Search Results for "gard"

Shows #156-158 — Profs. A. Michael Froomkin, Jorge Contreras and Derek Bambauer — posted

Written by

In this incredibly busy semester (i.e., I’ve posted my most recent draft on SSRN, The Social Layer of Freedom of Information Law, which focuses on information formatting issues in the Freedom of Information Act, and I’m still facing multiple writing deadlines), I am pleased to (finally) post the first three shows of the quarter. The first, Show #156, January 27 is my interview with Prof. A. Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami Law School on Internet kill switch legislation. Amidst the furor surrounding SOPA and PIPA, this legislation has flown under the radar. Its focus is to allow the government, under certain circumstances, to shut off Internet access — a scary proposition without significant oversight, due process and accountability. This legislation has ramifications from speech to criminal law, and Mike and I had a wide ranging discussion that I hope you enjoy as much as I did.

The second show, Show #157, February 17, is my interview with Prof. Jorge Contreras of American University Washington College of Law regarding his draft article Wait for It … Latency, Copyright and the Private Ordering of Scientific Publishing. We have focused on issues of open access to knowledge on several occasions on Hearsay Culture, but never in the context of scientific publishing. Jorge and I discussed the impact of copyright law on traditional sharing of research among scientists and what can be done to address its impact. Given its import in forstering scientific advancement, I was thrilled to have Jorge on the show and I greatly enjoyed the discussion.

The last show, Show #158, February 24, is my interview with Prof. Derek Bambauer of Brooklyn Law School, author of Orwell’s Armchair. Derek has written another very insightful and forward-thinking article where he makes a counter-intuitive suggestion regarding government censorship of speech: we should establish rules and procedures for government censorship. At the core of Derek’s argument is a realist view that the US government is censoring, so rather than do it through a variety of indirect and obscure methods, we should have a policy so that censorship can be done in the open. We discussed his views on censorship, his solution and potential criticisms and concerns. Derek is always a great guest and this interview was no exception.

Enjoy (and now I’m back to writing).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

shows #102 and 103 — profs. geert lovink and alexander halavais — posted

Written by

I am pleased to post two more shows for this quarter, just in time for United States listeners to sit and digest leftover turkey. Both shows focus on communications theory and policy, but with reference to different tools. The first show, Show #102, November 11 is my interview with Prof. Geert Lovink of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, author of Zero Comments and co-editor of Open 13. Geert is an impressive, insightful and prolific media critic whose writing I have long admired. In our discussion, we focus on the world of blogging and social media. Specifically, we discuss Geert’s views regarding the hierarchies within media and the received wisdom of Web 2.0, and how blogs and social media are used to advance (or not advance) our individual knowledge. Geert’s unique insights were fascinating to explore and I was thrilled to chat with him!

The second show, Show #103, November 18 is my interview with Prof. Alexander Halavais of Quinnipiac University, author of Search Engine Society. Alex has written a comprehensive critique of the major ways that search engines impact our on- and off-line lives. Although a book difficult to write without focusing on Google, Alex did an admirable job writing about and discussing these issues from a broader perspective. We discussed several social and regulatory aspects of search and I greatly enjoyed the discussion, as I hope that you do!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Letter in support of FCC’s Open Internet Proceeding

Written by

I signed on to a letter drafted by Profs. Adam Candeub and Brett Frischmann (Brett has been on the show in the past) in support of the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) regarding protecting the Internet as a free and open network.

As the letter states:

We believe the NPRM is a laudatory next step. First, from a legal perspective, it is the appropriate regulatory mechanism to evaluate the central substantive and procedural issues regarding discrimination, network management, innovation dynamics, transparency, implementation mechanisms, and so forth.

Second, and more generally, it is an appropriate public forum to gather and evaluate competing claims and relevant evidence. The public debate on these issues often is poorly framed and polluted with broad hyperbolic claims lacking theoretical or empirical support. A notice and comment rule making process is a useful forum to sort fact from fiction. The FCC has already launched a website and blog to promote discussion and comment on these important issues. It has also initiated a series of public workshops on questions about broadband deployment. The FCC deserves credit for initiating such open and participatory processes, which this proceeding builds upon.

Third, sound regulatory policy in this area depends critically on expertise from different disciplines. There is a tendency in public debates about regulation to gravitate toward antitrust and regulatory economics, to the exclusion of other factors. There are strong reasons to resist that pull in this debate. The issues being debated are not only legal or economic or technical or social. In the Internet context, the interdependence of legal, economic, technical, and social factors has produced the powerful market and non-market benefits of open infrastructure.

I have significant concerns about the broad range of policy decisions being made regarding public infrastructure without full and real public participation. It is a topic about which I have written and continue to write. The transparency aspects of this proceeding are critical, as too many decisions in the areas of infrastructure and technology have been made without full public involvement; thus, the FCC deserves these accolades. Thanks to Adam and Brett for drafting the letter!

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

interviewer inspirations

Written by

A few people have asked me recently if there is anyone whom I attempt to emulate in my own interviewing style. As you can imagine, I am a voracious consumer of radio/podcast interview programming, and regularly listen to a variety of interviewers and interview styles. I always learn from close listening and attempt to absorb the best of the styles of interviewers whose questioning, rapport and demeanor best match with my style and conception of educational and entertaining programming.

Of course, this is a highly idiosyncratic analysis and subject to no “right” answers. Nonetheless, while there are several interviewers/journalists whom I admire. If I had to choose, let’s say, three:

(a) Neal Conan of National Public Radio’s (NPR) Talk of the Nation. Conan’s close but friendly questioning, ample knowledge and ability to get the best out of his guests is remarkable.

(b) Terry Gross of NPR’s Fresh Air. Gross has an amazing ability to delve into the mind and motivations of her guests, and deftly moves between topics with an engrossing demeanor.

(c) Dick Gordon of American Public Media’s The Story. I don’t think there is anyone better in doing exactly what the title of Gordon’s show suggests — getting the complete story out of the guest.

There are definitely others that could be added to the list, but as I prepare for and conduct interviews, these are the main people whom I most attempt to emulate. I’d be curious to get feedback regarding other radio/podcast interviewers about whom I should be aware and/or that you think I should consider as teachers. Thanks for asking!

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Shows 92, 93 and 94 — Dr. Susan Maret, Prof. James Boyle and Prof. John Tehranian — posted

Written by

Having finally physically moved to Elon University School of Law, I have now found the time to post three more shows for this quarter. The first, Show #92, July 22, is my interview with Dr. Susan Maret of San Jose State University, co-editor of Government Secrecy: Classic and contemporary readings. Susan has co-edited an excellent anthology of articles and essays dealing with the myriad issues related to government secrecy and its related doctrine, transparency. In our discussion, we cover a wide range of practical and theoretical questions regarding the role of secrecy in government operations and how technology interacts with these doctrines.

In the second, Show 93, July 29, I interviewed Prof. James Boyle of Duke Law School, author of The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. Jamie’s book is an important contribution to the looming question of how and why to protect what we know as the public domain — all works for which one’s use does not require permission or a purchase. Having been writing and leading in this area for quite a while, Jamie’s vast knowledge allowed for a discussion ranging from why he writes in this area to the history of the public domain to what the future of the public domain holds.

My third interview, Show 94, August 5 is with repeat guest Prof. John Tehranian of Chapman University School of Law, author of Whitewashed: America’s Invisible Middle Eastern Minority. John is a prolific writer whose areas of interest span both intellectual property law and cultural identity issues. We merge his mutual interests in our discussion by focusing on the technological and cultural issues that have helped create the perceptions of the Middle Eastern community (however defined) in the United States.

All three interviews discuss major issues facing our society today — secrecy, information access and cultural identity. I enjoyed all of these interviews and hope that you do as well!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Show # 90 — Prof. Michael Geist — posted

Written by

I am pleased to post the first show of the summer quarter, Show #90, July 1, my interview with Prof. Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa. Michael is one of the leading intellectual property law scholars in Canada, and we had a great discussion focused primarily on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Michael has been an active writer and commenter on the procedure and substance of the negotaitions regarding ACTA, a significant treaty shrouded in secrecy. In our discussion, Michael offers his analysis of ACTA and its significance, as well as some of the unusual aspects of its negotiation. I hope that you enjoy the discussion as much as I did recording it!

I have a full slate of fascinating guests coming up this summer, and, as always, I welcome your feedback at dave@hearsayculture.com. Enjoy!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

A simple idea to help save print journalism

Written by

My days working in the New York State Legislature — 1994-1995, pre-law school, right after graduation from college, as a Legislative Aide to a member of the Assembly — vividly and starkly illustrated to me the need for beat reporters to observe, question, fact-check and, most importantly, report on the goings-on in state capitols. Even with the fine journalism of the Albany Times-Union and the Troy Record, sometimes the best scoops came from the student-run Legislative Gazette (which, when I was in Albany, was generally not available outside of the Legislative Office Building (LOB)). Even with three newspapers, there was limited space to report on all of the goings-on; to bring sunshine to the dim hallways of the LOB. But the newspapers (overall) did their job of keeping the public informed well — they undoubtedly kept some people more honest than they might have been.

Contrast that with the recent explanations offered by CNBC’s Jim Cramer with regard to the errors made by his 24-hour news network: “We’ve got 17 hours of live TV a day to do.” Sadly, in 2009, while these cable news networks, desparate to fill airtime with whatever they can, become many people’s main source of news, traditional print media is atrophying.

We can’t “bail out” the press without losing freedom of the press, so how can private citizens help save the print news media (which, if there had been better and more investigative journalism, may have prevented, among other debacles, Madoff, Iraq, Bear Stearns, AIG, as well as expose potential problems at the state and local level?) Let’s start by *buying* a subscription to our *local* newspaper. I have far more faith in the print media to publicize and expose governmental activity than the current state of television news. Of course, people need to actually read the paper, but a good start to keeping the best of American journalism afloat is to actually buy state and local newspapers. Let’s do this before our state and local papers disappear and we suffer even more consequences of the massive erosion of transparency and accountability.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Hearsay Culture selected as one of the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 of 2008

Written by

I am thrilled and honored to announce that Hearsay Culture has been listed in the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Journal’s Blawg 100 of 2008, as one of the “top 100 best Web sites by lawyers, for lawyers.” Specifically, Hearsay Culture was selected by the editors as one of the top five in the new podcast category. Ominously, the ABA Journal issued a “warning” about Hearsay Culture in its description: “The shows are academic and, as a result, very long.” As far as I could tell, Hearsay Culture is the only podcast that earned an explicit “warning,” an honor (as far as I’m concerned) in and of itself.

Now comes the quasi-crowdsourcing (credit: Jeff Howe) part: lawyers can vote for their favorite podcast through January 2, 2009. So, I encourage all lawyers who listen to the show and feel it worthy to vote for Hearsay Culture. I am facing some excellent competition, so regardless of your vote, I encourage all to check out the other terrific podcasts listed.

Thanks, as always, for your support of the show!

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

rowling’s irony

Written by

I’m eons late to this by blog standards, but I found J. K. Rowling’s Harvard commencement speech particularly ironic. Towards the end, she stated: “The friends with whom I sat on graduation day have been my friends for life. They are my children’s godparents, the people to whom I’ve been able to turn in times of trouble, friends who have been kind enough not to sue me when I’ve used their names for Death Eaters.”

Ah, the irony, given Rowling’s suit against RDR Books regarding “HP Lexicon, a Harry Potter reference guide that has existed on the web for a long time, and has become the authoritative guide to the people, places and things of the Harry Potter universe.” For those that are not familiar, according to Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, “upon learning that RDR Books planned to publish a printed version of the Lexicon, Rowling and Warner Brothers filed suit, alleging copyright and trademark infringement, and seeking to permanently enjoin the publication of the HP Lexicon in printed form.”

I love fair use irony.

[Disclaimer (for those unfamiliar): CIS represents the defendant and I’m affiliated with CIS as a non-resident fellow.]

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Shows #59 and 60 — Profs. John Willinsky and Brett Frischmann — posted

Written by

I am pleased to post two new shows: Show #59, my interview with Prof. John Willinsky of Stanford University discussing his book The Access Principle; and Show #60, my interview with Prof. Brett Frischmann of Loyola University Chicago School of Law on infrastructure and commons management.

John has written a wonderful book, The Access Principle, making the case for open and free access to scholarship. As I mention on the show, I do not regard this as terribly controversial, but I’m biased. John addresses the arguments that may be raised against such a goal and makes a strong case for its immediate implementation.

Brett is a prolific scholar (and, I should mention, generous with his time when new professors — like me — ask for advice), and writes in two areas in which I have a strong interest: commons and infrastructure. In this interview, we discuss the former through the lens of Brett’s view of what we need to expand the public’s knowledge of the importance of the commons, as well as through discussion of Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks.

I enjoyed both interviews, which are certainly related in both guest’s embrace of public and open dissemination of knowledge (among, I imagine, other similarities), and hope that you enjoy both shows!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: RSS

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblr