development’ (Molesworth et al. 2009: 285). In this environment to survive and prosper a course must be attractive to incoming students and demonstrate positive outcomes notably employability. This business model undoubtedly contributes to the marginalisation of the law and popular culture intersection, so the subject has retreated into specific modules, such as law and culture or law and film. Law and popular culture offered new opportunities and was rooted within law drawing from sociology, criminology, and cultural studies, but it has failed to blossom for numerous reasons. This would seem to suggest that expanding a taught subject through a broad cross disciplinary approach to create a fusion of interests may be difficult. It is of course easier to conduct research in this way as the organisational limitations and perceptions as to its validity are reduced and there are some innovative examples of pushing the traditional law and literature boundaries to encompass television (Bradney 2011; Nicol 2018) in addition to the large volume of work on law and film from across the globe (Greenfield et al. 2010). So, the research has thrived and expanded through individual and collaborative projects driven by the popular culture interests of the researchers.

Entertainment law has a huge initial advantage in that is not a ‘law and’ subject and it has a direct link to both an industry and an identifiable area of legal practice. It is also a subject that students can directly relate to and has both internal and external validity. The question is how it can be configured to make the most of the potential it offers. If we move away from the cross-disciplinary approach of law and popular culture and agree some rough boundaries to the subject matter the issue is how can this be effectively explored. Or rather how best do we understand the issues and problems thrown up by the entertainment industry, and where does law feature in that understanding? A narrow legal analysis provides only a set of answers to legal questions but leaves a huge amount unexplored and unanswered. A simple example of the unauthorised streaming of sport outlined in Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Communications Plc, provides a good example of the unknown dimension. There is a narrow legal argument concerning copyright infringement of streamed matches and the viability of an order with some background as to how the infringement is carried out. There is though no discussion as to the broader cause of the problem within the context of the market for televised Premier League football. Whether a court hearing is the right place for this type of analysis is a moot point though arguably understanding the cause goes directly to the efficiency of the remedy sought. The ‘battle’ against unlawful streaming has all the hallmarks of the ill-fated war waged, by the copyright owners, against the music and film file sharers from Napster onwards. In addition to suing businesses who enabled file sharing the RIAA also launched actions against individual file sharers, a move that was widely derided. Not understanding the different motivations of those involved in the activity and making assumptions led to a damaging and ultimately pointless strategy. If high-quality streams are readily available, via social media, it is crucial to understand what is leading consumers away from the legitimate providers. There is a danger that the assumption is that it is ‘free’ content that drives the activity dominates the thinking. In the music industry one clear attraction was that file sharing permitted enthusiastic consumers to sample new bands and genres. The context for football is the diversification of the television market for Premier League football. Sky has been involved since the outset, but other players have entered the market, firstly BT and later Amazon, which then means three subscriptions are required to see all the games that are available. Furthermore, accessing a stream from another jurisdiction permits the viewer to watch games that are not available in the home market because of broadcasting restrictions. That the football authorities do not always understand their customers is aptly demonstrated by the failed attempt during the pandemic to make some games pay per view, a move that generated a fan backlash. The proposal was swiftly abandoned.6

Though it is not the accepted role of courts to look beyond the legal arguments some judges have often proved themselves adept at setting the law in its context. Lord Denning was an arch exponent of this approach see for example his judgments in both Lloyds Bank v Bundy and Miller v Jackson. Judge Humphries in The Stone Roses case set out the background to the nature of the music industry and noted: ‘In the music world these days there are many groups who would like to achieve national and international popularity with the rewards that can arise therefrom. Many are called but few are chosen’ (Silvertone Records Limited 1993: 156). An understanding of this simple dynamic explains the imbalance in bargaining power, the lack of any serious negotiation and the reason for the flawed contractual outcome. The causal relationship between this background understanding and the legal remedy is not always apparent but demonstrates the importance of context. It is of course possible to ringfence the legal analysis and not enquire any further beyond the legal instrument whether a contract, will, lease or a statute.7 Academic research may also probe behind a case to create a more rounded account, see for example Simpson’s masterful explanation of the infamous case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company that involved an investigation into not just the facts and the parties but the pharmaceutical industry, product advertising and marketing and quack medicine.8 If some judges and academics see the value in exploring and understanding the different factors that contribute in some way to the problem at hand why not apply the principle to law students? This ties in directly to the promotion of graduate skills and employability. Such an approach is not at the expense of legal knowledge but rather it seeks to complement and develop that knowledge and understand how it may be used. The question is what pedagogical framework can deliver what is, after all, a bold aim.

The examples above indicate that a better understanding of the issue goes well beyond the single discipline of law. So, the question is where do we head to if a legal analysis is too prescriptive? Interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, and pluridisciplinarity occur when two or more disciplines are linked together to pursue a given project, with the contributions from the various disciplines being essential to revealing and addressing the different aspects of the problem. Each version is different, related in large part to the degree of interaction between the disciplines. Among the different forms of interdisciplinary engagement, transdisciplinarity is perhaps the easiest to distinguish. Transdisciplinarity applies when disciplines mesh together to fully identify, construct, grasp, and comprehend a specific object of inquiry. It requires a perspective that goes beyond individual scientific disciplines and even the subject of the research, to better grasp its scope and consequences. Transdisciplinarity does not recognize any boundaries to the problem studied and promotes a holistic approach:

The essence is to first determine the concrete issue or challenge that requires this level of cooperative engagement. It is important to see beyond the disciplinary boundary, so the problem is not solely a legal one. Law or more broadly regulatory issues are one of the issues to be explored. At the outset we may have a prejudiced view about the importance of law privileging it above other subjects. Thinking beyond a discipline is part of the learning process and is a desired goal. This is allied to identifying what ‘knowledge’ needs to be acquired and where it is located:

This process of identifying and organising the different stakeholders is more difficult within the constraints of an educational setting than in a funded real world research project but perhaps the most restrictive element is the limitations on time. Hours per week and the number of weeks available are predetermined. However, that is not to say that information and knowledge cannot be gathered by applying a creative methodology.

A transdisciplinary approach is normally brought to bear on large complex public issues that require new thinking and a collaborative approach beyond disciplines see for example Purdue University’s Our Big Idea.9 If the thrust is to resolve ‘critical global questions’ it seems trite to consider applying such grand ideas to seemingly minor issues within one area of society. However, the key principle of transdisciplinarity can be identified as ‘mutual learning without boundaries.’ It goes beyond academia and can bring into the circle of understanding a different range of perspectives. There doesn’t seem to be any clear reason why this approach can’t be harnessed at a much simpler level with far less ambitious aims. Transdisciplinarity is a flexible concept with the parameters open to interpretation by the researchers themselves (Lawrence and Despres 2004). There are several common principles of a transdisciplinary method and some additional elements dependent on the context. For example, Lawrence’s work on housing and the relationship to ill health has a professional practice dimension which provides a useful analogy for some legal projects. He notes the complex nature of both health and housing and how they transcend normal disciplinary boundaries which requires a broader and deeper analysis to deliver a holistic understanding:

Bringing different practitioner perspectives is more complex, with wider aims than an academic exercise though Balsiger provides an example of a graduate teaching exercise on sustainable development but at the outset notes the challenges to involving a transdisciplinary approach:

Law teaching is characterised by its cost effectiveness particularly in the core subjects with large lecture groups, inevitably small group work is more expensive. The proposed method doesn’t fit into a neat model of predetermined timetabled hours as it is essentially organic and driven by the students themselves. It primarily involves identification of what knowledge can contribute to an understanding of the issue and where it is located.10 If the aims are reduced the level of interaction can be managed and we can also draw upon a network of contacts including alumni:

The delivery of research skills is problematic for law undergraduates with little time in the curriculum devoted to their teaching.11 That is unsurprising given the nature of the crowded curriculum and the assessment though students taking a dissertation may have specific research classes. Students would benefit from a greater exposure to different skills, and these can be tailored accordingly. Newly acquired skills can feed into the assessment strategy.

The involvement of a range of ‘stakeholders’ is at the heart of a transdisciplinary approach and will be a time-consuming exercise. However, with clear boundaries and limited aims and with the use of technology collaboration can be successfully integrated into the project.

Organisation and administration of the project are key elements and the larger the project the greater the burden. With a small group of students and a tight structure the project management can be carried out by the students themselves contributing to the development of new skills. The key is to preserve the advantages of a transdisciplinary approach but scaled down to the point where realistic aims are achievable within the understandable limitations. The two key elements are integration and collaboration, and these can be preserved, and made central to the whole endeavour, though will represent the ‘softest’ or ‘weakest’ end of a transdisciplinary approach (Balsinger 2015). The classroom-based method also differs in that the knowledge and non-academic information is largely brought in from outside by the students not offered independently though there are ways to provide more direct input.12 On the other hand input from other disciplines should be easier to organise from inside an institution. The starting point is to identify suitable areas that have the capacity to be explored utilising a transdisciplinary approach; they need to be complex enough but with realisable aims. Students will be unfamiliar with the approach, and it is important they feel comfortable in embarking on a new methodological approach in an unfamiliar area. As noted above the entertainment industry is complex and dynamic and throwing up new issues and concerns. Even traditional areas of the industry such as music contracts can be explored in a different way by adopting a 360-degree approach that actually mirrors the shift in recording agreements (Marshall 2013). The analysis would involve exploring the route to the negotiation, the bargaining process itself as well as the outcome though this material may be more difficult to access. It is normally just the outcome that explored from a legal perspective and only when a dispute arises. What permeates many of the determined cases is the naivety of the artists and the imbalance in bargaining power between the two parties. This inevitably leads to the one-sided contract that in turn becomes the subject of the conflict. There is a wide range of areas, encompassing civil and criminal law issues, that could be explored in a transdisciplinary way that could provide a valuable learning experience. The process of identifying the issues and setting the parameters itself promotes creative and critical thinking.

The peculiarities and specificities of the entertainment industry have always merited a transdisciplinary approach to enable a more thorough and holistic understanding. However, the changes outlined above have heightened this as the industry has grown and developed, driven by seemingly inexhaustible technological change. Creation, distribution, and consumption have altered, and new areas and platforms have emerged that have irrevocably changed the landscape whilst the traditional industries have struggled, at times to adapt. Within legal practice, the task is to keep abreast of a rapidly changing environment alongside the general challenge to the profession from ‘data analytics’ (Talley 2017). For entertainment lawyers the creative dimension within parts of the industry and the unpredictable nature of market success may provide resistance to automated practice though other parts that are rooted within technology may be more vulnerable to colonisation. In academia the primary question is how to reshape teaching and learning to reflect these changes. The other interlinked element is the research agenda. Higher education has been transformed by both technology and the understanding that there needs to be much more than knowledge acquisition for today’s nimble graduates. Skills and attributes need to reflect and deliver an employability agenda. Legal education is also in flux providing a Bermuda triangle of instability. This though represents an ideal opportunity to rethink what we do and strike out in a new direction and embrace sweeping changes.13 Entertainment Law can, if it adopts a radical approach, provide an ideal area for law students and indeed students from other disciplines to develop vital skills in critical thinking and complex problem solving. Flexibility is key and whilst there is no right answer at the end a different and exciting journey beckons for those prepared to take a risk.