DOCSLIB.ORG

Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 1 UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE SECTION 512 STUDY + + + + + 9:00 a.m. + + + + + Tuesday, May 3, 2016 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Centre Street New York, New York U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE: CINDY ABRAMSON JACQUELINE C. CHARLESWORTH KARYN TEMPLE CLAGGETT RACHEL FERTIG BRAD GREENBERG KIMBERLEY ISBELL (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2016 Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 2 1 P A R T I C I P A N T S: 2 ALLAN ADLER, Association of American Publishers 3 SANDRA AISTARS, Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic 4 at George Mason University School of 5 JONATHAN BAND, Library Copyright Alliance and Amazon 6 MATTHEW BARBLAN, Center for the Protection of 7 Intellectual Property 8 GREGORY BARNES, Digital Media Association 9 JUNE BESEK, Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the 10 Arts 11 ANDREW BRIDGES, Fenwick & West LLP 12 WILLIAM BUCKLEY, FarePlay, Inc. 13 STEPHEN CARLISLE, Nova Southeastern University 14 SOFIA CASTILLO, Association of American Publishers 15 ALISA COLEMAN, ABKCO Music & Records 16 ANDREW DEUTSCH, DLA Piper 17 TROY DOW, Disney 18 TODD DUPLER, The Recording Academy 19 SARAH FEINGOLD, Etsy, Inc. 20 KATHY GARMEZY, Directors Guild of America 21 JOHN GARRY, Pearson Education 22 MELVIN GIBBS, Content Creators Coalition 23 DAVID GREEN, NBC Universal 24 TERRY HART, Copyright Alliance 25 MICHAEL HOUSLEY, Viacom (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2016 Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 3 1 P A R T I C I P A N T S 2 SARAH HOWES, Copyright Alliance 3 WAYNE JOSEL, American Society of Composers, Authors 4 and Publishers 5 BRUCE JOSEPH, Wiley Rein LLP (for Verizon) 6 DAVID KAPLAN, Warner Bros. Entertainment 7 THOMAS KENNEDY, American Society of Media 8 Photographers 9 DAVID KORZENIK, Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP 10 JOSHUA LAMEL, Re:Create 11 DINA LAPOLT, LaPolt Law, PC 12 MICHAEL MICHAUD, Channel Awesome, Inc. 13 CHRISTOPHER MOHR, Software and Information Industry 14 Association 15 EUGENE MOPSIK, American Photographic Artists 16 MICKEY OSTERREICHER, National Press Photographers 17 Association 18 JENNIFER PARISER, Motion Picture Association of 19 America 20 MICHAEL PETRICONE, Consumer Technology Association 21 JANICE PILCH, Rutgers University Libraries 22 CASEY RAE, Future of Music Coalition 23 MARY RASENBERGER, Authors Guild 24 STEVEN ROSENTHAL, McGraw-Hill Education 25 KEVIN RUPY, USTelecom (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2016 Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 4 1 P A R T I C I P A N T S 2 MARIA SCHNEIDER, Musician 3 BRIANNA SCHOFIELD, UC-Berkeley School of Law 4 MATTHEW SCHRUERS, Computer & Communications Industry 5 Association 6 LISA SHAFTEL, Graphic Artists Guild 7 VICTORIA SHECKLER, Recording Industry Association of 8 America 9 KERRY SHEEHAN, Public Knowledge 10 LUI SIMPSON, Association of American Publishers 11 HOWIE SINGER, Warner Music Group 12 REBECCA TUSHNET, Organization for Transformative Works 13 DARIUS VAN ARMAN, American Association of Independent 14 Music 15 LISA WILLMER, Getty Images 16 NANCY WOLFF, Digital Media Licensing Association 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2016 Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 5 1 A G E N D A 2 TOPIC PAGE 3 Introduction/ Opening Remarks 6 4 5 SESSION 5: 6 Technological Strategies and Solutions 8 7 8 SESSION 6: 9 Voluntary Measures and Industry Agreements 89 10 11 SESSION 7: 12 Future of Section 512 163 13 14 SESSION 8: 15 Wrap-Up/ Open Mic 244 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2016 Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 6 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MS. CHARLESWORTH: Good morning, everyone, 3 and I see a lot of familiar faces. My name is 4 Jacqueline Charlesworth. I'm the General Counsel and 5 the Associate Register at the U.S. Copyright Office. 6 Welcome back to the section 512 roundtables where 7 we're discussing notice-and-takedown -- the process 8 under section 512 of Title 17, often referred to the 9 DMCA takedown process. 10 To my left, I have a colleague, Brad 11 Greenberg, who is Counsel in the Office of Policy and 12 International Affairs at the office. And to my 13 immediate left, Karyn Temple Claggett, who runs that 14 office. On my right is Kim Isbell who is -- 15 I'm sorry, Senior Counsel in PIA. I'm 16 surrounded by PIA people here. And down at the end, 17 Rachel Fertig who is a Ringer Fellow at the Office. So 18 we're happy to have you today to continue our 19 discussion. 20 Just before I get into this particular 21 session, I wanted to point out we have sign-up sheets 22 on the podium in the middle of the room. 23 For people who wish to comment at the end of 24 the day, we're going to have what we call an open mic. 25 We particularly are interested in anyone (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2016 Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 7 1 who's been observing who hasn't had a chance to 2 participate in the roundtables. You'll see two lists 3 there. One is for observers; one is for participants. 4 But at the very end of the day, we will be allowing 5 people to make brief remarks for the record on 6 anything they care to address that they feel wasn't 7 fully addressed in the hearing. 8 So by all means, sign up if that's something 9 you're interested in doing. 10 This particular panel, Panel 5 or Session 5, 11 concerns technological strategies and solutions. A lot 12 of this material was sort of touched upon yesterday, 13 but we really didn't get into a lot of detail 14 regarding, you know, what technologies are available 15 or potentially available to help both users of this 16 process and those who are responding to notices. And 17 where are we in the evolution of that technology and 18 how does it relate to the incentives provided under 19 the law. 20 We will be hopefully taking a little bit of 21 a closer look at those issues and are particularly 22 interested in hearing from people who actually have 23 worked with these systems and some of the details of 24 how they work and the costs and so forth. 25 As we did yesterday, we'll be calling on (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2016 Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 8 1 people. If you'd like to speak, tip your card up, and 2 we will hopefully get around to you -- we'll try to. 3 We have a timekeeper down there. We're trying to limit 4 the remarks to two minutes apiece so that we can get 5 everyone in, usually for a couple remarks or a couple 6 comments for the record. 7 We do have a court reporter, who's taking 8 down your words today, so we will be making a public 9 transcript available on our website eventually. 10 It's important that we try not to speak over 11 one another. 12 And let's see, I'm going to - I have already 13 introduced us. I'm going to start off this session by 14 allowing you to introduce yourselves and if you could 15 briefly in your -- very briefly in your introduction, 16 explain what your relationship is to the technologies 17 we'll be talking about. Are you someone who uses them? 18 Have you helped develop them? Are you 19 overseeing them? And also, tell us what your 20 affiliation is if you're representing an organization 21 today. 22 Session 5: Technological Strategies and 23 Solutions 24 So without further ado, I think I'm back to 25 -- I'm going to start on the right and work left since (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2016 Capital Reporting Company U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Public Roundtable 05-03-2016 9 1 we have a tendency to go in the other direction. So I 2 think that we're going to begin with you, Ms. 3 Castillo. Can you just introduce yourself for the 4 records and just very briefly explain why you're on 5 this panel relating to technology. 6 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. I'm Sofia Castillo. I'm 7 a staff attorney at the Association of American 8 Publishers, and many of our members use technologies 9 to address piracy on a regular basis. 10 MR. BAND: I'm Jonathan Band representing the 11 Library Copyright Alliance and our concern with 12 various technologies is the possibility of over- 13 notice, over take-down and negative implications on 14 fair use and other exceptions. 15 MR. HOUSLEY: I'm Michael Housley. I'm 16 counsel content protection at Viacom. Part of my 17 responsibilities are overseeing our content protection 18 vendors, many technology vendors, as well as our use 19 of YouTube's Content ID, and we're constantly meeting 20 with a bunch of different vendors in the marketplace. 21 MS. HOWES: So my name is Sarah Howes.
Recommended publications
  • The Fundamental Articles of I.AM Cyborg Law

    The Fundamental Articles of I.AM Cyborg Law

    Beijing Law Review, 2020, 11, 911-946 https://www.scirp.org/journal/blr ISSN Online: 2159-4635 ISSN Print: 2159-4627 The Fundamental Articles of I.AM Cyborg Law Stephen Castell CASTELL Consulting, Witham, UK How to cite this paper: Castell, S. (2020). Abstract The Fundamental Articles of I.AM Cyborg Law. Beijing Law Review, 11, 911-946. Author Isaac Asimov first fictionally proposed the “Three Laws of Robotics” https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2020.114055 in 1942. The word “cyborg” appeared in 1960, describing imagined beings with both artificial and biological parts. My own 1973 neologisms, “neural Received: November 2, 2020 plug compatibility”, and “softwiring” predicted the computer software-driven Accepted: December 15, 2020 Published: December 18, 2020 future evolution of man-machine neural interconnection and synthesis. To- day, Human-AI Brain Interface cyborg experiments and “brain-hacking” de- Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and vices are being trialed. The growth also of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven Scientific Research Publishing Inc. Data Analytics software and increasing instances of “Government by Algo- This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International rithm” have revealed these advances as being largely unregulated, with insuf- License (CC BY 4.0). ficient legal frameworks. In a recent article, I noted that, with automation of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ legal processes and judicial decision-making being increasingly discussed, Open Access RoboJudge has all but already arrived; and I discerned also the cautionary Castell’s Second Dictum: “You cannot construct an algorithm that will relia- bly decide whether or not any algorithm is ethical”.
  • Beyond Algorithms: Toward a Normative Theory of Automated Regulation

    Beyond Algorithms: Toward a Normative Theory of Automated Regulation

    Boston College Law Review Volume 62 Issue 1 Article 2 1-28-2021 Beyond Algorithms: Toward a Normative Theory of Automated Regulation Felix Mormann Texas A&M University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Felix Mormann, Beyond Algorithms: Toward a Normative Theory of Automated Regulation, 62 B.C. L. Rev. 1 (2021), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol62/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND ALGORITHMS: TOWARD A NORMATIVE THEORY OF AUTOMATED REGULATION FELIX MORMANN INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 I. THE NEED FOR INSURANCE AGAINST FORECAST ERRORS ........................................................... 6 II. AUTOMATED REGULATION IN PRACTICE: AN ENERGY CASE STUDY ....................................... 14 A. Time-Sensitive Regulatory Automation ................................................................................ 15 B. Market-Sensitive Regulatory Automation ............................................................................
  • Not So Awesome a Record of Events While Working for That Guy with the Glasses

    Not So Awesome a Record of Events While Working for That Guy with the Glasses

    Not So Awesome A record of events while working for That Guy With The Glasses There are many different grievances that need to be shared, but the following points are what we feel are the most grievous and should be known by the public above all others. This is for record/organization and to help clarify and inform. This is not about defamation or destruction, but about clearing the air and correcting misconceptions. For an abridged, simplified account of all grievances, please refer to the condensed version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d7UTXkL5HqywUqNMXwL 5nVG4R84Hr1GX7Phagi15mUo/edit?usp=sharing FOREWORD Thank you for taking the time to read the contents of this document. Within its many pages are lengthy stories from a number of contributors airing their grievances about the way they and others were handled by working professionally with Channel Awesome and the management, namely Mike Michaud, Doug Walker, and Rob Walker. Although the descriptions are vast, this very likely does not cover every possible story of mismanagement over the course of the last ten years. There are other content creators, both those who were previously partnered with Channel Awesome, and those who continue to be partnered with Channel Awesome, who have not contributed their stories to this document, though many of their stories can be found in other places if you look hard enough. There are numerous reasons why any of us would want to share these stories with you. The biggest one is simply a strong common belief that the public deserves the right to know about the dealings within this company.
  • Recommendations for Ai Governance in the Brazilian Judiciary

    Recommendations for Ai Governance in the Brazilian Judiciary

    1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 PART I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Scope and Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 PART II. METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 10 1. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2. Key AI Actors and Systems.............................................................................................................................................................
  • EPIC Comments to the Office of Management and Budget

    EPIC Comments to the Office of Management and Budget

    COMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER to the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Request for Comments on a Draft Memorandum to the HeAds of Executive Departments and Agencies, “Guidance for RegulAtion of ArtificiAl Intelligence ApplicAtions” 85 FR 1825 MArch 13, 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________ By notice published JAnuary 13, 2020, the Office of MAnagement and Budget (“OMB”) requests comments on a Draft Memorandum to the HeAds of Executive Departments and Agencies, “Guidance for RegulAtion of ArtificiAl Intelligence ApplicAtions.”1 EPIC submits these comments to encourage OMB to (1) require transparent reporting from the agencies regarding their AI regulAtion to increAse accountAbility, (2) include prohibitions on Secret Profiling and SociAl Scoring, (3) apply the principles to government agencies, and (4) recommend enacting the principles set forth into binding regulAtion. EPIC is a public interest reseArch center in WAshington, D.C. that wAs estAblished in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and relAted humAn rights issues, and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.2 EPIC has a long history of promoting transparency And accountAbility for informAtion technology.3 EPIC has a particulAr interest in promoting algorithmic transparency and has consistently AdvocAted for the releAse of reports, validation studies, and use of the UniversAl Guidelines for AI to 1 Management and Budget Office, Request for Comments on a Draft Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, “Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications,” 85 Fed. Reg. 1825 (Jan. 13, 2020), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/13/2020-00261/request- for-comments-on-a-draft-memorandum-to-the-heads-of-executive-departments-and-agencies.
  • Federal Procurement of Artificial Intelligence: Perils and Possibilities

    Federal Procurement of Artificial Intelligence: Perils and Possibilities

    Federal Procurement of Artificial Intelligence: Perils and Possibilities REPORT BY DAVID S. RUBENSTEIN DECEMBER 2020 ABOUT THE AUTHOR David S. Rubenstein is James R. Ahrens Chair in Constitutional Law, and Director of the Robert J. Dole Center for Law & Government, at Washburn University School of Law. Prior to teaching, Professor Rubenstein clerked for The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor when she was a judge on the United States Court of ABOUT THE GREAT Appeals for the Second Circuit, and for The Honorable DEMOCRACY INITIATIVE Barbara Jones in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Prior to clerking, The Great Democracy Initiative he served for three years as Assistant United States develops policy blueprints that Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and was a offer solutions to the most pressing litigation associate for five years at King & Spalding LLP. problems of our time. From taming the concentration of power in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS our economy to fundamentally reforming our broken government, The author is grateful to Daniel Ho, Raj Nayak, Suzanne GDI aims to generate policy ideas Kahn, and Eric Jacobs for their incisive comments and that confront the forces that have feedback; to Matt Hughes for tight editing; to Anna rigged our society in favor of the Smith for logistical support; and to Kaitlyn Bull, Ande powerful and connected. Davis, Penny Fell, Barbara Ginsberg, Creighton Miller, and Zach Smith, for invaluable research assistance; and to Leah for everything always. All errors and omissions
  • What Is the Resource Footprint of a Computer Science Department? Place, People, and Pedagogy

    What Is the Resource Footprint of a Computer Science Department? Place, People, and Pedagogy

    Data & Policy (2020), 2: e14 doi:10.1017/dap.2020.12 TRANSLATIONAL ARTICLE What is the resource footprint of a computer science department? Place, people, and Pedagogy I. S. Mian, D. Twisleton and D. A. Timm Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Received: 03 December 2019; Revised: 19 June 2020; Accepted: 27 June 2020 Keywords: rejuvenate and (re)integrate the natural and built environments; rematerialising the information society; resource- constrained computing, computation, and communication; responsible research and innovation; zero waste institution; environmental accounting; waste reduction; data centre management; IT infrastructure lifecycle; environmental policy Abstract Internet and Communication Technology/electrical and electronic equipment (ICT/EEE) form the bedrock of today’s knowledge economy. This increasingly interconnected web of products, processes, services, and infrastructure is often invisible to the user, as are the resource costs behind them. This ecosystem of machine-to-machine and cyber- physical-system technologies has a myriad of (in)direct impacts on the lithosphere, biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere. As key determinants of tomorrow’s digital world, academic institutions are critical sites for exploring ways to mitigate and/or eliminate negative impacts. This Report is a self-deliberation provoked by the question How do we create more resilient and healthier computer science departments: living laboratories for teaching and learning about resource-constrained computing, computation, and communication? Our response for University College London (UCL) Computer Science is to reflect on how, when, and where resources—energy, (raw) materials including water, space, and time—are consumed by the building (place), its occupants (people), and their activities (pedagogy).
  • Gaming Critics

    Gaming Critics

    Aidan Cole 1 Validity of Gaming Critics Every art form has critics and judges. Movie critics, photography critics, music judges: these are people whom the public rely on to help differentiate between mediocre and master- pieces. As a species, we want to see the best of what we can create; therefore we rely on critics and judges to help guide us in our search of praising others’ artistic expression. In recent years, there has been a new realm of critics who have surfaced: gaming critics. The official definition of video game is “any of various interactive games played using a specialized electronic gaming device or a computer or mobile device and a television or other display screen, along with a means to control graphic images.” (“video game”). Since the age of the classic arcade games such as Pac-Man, Galaga, and Donkey Kong, we have loved playing video games. They gave us a rush of excitement as we competed with one another to see who could score the highest, or reach the highest level. Jason Gastrow, a popular video game critic on Youtube known as Videogamedunkey, or Dunkey, says in a video, “Arcades were brimming with looping endless games that demanded one knee-jerk reaction after another…These were games designed to kill you (the player) fast and suck down quarters, and people loved them. Then in the mid 1980s we see the focus shifting back towards consoles with the NES (Nintendo Entertain- ment System).” (Dunkey “Difficulty in Videogames Part 2”). As technology grew, video games went through a rather quick transformation, from a passing form to a must have form of enter- tainment, and for some, an actual career choice.
  • AI in Adjudication and Administration

    AI in Adjudication and Administration

    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 7-15-2021 AI in Adjudication and Administration Cary Coglianese University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Lavi M. Ben Dor University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Public Administration Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Repository Citation Coglianese, Cary and Ben Dor, Lavi M., "AI in Adjudication and Administration" (2021). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2118. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2118 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AI in Adjudication and Administration Cary Coglianese & Lavi M. Ben Dor University of Pennsylvania Law School Forthcoming in the Brooklyn Law Review Abstract The use of artificial intelligence has expanded rapidly in recent years across many aspects of the economy. For federal, state, and local governments in the United States, interest in artificial intelligence has manifested in the use of a series of digital tools, including the occasional deployment of machine learning, to aid in the performance of a variety of governmental functions. In this Article, we canvass the current uses of such digital tools and machine-learning technologies by the judiciary and administrative agencies in the United States.
  • AI Watch Artificial Intelligence in Public Services

    AI Watch Artificial Intelligence in Public Services

    Science for Policy Report AI Watch Artificial Intelligence in public services Overview of the use and impact of AI in public services in the EU EUR 30255 EN This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Contact information Gianluca Misuraca Senior Scientist in Digital Government Transformation and AI in the public sector European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Digital Economy Unit Edificio EXPO, Calle Inca Garcilaso, 3 – 41092 Seville, Spain +34 95-448.87.18 [email protected] AI-Watch functional mailbox [email protected] EU Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC120399 EUR 30255 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-19540-5 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/039619 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 © European Union, 2020 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p.
  • Robo-Bureaucrat and the Administrative Separation of Powers

    Robo-Bureaucrat and the Administrative Separation of Powers

    de•novoC ARDOZO L AW R EVIEW ROBO-BUREAUCRAT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF POWERS Matthew B. Seipel† TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 99 I. A NEW THREAT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF POWERS ............. 102 A. Unilateral Advancement of Agency Leaders’ Agenda ........................ 102 B. Marginalization & Eroson of the Civil Service .................................. 103 C. Restraint on Public Participation ....................................................... 107 II. COUNTERING THE THREAT ............................................................................. 108 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 110 INTRODUCTION “Across the federal government, we are beginning to observe the dawn of a new chapter—perhaps even a digital revolution—in how † Regional Attorney, California Public Employment Relations Board; J.D., UCLA School of Law, 2017; B.A., UCLA, 2010. I would like to thank the editors of Cardozo Law Review de•novo for their excellent edits and feedback. I would also like to thank my wife, Farshideh, for her support and helpful comments on earlier drafts of this Essay. The views expressed are solely my own. 99 100 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW DE NOVO [2020 government does its work.”1 This “new chapter,” as described in a new report commissioned by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS Report),2 is the use of artificial
  • Build Back Better Britain After Coronavirus: Policy Ideas for Liberal Democrats

    Build Back Better Britain After Coronavirus: Policy Ideas for Liberal Democrats

    Build back better Britain after coronavirus: policy ideas for Liberal Democrats Edited by Layla Moran MP Build back better Britain after coronavirus: policy ideas for Liberal Democrats Published in 2020 by Neil Fawcett on behalf of Layla Moran MP C5 Grange Court Business Park, Barton Lane, Abingdon, OX14 3NB Designed and typeset in Freight Sans Pro and Calluna by Richard Rowley and Duncan Brack All contributors have written their pieces in their own individual capacity. Their inclusion in this booklet should not be taken to mean either that they agree with every proposal in it or that they are supporting Layla Moran’s candidacy for the Liberal Democrat leadership. PDF available for download from www.LaylaMoran.com/Build_Back_Better ii Contents Build back better ii Foreword v Layla Moran 1 Introduction 1 Layla Moran 2 Economic policy and the state 4 David Howarth 3 Economics and industry 10 Duncan Brack, Josh Babarinde, Vince Cable, Helen Cross, Alyssa Gilbert, Cara Jenkinson, Jannah Patchay, Sheila Ritchie Introduction 10 Industrial strategy and Liberalism 11 Recovery rewards: locking social innovation into Economy 2.0 14 Community-based prosperity 15 Modernising financial markets 17 Climate policy after coronavirus 19 Oil and gas 23 4 Equalities 26 Paul Noblet, Helen Belcher, Tara Copeland, Ade Fatukasi, Lynne Featherstone, Jannah Patchay, Rhys Taylor A more equal country 26 A new social contract 27 Time for a universal basic income 29 A natural home for BAME voters 31 A double burden 33 Childcare and opportunity 34 Dignity not discrimination