Podcast – Technology Liberation Front

Podcast: “AI – DC Policymakers Face a Crossroads”

Adam Thierer — Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:06:14 +0000

Here’s a new DC EKG podcast I recently appeared on to discuss the current state of policy development surrounding artificial intelligence. In our wide-ranging chat, we discussed:

why a sectoral approach to AI policy is superior to general purpose licensing
why comprehensive AI legislation will not pass in Congress
the best way to deal with algorithmic deception
why Europe lost its tech sector
how a global AI regulator threatens our safety
the problem with Biden’s AI executive order
will AI policy follow same path as nuclear policy?
global innovation arbitrage & the innovation cage
AI, health care & FDA regulation
AI regulation vs trade secrets
is AI transparency / auditing the solution?

Listen to the full show here or here. To read more about current AI policy developments, check out my “Running List of My Research on AI, ML & Robotics Policy.”

Podcast: What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy?

Adam Thierer — Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:54:29 +0000

I recently joined Rep. Dan Crenshaw on his Hold These Truths podcast to discuss, “What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy.” We chatted for 25 minutes about a wide range of issues related to the the growing push for grandiose industrial policy schemes in the US, including the massive new 3,000-page, $350 billion “COMPETES Act” legislation that recently passed in the House and which will soon be conferenced with a Senate bill that already passed.

On the same day this podcast was released this week, I also had a new op-ed appear in The Hill on “The Coming Industrial Policy Hangover.” In both that essay and the podcast with Rep. Crenshaw, I stress that, beyond all the other problems with these new industrial policy measures, no one is talking about the fiscal cost of it all. As I note:

In the rush to pass legislation, we’ve barely heard a peep about the $250-$350 billion price tag. This follows a massive splurge of recent government borrowing, which led to the U.S. national debt hitting another lamentable new record: $30 trillion. China already owns over $1 trillion of that debt, making one wonder if we’re really countering China by adopting a massive, new and unfunded industrial policy that they will end up financing indirectly.

Read my oped for more details and for a deeper dive of what’s wrong with the bills, see my earlier essay here on “Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever.”

Additional Reading from Adam Thierer on Industrial Policy:

Adam Thierer, “Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever,” January 26, 2022.
Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech?” Mercatus Center Research Paper, November 17, 2021.
Adam Thierer, “The Coming Industrial Policy Hangover,” The Hill, February 16, 2022.
Podcast: “What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy,” Hold These Truths with Rep. Dan Crenshw, February 16, 2022.
Tad DeHaven and Adam Thierer, “The Military-Industrial Complex Offers a Cautionary Tale for Industrial Policy Planning,” Discourse, March 25, 2022.
Adam Thierer, “Government Planning and Spending Won’t Replicate Silicon Valley,” Discourse, August 18, 2021.
Adam Thierer, “To Promote Tech Hubs Across the Country, Governments Should Focus on Improving the General Business Environment,” Discourse, September 9, 2021.
Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy as ‘Casino Economics‘,” The Hill, July 12, 2021.
Adam Thierer, “‘Japan Inc.’ and Other Tales of Industrial Policy Apocalypse,” Discourse, June 28, 2021.
Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Should the U.S. Copy China’s Industrial Policy?” Discourse, March 11, 2021.
Connor Haaland & Adam Thierer, “Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?” Discourse, February 11, 2021.
Matthew D. Mitchell and Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy is a Very Old, New Idea,” Discourse, April 6, 2021.
Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy Advocates Should Learn from Don Lavoie,” Discourse, November 5, 2021.
Adam Thierer, “On Defining ‘Industrial Policy,’” Technology Liberation Front, September 3, 2020.
Adam Thierer, “Skeptical Takes on Expansive Industrial Policy Efforts,” Technology Liberation Front, March 15, 2021.

Podcast on Economic Liberty & the Right to Earn a Living

Adam Thierer — Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:37:00 +0000

I was my pleasure to appear on the latest episode of the Dissed podcast to discuss economic liberty and the right to earn a living. The show was hosted by Anastasia Boden and Elizabeth Slattery of the Pacific Legal Foundation and it included legal scholars Hadley Arkes, Timothy Sandefur, and Clark Neily. I appear in the second half of the program.

I’ve spent many years writing about the relationship between innovation, entrepreneurialism, economic liberty, and the right to earn a living. My latest book (Evasive Entrepreneurs) and previous one (Permissionless Innovation) devoted considerable attention to this. But I tried to bring it all down to just a few hundred words in my 2018 essay, “The Right to Pursue Happiness, Earn a Living, and Innovate.”

I’ve reprinted that down below, but please make sure to click over to the Dissed page and listen to that excellent podcast.

____

The Right to Pursue Happiness, Earn a Living, and Innovate by Adam Thierer

[originally appeared on The Bridge, September 20, 2018]

“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That memorable line from America’s Declaration of Independence makes it clear that we are at liberty to pursue lives of our own choosing. Our path in this world is ours to make. It is not predestined by government.

It is time to think more expansively about the right to pursue happiness. Specifically, it is time we acknowledge that our freedom to pursue happiness is the basis of many other corresponding rights, including the right to innovate and the right to earn a living.

Our right to pursue happiness aligns with our corresponding rights to speak, learn, and move about the world. Our constitutional heritage secured these rights and made it clear that we possess them simply by nature of being human beings. So long as we do not bring harm to others, we are generally free to act as we wish. These rights also serve as the basis of more specific freedoms: the freedom to tinker and try, or to innovate more generally.

Knowledge isn’t a mere collection of words that have existed since the dawn of time, and growth isn’t merely a matter of luck or destiny. Knowledge comes from acts of trial-and-error experimentation, and growth comes from innovation.

Repressing innovation has profound consequences. When critics decry a particular innovation or propose limiting entrepreneurial acts, they are challenging our freedom to know and learn more about the world and pursue a better future. By challenging our freedom to experiment with new and better ways of doing things, critics are essentially condemning us to the status quo.

Worse yet, denying people the freedom to innovate deprives society of the wisdom and prosperity that accompanies innovation, which is the foundation of human flourishing.

In sum, if you are not free to innovate, you are not free to pursue happiness.

So, let us resolve to clearly establish that the freedom to pursue happiness and the freedom to innovate are, in reality, the exact same right. Our freedom to try, to tinker, to learn, and to know are all just the same as our “freedom to innovate” and our freedom to pursue happiness however we see fit to pursue it.

Fostering a social and political culture that protects entrepreneurialism, the freedom to innovate, and the right earn a living is a moral imperative because it has enormous consequences for the well-being of current and future generations. To the extent this freedom is denied, the burden of proof—and the consequences for this denial—lies with those critics who would wish it so.

Skeptical Takes on Expansive Industrial Policy Efforts

Adam Thierer — Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:09:11 +0000

[Last updated 3/25/22]

Industrial Policy is a red-hot topic once again with many policymakers and pundits of different ideological leanings lining up to support ambitious new state planning for various sectors — especially 5G, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors. A remarkably bipartisan array of people and organizations are advocating for government to flex its muscle and begin directing more spending and decision-making in various technological areas. They all suggest some sort of big plan is needed, and it is not uncommon for these industrial policy advocates to suggest that hundreds of billions will need to be spent in pursuit of those plans.

Others disagree, however, and I’ll be using this post to catalog some of their concerns on an ongoing basis. Some of the criticisms listed here are portions of longer essays, many of which highlight other types of steps that governments can take to spur innovative activities. Industrial policy is an amorphous term with many definitions of a broad spectrum of possible proposals. Almost everyone believes in some form of industrial policy if you define the term broadly enough. But, as I argued in a September 2020 essay “On Defining ‘Industrial Policy‘,” I believe it is important to narrow the focus of the term such that we can continue to use the term in a rational way. Toward that end, I believe a proper understanding of industrial policy refers to targeted and directed efforts to plan for specific future industrial outputs and outcomes.

The collection of essays below is merely an attempt to highlight some of the general concerns about the most ambitious calls for expansive industrial policy, many of which harken back to debates I was covering in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I first started a career in policy analysis. During that time, Japan and South Korea were the primary countries of concern cited by industrial policy advocates. Today, it is China’s growing economic standing that is fueling calls for ambitious state-led targeted investments in “strategic” sectors and technologies. To a lesser extent, grandiose European industrial policy proposals are also prompting new US counter-proposals.

All this activity is what has given rise to many of the critiques listed below. If you have suggestions for other essays I might add to this list, please feel free to pass them along. FYI: There’s no particular order here.

Scott Lincicome and Huan Zhu, “Questioning Industrial Policy: Why Government Manufacturing Plans Are Ineffective and Unnecessary,” Cato Institute Working Paper, June 16, 2021.

[I]ndustrial policy – properly defined – has an extensive and underwhelming history in the United States, featuring high costs (seen and unseen), failed objectives, and political manipulation. Surely, not every U.S. industrial policy effort has ended in disaster, but facts here and abroad argue strongly against new government efforts to boost “critical” industries and workers and thereby fix alleged market failures. Such efforts warrant intense skepticism – skepticism that today is unfortunately in short supply.

Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy as Casino Economics,” The Hill, July 12, 2021.

While some government investments will always be necessary, policymakers engaging in casino economics means bad industrial policy bets and taxpayer money squandered on risky ventures best made by private actors. We need to keep Uncle Sam’s gambling habits in check.

Adam Thierer, “Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever,” Technology Liberation Front, January 26, 2022.

As far as industrial policy measures go, the COMPETES Act is one of the most ambitious and expensive central planning efforts in American history. It represents the triumph of top-down, corporatist, techno-mercantilist thinking over a more sensible innovation policy rooted in bottom-up competition, entrepreneurialism, private investment, and free trade.

Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech?” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Special Study, November 2021.

This paper considers how both the recent history of high-tech industrial policy efforts at the national and international level—as well as some state and local economic development efforts in the United States—might better inform the wisdom of proposed efforts for AI or other high-tech sectors. That history is spotted with some limited successes alongside a long string of costly failures. We explore the reasons for those failures and recommend that the US refocus on the policy prerequisites that helped give rise to the computing and internet revolutions: a more generalized approach to economic development rooted in light-touch regulation and taxation of emerging technology.

Samuel Gregg, “Can America Build A Broad-Based Economy?” Law & Liberty, March 1, 2022

Of course, if a government decides to put enough money and resources behind a given industrial policy, it will likely produce some results. Yet the same is true of the gambler. If she stays in the casino long enough and spends enough money, she will win a few hands of cards. But the odds are that she will also lose a great deal of money, especially if she is as inept a gambler as the government is maladroit at identifying industry trends or entrepreneurial opportunities. Moreover, just as a compulsive gambler’s behavior will have numerous negative effects on her family’s well-being, so too does industrial policy risk inflicting wider damage upon a nation’s economy and political system. The harms range from gross misallocations of resources to the rampant cronyism and rent-seeking that seems inseparable from industrial policy (which, I again note, its advocates studiously avoid discussing), to name just a few.

Phil Gramm & Mike Solon, “Peace Through Strength Requires Economic Freedom,” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2022.

The America Competes Act is the House’s effort to outdo the Chinese Communist Party’s latest five-year plan. The 2,900-page bill would make an old Soviet commissar blush. [. . . ] America’s success in the world economy has never depended on industrial policy or government subsidies. It has come from the relative absence of government planning and subsidies. This is hardly news. The U.S. government provided support for the efforts of Samuel Langley, the greatest aviation expert of the 1890s, in his effort to make America first in powered flight. His manned Aerodrome flopped into the Potomac River. It was the Wright brothers, two unsubsidized but determined bicycle makers from Dayton, Ohio, who flew at Kitty Hawk, N.C., and changed the world.

Scott Lincicome, “Moving Fast and Breaking Things,” Capitolism, February 2, 2022.

Adam Thierer, “The Coming Industrial Policy Hangover,” The Hill, February 16, 2022.

In the rush to pass legislation, we’ve barely heard a peep about the $250-$350 billion price tag. This follows a massive splurge of recent government borrowing, which led to the U.S. national debt hitting another lamentable new record: $30 trillion. China already owns over $1 trillion of that debt, making one wonder if we’re really countering China by adopting a massive, new and unfunded industrial policy that they will end up financing indirectly.

Podcast: “What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy,” Hold These Truths with Rep. Dan Crenshaw, February 16, 2022.

Tad DeHaven and Adam Thierer, “ The Military-Industrial Complex Offers a Cautionary Tale for Industrial Policy Planning,” Discourse, March 25, 2022.

Wayne Crews, “What To Do Instead Of The America COMPETES Act,” Forbes, February 2, 2022.

All this spending and expansion of the federal government, atop which our leaders would lay the America COMPETES Act and doubtless its own accompanying guidebook, has massive, ignored regulatory effects. Trillions in government spending (”investment”) have altered and will alter the entire trajectory and competitive environment of industries engaged in large-scale enterprises and transactions. This removes vast swaths of business activity from free competitive enterprise altogether, and creates displacements and distortions such that the restoration of free enterprise becomes a near-impossible disentanglement. The result is, after 100 years of big government and seduction of and fusion with big business, the greatest endeavors—from infrastructure to artificial intelligence, from smart cities to space—now consist of “partnerships” with governments rather than free enterprise, at scales and at costs so gigantic they can only be ignored.

Adam Thierer, “‘Japan Inc.’ and Other Tales of Industrial Policy Apocalypse,” Discourse, June 28, 2021.

Perhaps the most ironic indictment of industrial policy punditry lies in the way all the earlier books and essays about Japanese planning not only failed to forecast the many flops associated with it, but also did not foresee China as a potential future economic juggernaut. [. . .] What might that tell us about the ability of experts to predict the future course of countries and economies?

Adam Thierer, “Can Government Reproduce Silicon Valley Everywhere?” Technology Liberation Front, September 12, 2021.

government efforts to artificially try to create regional innovation hubs in a top-down, technocratic fashion will almost certainly persist. As they do, some will argue that this time will be different! Perhaps, but it is more likely that the past is prologue; these new hubs will likely cause federal politicians to jockey for position to have their regions named one of the winners and get a big cut of all the new high-tech pork being served up by Washington.

Weifeng Zhong, “Beijing Can’t Make Sense of Biden’s China Strategy. Can Biden?” Washington Examiner, July 01, 2021.

America is not China, and it would be a fatal mistake to equate competing with China with imitating what China does. Doing so would risk the advantageous U.S. position as the world’s chief innovator, whose ideas are turned into products by vibrant private sectors both domestically and internationally.

Mike Watson, “Industrial Policy in the Real World,” National Affairs, Summer 2021.

Given the nature of industrial policymaking in the United States, there’s little reason to believe future attempts at industrial planning will result in a more coherent, rational, or strategic allocation of resources than they have in the past. [. . .] In short, industrial policy in the United States cannot be steered by a small group of enlightened individuals, because a small group of enlightened individuals will never be at the helm. Indeed, in some sense, there is no single “helm” to speak of.

Samuel Gregg, “Industrial Policy Mythology Confronts Economic Reality,” Law & Liberty, September 3, 2021.

If prizes in policy debates were given out for persistence, those advocating for more widespread use of industrial policy in America would be first in line. No matter how many times it is pointed out that they don’t understand the nature and workings of comparative advantage; or avoid acknowledging how industrial policy fosters rampant cronyism and corruption; or highlight what they consider examples of countries in which industrial policy has been employed successfully (only to have it demonstrated that it didn’t quite work out the way they suggested), they don’t give up.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, “If This Is How America COMPETES, We’re Going to Lose,” Reason, January 26, 2022.

the bill can’t simply address one main issue or a few critical needs. Instead, it tries to insert the government into every aspect of all sorts of industries and markets and pretend that bureaucrats can solve complex social and cultural issues.

Chang-Tai Hsieh, “Countering Chinese Industrial Policy Is Counterproductive,” Project Syndicate, September 15, 2021.

US political leaders have long tried to counter Chinese industrial policy. And now they seem to have decided that the best way to do that is to emulate it. But their agenda betrays a profound lack of understanding of the unique challenge posed by China’s coupling of an authoritarian political regime with a dynamic market economy.

Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy Advocates Should Learn from Don Lavoie,” Discourse, November 5, 2021.

“In light of the inherent deficiencies of central planning,” Lavoie said, “it might be argued that the U.S. should instead try to reduce current government interference with the competitive process to the absolute minimum consistent with other political goals.” It remains wise advice for today’s policymakers.

Anne O. Krueger, “America’s Muddled Industrial Policy,” CGTN, June 25, 2021.

Governments have a poor track record of identifying “winners” – be it a company or a category of technology – whereas private companies have proved better at transforming new discoveries into new products or cost savings. That is why the U.S. state traditionally has stuck to funding basic research.

Eric Boehm, “Massive Subsidies Won’t Solve the Semiconductor Supply Chain Crisis,” Reason, January 28, 2022.

Tracy C. Miller, “The Case for Limiting Government Semiconductor Subsidies,” The Hill, June 26, 2021.

Without the subsidies, firms would be more cautious about building or expanding foundries. If long-term production capacity is truly insufficient, high prices and anticipated profits give firms the right incentives to build or expand and satisfy demand at cost-covering prices.

Scott Lincicome, “The ‘Endless Frontier’ and American Industrial Policy,” Cato Institute Blog, May 26, 2021.

U.S. industrial policy has a long history of struggling to overcome political pressures, just as public choice predicts, and the EFA is no different. None of this means that all legislating is bad, or that politicians don’t at least occasionally vote in the national interest. Instead, the public choice framework simply adds another hurdle—along with things like the “knowledge problem,” seen and unseen costs, and misaligned incentives—to designing and implementing commercial policies specifically intended to beat the admittedly messy and imperfect situation that the market generates. It’s imperative that we understand these risks before supporting policies that, while they might look good on paper, could easily morph into a counterproductive boondoggle—one we’ve seen countless times with respect to U.S. industrial policy.

Daniel W. Drezner, “Is the United States capable of industrial policy in 2021?” Washington Post, June 14, 2021.

To believe that the United States can pursue a high-caliber industrial policy, however, requires assuming a more competent state than I have seen in the past decade.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “The Nicest Thing I Can Write About Supply Chain Policy,” The Daily Dish, June 10, 2021.

Nevertheless, the Senate just passed a provision for $50 billion to subsidize chip fabrication – something the president had requested – and the House will doubtlessly concur. That might seem like an industry victory, but wait until it realizes that the administration will assume it gives it the right to insist on union jobs, micromanage the design of chips, and dictate the pricing and distribution of the products. Good luck with that. As the definitive volume on policy analysis (Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack) put it, “He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.”

Lipton Matthews, “Industrial Policy—a.k.a. Central Planning—Won’t Make America Great,” Mises Wire, November 5, 2021.

Although industrial policy is in vogue, the evidence suggests that it is not necessary for long-term development. Moreover, despite the popularity of industrial policy in China, America remains the world’s economic power, and by following China, it may lose this vaunted position.

Richard Beason, “Japanese Industrial Policy: An Economic Assessment,” National Foundation for American Policy, November 2021.

There is no evidence to support the claim that Japanese industrial policy during the 1955-1990 period enhanced growth rates by sector, industries with economies of scale (greater efficiency when produced in increased amounts), productivity growth or “competitiveness.” The reality of the political process and government spending priorities makes it very difficult for such policies to be effective. Furthermore, even if political pressures had not intervened, it seems questionable to suggest that government policymakers would be better than actual market participants in determining the most efficient allocation of resources to produce the best economic outcomes.

Douglas Irwin, “ Memo to the Biden administration on how to rethink industrial policy,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 2020.

The challenge for policymakers is to identify such industries without succumbing to the notion that every industry is vital to some public objective. For example, the goal of “economic security” is so broadly defined and open-ended that virtually every domestic producer could claim the need for government support on that basis. The risk is that ill-conceived government programs will encourage corrupt behavior in which industries benefit themselves without contributing to national welfare.

Jim Pethokoukis, “Will Biden’s embrace of industrial policy pay off?” AEI Blog, January 15, 2021.

The history of such efforts in advanced capitalist economies gives ample reason for skepticism about the effectiveness of such top-down government planning, from Japanese economic stagnation to the now-mothballed Concorde supersonic jet to France’s failed attempt to create a thriving tech sector. The Internet might seem like the exception that negates the rule, but what turned out to be a successful partnership of government and entrepreneurs didn’t arise out of some master plan from Washington. And what do even the smartest plans look like when filtered through the dodgy quality of American governance? Maybe as an excuse for cronyism and protectionism.

Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Should the U.S. Copy China’s Industrial Policy?” Discourse, March 11, 2021.

America needs to embrace its already vibrant venture capital market, the benefits of basic science and prize competitions, and a light-touch regulatory approach instead of gambling taxpayer dollars on grandiose industrial policy schemes that would likely become boondoggles.

Connor Haaland & Adam Thierer, “Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?” Discourse, February 11, 2021.

Thus far, however, the Europeans don’t have much to show for their attempts to produce home-grown tech champions. Despite highly targeted and expensive efforts to foster a domestic tech base, the EU has instead generated a string of industrial policy failures that should serve as a cautionary tale for U.S. pundits and policymakers, who seem increasingly open to more government-steered innovation efforts.

Phil Levy & Christine McDaniel, “ Does the U.S. Need a Vigorous Industrial Policy?” Discourse, February 16, 2021.

we are certainly hearing new enthusiasm these days about industrial policy. It seems to have proponents or converts on both sides of the aisle. This either means that a new consensus has emerged, or it means that the term is being used so loosely that it has lost its original meaning. I’ll go with the latter; it now means different things to different people.

Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip discussing why “ The traditional skepticism toward industrial policy is well deserved.”

The traditional skepticism toward industrial policy is well deserved. Once Washington starts writing checks for semiconductors, other industries may get in line with the outcome determined more by political clout than economic merit. As in shipbuilding, the targeted companies may end up in perpetual need of federal protection and unable to compete internationally

David Ignatius, “The U.S. is quietly mobilizing its economy against China,” Washington Post, March 4, 2021.

The industrial policy the AI commission recommends could unlock talent and innovation. But if officials aren’t careful, government intervention could also afflict our best companies with the dead weight and dysfunction of our broken political system. We need government to spawn brainpower, not bureaucracy.

Veronique de Rugy, “Support for Industrial Policy is Growing,” AIER, January 18, 2020.

Looking at the federal government today tells me that the problems surrounding R&D programs in the past continue today, and will continue tomorrow, because they are simply a consequence of the normal functioning of government. It is hard to wish these problems away, even in the face of the private sector’s “imperfections.” Those arguing for more funding in R&D should proceed with caution.

Ben Reinhardt on concerns about The Endless Frontier Act

This bill is proposing to give money with risk-averse restrictions to a risk-averse organization (the NSF) to be dispersed among other risk-averse organizations (Universities) into a system with increasingly risk-averse incentives. Note that I’m not saying “it’s all fubar’d lets burn it to the ground!” but I am suggesting that instead of slamming on the accelerator, we should be asking “what would a tune-up and an oil change look like instead?”

Ryan Bourne, “Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up?” Cato Commentary, August 15, 2019.

Oren Cass asserts that markets cannot generally allocate resources efficiently by industry. Yet he provides no meaningful metrics to show this is the case, nor shows why his policies would deliver better outcomes. His two main claims about the benefits of a manufacturing sector — “stable employment” and “strong productivity growth” — are directly contradictory. A plethora of evidence suggests as countries’ get richer due to automation and technological improvements, they demand relatively more services, and so the industrial sector declines in employment terms.

Scott Lincicome, “ Manufactured Crisis: ‘Deindustrialization, Free Markets, and National Security,” Cato Policy Analysis No. 907, January 27, 2021.

This skepticism—mostly absent from Washington—is indeed warranted: analyses of the U.S. manufacturing sector and the relationship between trade and national security, as well as the United States’ long and checkered history of security‐related protectionism, undermine the theoretical justifications for imposing protectionism and industrial policy in the name of national defense. Instead, open trade, freer markets, and global interdependence will in almost all cases produce better outcomes in terms of national security and, most importantly, preventing wars and other forms of armed conflict.

Matthew Lau, “Trudeau government’s ‘industrial policy’ creates all the wrong incentives,” Toronto Sun, March 16, 2021.

Podcast: Tech Policy in the Biden Admin & 117th Congress

Adam Thierer — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:47:46 +0000

I wanted to bring to your attention this Federalist Society podcast discussion I hosted a few weeks ago on, “Tech Policy Under the Biden Administration and 117th Congress.” I was joined by Jennifer Huddleston, Director of Technology & Innovation Policy at the American Action Forum, and Blake Reid, Clinical Professor at the University of Colorado Law School.

We discussed key policy debates – such as antitrust and “Big Tech,” online speech and Section 230, and the race to 5G – and considered how the new presidential administration and Congress might approach innovation and the tech industry in 2021 and beyond. Note: You might also want to check out this earlier essay by Jennifer on, “5 Tech Policy Topics to Follow in the Biden Administration and 117th Congress.”

“Policy Gone Viral” Podcast on Evasive Entrepreneurialism

Adam Thierer — Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:49:22 +0000

Here’s a new episode of the James Madison Institute “Policy Gone Viral” podcast in which my former Mercatus Center colleague Andrea O’Sullivan and I discuss the future of technological innovation and the public policies governing it. The video is embedded below or you can listen to just the audio here.

PeliCast Event on Evasive Entrepreneurialism & Permissionless Innovation

Adam Thierer — Thu, 02 Jul 2020 13:59:12 +0000

This week, it was my pleasure to be interviewed by Eric Peterson of the Pelican Institute on their “PeliCast” live video podcast. We discussed potential futures for permissionless innovation and, more importantly, what my favorite beer in Louisiana is. Tune in to find the answer!

Podcast: Problems with the Precautionary Principle

Adam Thierer — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:02:13 +0000

On the latest Institute for Energy Research podcast, I joined Paige Lambermont to discuss:

the precautionary principle vs. permissionless innovation;
risk analysis trade-offs;
the future of nuclear power;
the “pacing problem”;
regulatory capture;
evasive entrepreneurialism;
“soft law”;
… and why I’m still bitter about losing the 6th grade science fair!

Our discussion was inspired by my recent essay, “How Many Lives Are Lost Due to the Precautionary Principle?”

Podcast about the Future of Emerging Tech Innovation & Entrepreneurialism

Adam Thierer — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 19:24:33 +0000

It was my great pleasure to recently join Paul Matzko and Will Duffield on the Building Tomorrow podcast to discuss some of the themes in my last book and my forthcoming one. During our 50-minute conversation, which you can listen to here, we discussed:

the “pacing problem” and how it complicates technological governance efforts;
the steady rise of “innovation arbitrage” and medical tourism across the globe;
the continued growth of “evasive entrepreneurialism” (i.e., efforts to evade traditional laws & regs while innovating);
new forms of “technological civil disobedience;”
the rapid expansion of “soft law” governance mechanism as a response to these challenges; and,
craft beer bootlegging tips! (Seriously, I move a lot of beer in the underground barter markets).

Bounce over to the Building Tomorrow site and give the show a listen. Fun chat.

Permissionless Innovation: Book, Video, Slides, Podcast, Paper & More!

Adam Thierer — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:25:09 +0000

I am pleased to announce the release of the second edition of my book, Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom. As with the first edition, the book represents a short manifesto that condenses — and attempts to make more accessible — arguments that I have developed in various law review articles, working papers, and blog posts over the past few years. The book attempts to accomplish two major goals.

First, I attempt to show how the central fault line in almost all modern technology policy debates revolves around “the permission question,” which asks: Must the creators of new technologies seek the blessing of public officials before they develop and deploy their innovations? How that question is answered depends on the disposition one adopts toward new inventions. Two conflicting attitudes are evident.

One disposition is known as the “precautionary principle.” Generally speaking, it refers to the belief that new innovations should be curtailed or disallowed until their developers can prove that they will not cause any harms to individuals, groups, specific entities, cultural norms, or various existing laws, norms, or traditions.

The other vision can be labeled “permissionless innovation.” It refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if they develop at all, can be addressed later.

I argue that we are witnessing a grand clash of visions between these two mindsets today in almost all major technology policy discussions today.

The second major objective of the book, as is made clear by the title, is to make a forceful case in favor of the latter disposition of “permissionless innovation.” I argue that policymakers should unapologetically embrace and defend the permissionless innovation ethos — not just for the Internet but also for all new classes of networked technologies and platforms. Some of the specific case studies discussed in the book include: the “Internet of Things” and wearable technologies, smart cars and autonomous vehicles, commercial drones, 3D printing, and various other new technologies that are just now emerging.

I explain how precautionary principle thinking is increasingly creeping into policy discussions about these technologies. The urge to regulate preemptively in these sectors is driven by a variety of safety, security, and privacy concerns, which are discussed throughout the book. Many of these concerns are valid and deserve serious consideration. However, I argue that if precautionary-minded regulatory solutions are adopted in a preemptive attempt to head-off these concerns, the consequences will be profoundly deleterious.

Mye central thesis is this: Living in constant fear of hypothetical worst-case scenarios — and premising public policy upon them — means that best-case scenarios will never come about. When public policy is shaped by precautionary principle reasoning, it poses a serious threat to technological progress, economic entrepreneurialism, social adaptation, and long-run prosperity.

Again, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the various problems created by these highly disruptive technologies. But how we address these concerns matters greatly. If and when problems develop, there are many less burdensome ways to address them than through preemptive technological controls. The best solutions to complex social problems are almost always organic and “bottom-up” in nature. Luckily, there exists a wide variety of constructive approaches that can be tapped to address or alleviate concerns associated with new innovations. These include:

education and empowerment efforts (including media literacy, digital citizenship efforts);
social pressure from activists, academics, and the press and the public more generally.
voluntary self-regulation and adoption of best practices (including privacy and security “by design” efforts); and,
increased transparency and awareness-building efforts to enhance consumer knowledge about how new technologies work.

Such solutions are almost always superior to top-down, command-and-control regulatory edits and bureaucratic schemes of a “Mother, May I?” (i.e., permissioned) nature. The problem with “top-down” traditional regulatory systems is that they often tend to be overly-rigid, bureaucratic, inflexible, and slow to adapt to new realities. They focus on preemptive remedies that aim to predict the future, and future hypothetical problems that may not ever come about. Worse yet, administrative regulation generally preempts or prohibits the beneficial experiments that yield new and better ways of doing things. It raises the cost of starting or running a business or non-business venture, and generally discourages activities that benefit society.

To the extent that other public policies are needed to guide technological developments, simple legal principles are greatly preferable to technology-specific, micro-managed regulatory regimes. Again, ex ante (preemptive and precautionary) regulation is often highly inefficient, even dangerous. To the extent that any corrective legal action is needed to address harms, ex post measures, especially via the common law (torts, class actions, etc.), are typically superior. And the Federal Trade Commission will, of course, continue to play a backstop here by utilizing the broad consumer protection powers it possesses under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” In recent years, the FTC has already brought and settled many cases involving its Section 5 authority to address identity theft and data security matters. If still more is needed, enhanced disclosure and transparency requirements would certainly be superior to outright bans on new forms of experimentation or other forms of heavy-handed technological controls.

In the end, however, I argue that, to the maximum extent possible, our default position toward new forms of technological innovation must remain: “innovation allowed.” That is especially the case because, more often than not, citizens find ways to adapt to technological change by employing a variety of coping mechanisms, new norms, or other creative fixes. We should have a little more faith in the ability of humanity to adapt to the challenges new innovations create for our culture and economy. We have done it countless times before. We are creative, resilient creatures. That’s why I remain so optimistic about our collective ability to confront the challenges posed by these new technologies and prosper in the process.

If you’re interested in taking a look, you can find a free PDF of the book at the Mercatus Center website or you can find out how to order it from there as an eBook. Hardcopies are also available.

The Mercatus Center also recently hosted a book launch party for the release of the 2nd edition. The event was very well-attended and many of those present asked me to forward along specific slides or the entire deck. So, for those who asked, or others who may be interested in seeing the slides, here ya go!

And here’s the video from the event, which also incorporates these slides:

Also, back in September 2015, Sonal Chokshi was kind enough to invite me on the a16z podcast and we discussed, “Making the Case for Permissionless Innovation.” You can listen to that conversation here:

Finally, I put together a paper summarizing the major policy recommendations contained in the book. It’s entitled, “Permissionless Innovation and Public Policy: A 10-Point Blueprint.” And then, along with Michael Wilt, I published condensed version of the paper as an essay over at Medium.

Materials mentioned in this post related to Permissionless Innovation project:

BOOK: Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom
SLIDES: ‘Permissionless Innovation’ & the Clash of Visions over Emerging Technologies
VIDEO: Permissionless Innovation & the Clash of Visions over Emerging Technologies
PAPER: “Permissionless Innovation and Public Policy: A 10-Point Blueprint.”
SUMMARY ESSAY: “Permissionless Innovation: A 10-Part Policy Checklist“
WEBSITE: PermissionlessInnovation.org

Related Essays:

Journal articles and book chapters:

“US Medical Devices: Choices and Consequences,” (with Richard Williams and Robert Graboyes), October 21, 2015.
“How the Internet, the Sharing Economy, and Reputational Feedback Mechanisms Solve the ‘Lemons Problem,’” (with Christopher Koopman, Anne Hobson, and Chris Kuiper), May 26, 2015.
“The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change,” (with Christopher Koopman and Matthew Mitchell), The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law 8, no. 2 (2015).
“The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation,” Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 21, no. 6 (2015).
“Removing Roadblocks to Intelligent Vehicles and Driverless Cars,” (with Ryan Hagemann), Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy 5, no. 2 (2015): 339–91.
“Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 14 (2013): 309–86.
“Privacy Law’s Precautionary Principle Problem,” Maine Law Review 66, no. 2 (2014).
“The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control Is Failing,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 36 (2013): 409–55.
“A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates,” George Mason University Law Review 20, no. 4 (Summer 2013): 1055–105.
“The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 1: Saving the Net from Its Detractors,” in The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet, ed. Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus (Washington, DC: Tech Freedom, 2010), 57–87.

James Barrat on the future of Artificial Intelligence

Jerry Brito — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:30:58 +0000

James Barrat, author of Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era, discusses the future of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Barrat takes a look at how to create friendly AI with human characteristics, which other countries are developing AI, and what we could expect with the arrival of the Singularity. He also touches on the evolution of AI and how companies like Google and IBM and government entities like DARPA and the NSA are developing artificial general intelligence devices right now.

Download

Robert Scoble on Wearable Computers

Jerry Brito — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:00:19 +0000

Robert Scoble, Startup Liaison Officer at Rackspace discusses his recent book, Age of Context: Mobile, Sensors, Data and the Future of Privacy, co-authored by Shel Israel. Scoble believes that over the next five years we’ll see a tremendous rise in wearable computers, building on interest we’ve already seen in devices like Google Glass. Much like the desktop, laptop, and smartphone before it, Scoble predicts wearable computers represent the next wave in groundbreaking innovation. Scoble answers questions such as: How will wearable computers help us live our lives? Will they become as common as the cellphone is today? Will we have to sacrifice privacy for these devices to better understand our preferences? How will sensors in everyday products help companies improve the customer experience?

Download

Alice Marwick on social dynamics and digital culture

Jerry Brito — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:00:41 +0000

Alice Marwick, assistant professor of communication and media studies at Fordham University, discusses her newly-released book, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. Marwick reflects on her interviews with Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, technology journalists, and venture capitalists to show how social media affects social dynamics and digital culture. Marwick answers questions such as: Does “status conscious” take on a new meaning in the age of social media? Is the public using social media the way the platforms’ creators intended? How do you quantify the value of online social interactions? Are social media users becoming more self-censoring or more transparent about what they share? What’s the difference between self-branding and becoming a micro-celebrity? She also shares her advice for how to make Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram and other platforms more beneficial for you.

Download

Non-Terrible Podcast About Privacy and Do-Not-Track

Jim Harper — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:00:10 +0000

This podcast, put together by the high-performance folks at the Performance Marketing Association, is pretty good, though I do use the word “hedonic” at one point, which is a bit much.

Podcast about Media Vouchers & Postal Subsidies as Media Reinvention Tools

Adam Thierer — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:41:02 +0000

In this latest PFF TechCast, Berin Szoka and I discuss the two latest installments in our ongoing “Wrong Way to Reinvent Media” series. These two recent installments dealt with “media vouchers” and expanded postal subsidies as methods of assisting struggling media enterprises or promoting more hard news. In this 7-minute podcast, PFF’s press director Mike Wendy chats with us about these proposals and we argue that they both raise a variety of practical and principled concerns that weigh against their adoption by policymakers.

MP3 file: PFF TechCast #3 – Media Vouchers & Postal Subsidies (4/27/2010)

4 Minutes on What’s Wrong with the FCC National Broadband Plan

Adam Thierer — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:53:21 +0000

Here’s a brief audio clip that PFF’s new press director Mike Wendy helped me put together in which I outline some of my reservations with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) just-released National Broadband Plan. It’s just 4 minutes. Just click the play button below.

[display_podcast]

Podcast: Jim Harper and Berin Szoka on Google Buzz

Jerry Brito — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:50:59 +0000

Yesterday fellow TLFers Jim Harper and Berin Szoka joined me for an episode of the Surprisingly Free Conversations podcast in which we discussed the buzz around Google Buzz. You can listen to it here. You might also want to check out our other recent episodes, which include:

Check them all out and subscribe at the podcast page.

Radio Innovation & Audio Competition in the 2000s

Adam Thierer — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:49:30 +0000

It really is amazing how much the audio marketplace has evolved over the past decade. I’ve written about the growing “competition for our ears” here before, but over at the Radio Survivor blog, there’s an outstanding collection of essays about “The Decade’s Most Important Radio Trends” by several long-time industry experts. Dennis Haarsager of National Public Radio has a nice listing of all the entries over on his blog, which I have reproduced down below.

It just blows my mind to think that just 10 years ago I didn’t have satellite radio (now have 3 subscriptions); I didn’t have Pandora (my 8 different personalized channels are playing in the background on my computer non-stop); I had never heard a podcast (and now subscribe to several and have hosted one here on occasion); I didn’t have an MP3 player and had never burned any of my music (now have 3 players and my entire 25-year collection of CDs on all 3 devices); and I had never spent any time listening to music online (and now am quite in love with Lala and LastFM). Meanwhile, I am still listening to the old fashion radio quite a bit, including on a new HD Radio player in my house. You gotta love choice like that!

Anyway, read these essays for a fuller investigation into the state of the audio marketplace. I don’t agree with everything said in each of the entries but still recommend you check out the entire series:

#1 (Paul Riismandel): The birth and troubled childhood of satellite radio.

#2 (Jennifer Waits): The growth of internet radio.

#3 (Waits): iPod and iTunes lure listeners away from terrestrial radio.

#4 (Riismandel): Podcasting.

#5 (Matthew Lasar): The age of Pandora.

#6 (Riismandel): HD Radio launches, but who listens, who cares?

#7 (Lasar): Internet radio’s Day of Silence.

#8 (Lasar): The Great Fairness Doctrine Panic.

#9 (Riismandel): The FCC authorizes Low-Power FM.

#10 (Riismandel): Clear Channel goes private equity.

#11 (Waits): Cash-strapped schools turn back on college radio.

#12 (Lasar): National Public Radio keeps growing.

#13 (Waits): College radio tightens its playlist.

#14 (Lasar): Pacifica Radio democratizes itself.

TPW 44: Unsafe at Any Setting (A Conversation with Chris Soghoian)

Adam Thierer — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:08:22 +0000

In episode #44 of “Tech Policy Weekly,” Berin Szoka and Adam Thierer engage in a debate with Internet security expert Chris Soghoian, who is a student fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. He is also a Ph.D. candidate at Indiana University’s School of Informatics.

Chris is an up-and-coming star in the field of cyberlaw and technology policy as he has quickly made a name for himself in debates over privacy policy, data security, and government surveillance. He straddles the line between academic and activist, and the role he often plays in many tech policy debates is somewhat akin to what Ralph Nader has done in many other fields through the years. Except, in this case, instead of “Unsafe at Any Speed” it’s more like “Unsafe at Any Setting,” since Chris is often raising a stink about what he regards as unjust or unreasonable privacy or security settings that various online websites or service providers use.

On the show, Chris talks about two of his recent crusades to get certain online providers to change their default settings to improve user security or privacy: (1) His effort this week to get major email providers—and Google in particular—to change their default security settings on their email offerings; and (2) his earlier crusade to create permanent opt-out cookies to stop behavioral advertising by advertising networks.

There are several ways to listen to today’s TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. (And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!)

[display_podcast]

Finally, here’s some relevant links that were mentioned during today’s show:

Chris Soghoian’s webpage + his Harvard Berkman Center page
Chris’s blog (“Slight Paranoia”)
Chris’s “TACO” (Targeted Advertising Cookie Opt-Out) plug-in for Firefox (and description of it on his home page)
Chris’s “Caught in the Cloud” paper (+ a video of him presenting it at Harvard)
The letter from 38 cybersecurity researchers that Chris sent to Google
Berin Szoka’s response to Chris’s “Caught in the Cloud” paper
Berin’s discussion of the issue of preserving user choice through permanent opt-out cookies

Many Ways to Follow the TLF!

Adam Thierer — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:55:42 +0000

This is just a quick reminder to both faithful and fair-weather readers that there are many ways to keep up with what we’re saying here at the Technology Liberation Front, including:

(1) RSS

Subscribe in a Reader

(2) Twitter

(3) Facebook

(4) Daily email alert

(5) Podcast

… Or just make the TLF your browser’s welcome page! What better way to start each day? Finally, as always, we appreciate your support, attention, tolerance of our rants.

TPW 42: The Flare-Up over Facebook’s Revised Terms of Use

Adam Thierer — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:42:27 +0000

On this episode “Tech Policy Weekly,” Technology Liberation Front contributors Ryan Radia and Berin Szoka join me for a discussion of the flare-up over Facebook’s recent changes to the data retention provisions of its Terms of Use agreement and whether there are any serious privacy issues in play here—or if this is all much ado about nothing. [Ryan blogged about it here, and I did here.]

Earlier this month, Facebook announced changes to the way it handled or retained user data on its site after a user quits Facebook, raising questions about who actually owns that data and whether any privacy issues were raised by the company’s new policy. Following some intense scrutiny in the blogosphere, Facebook decided this week to revert to their old terms of service until they figured out a new approach to data management and ownership.

You can begin listening by downloading the MP3 file here or by just clicking the play button below. Or subscribe to our Podcast ( iTunes, other).

[display_podcast]

TPW 41: Book Corner Featuring John Palfrey, author of Born Digital

Adam Thierer — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:45:30 +0000

On this episode of “Tech Policy Weekly,” we’re launching a new format called “Tech Book Corner” that will feature occasional conversations with the authors of important new books about technology policy and the other issues that we debate frequently at the Tech Liberation Front blog.

On this debut episode of Book Corner, we are joined by John Palfrey, a professor of law at Harvard University and the co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard. Along with his Berkman Center colleague Urs Gasser, Prof. Palfrey has recently co-authored Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, which was published last summer by Basic Books and which you can find out more information about at www.borndigitalbook.com. [Incidentally, I reviewed Born Digital here last October and I also named it one of the most important technology policy books of 2008.]

In our discussion, Prof. Palfrey explains who exactly counts as a “digital native” and tells us why he decided to write a book about them. He discusses why he believes that there has been some overreaction by older generations to fears about this Digital Generation and he argues that we need “to separate what we need to worry about from what’s not so scary” and “what we ought to resist from what we ought to embrace.” He then outlines how we should think about these issues and concerns going forward, and he stresses the importance of “balancing caution with encouragement” as we do so. Finally, he then applies that framework to three specific issues: privacy, child safety, and copyright.

It’s an interesting conversation and you can begin listening to it immediately by downloading the MP3 file here or by just clicking the play button below!

[display_podcast]

TPW 38: The Google Kerfuffle — Edge Caching & Net Neutrality

Adam Thierer — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:48:28 +0000

In several of our previous podcasts (see episodes 34, 35,and 37), we’ve discussed what we’ve called the “Comcast Kerfuffle,” which was the controversy surrounding the steps Comcast took to manage BitTorrent traffic on its networks. Critics called it a violation of Net neutrality principles while Comcast and others called it sensible network management.

This week we saw a new kerfuffle of sorts develop over the revelation in a Monday front-page Wall Street Journal story that Google had approached major cable and phone companies and supposedly proposed to create a fast lane for its own content. What exactly is it that Google is proposing, and does it mean – as the Wall Street Journal and some others have suggested – that Google is somehow going back on their support for Net neutrality principles and regulation? More importantly, what does it all mean for the future of the Internet, network management, and consumers. That’s what we discussed on the TLF’s latest “Tech Policy Weekly” podcast.

Today’s 30-minute discussion featured two of our regular contributors at the TLF, who both wrote about this issue multiple times this week. Cord Blomquist of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote about the issue here and here, and Bret Swanson of the Progress & Freedom Foundation wrote about it here and here. To help us wade through some of the more technical networking issues in play, we were also joined on the podcast by Richard Bennett, a computer scientist and network engineer guru who blogs at Broadband Politics as well as Circle ID and he also pens occasional columns for The Register. Also appearing on the show was Adam Marcus, Research Fellow & Senior Technologist at PFF, who wrote a “nuts and bolts” essay full of excellent technical background on edge caching and net neutrality.

You can download the MP3 file here, or use the online player below to start listening to the show right now.

[display_podcast]

“Intellectual Property Colloquium” podcast with Doug Lichtman

Adam Thierer — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:03:03 +0000

We’ve failed to keep our podcast alive here at the TLF — and I apologize about that — but there are still a lot of good tech policy-related podcasts out there for you to listen to. Here’s a new one that sounds very promising. It’s called the “Intellectual Property Colloquium” podcast, and it’s hosted by the brilliant Doug Lichtman, a professor of law at UCLA Law School.

The first show features a discussion that took place in one of Prof. Lichtman’s classes in which the always-interesting Fred Von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) begins by talking about the controversial Cablevision DVR case and then transitions into copyright law and infringement more generally. Doug jumps into the conversation about 12 minutes and needles Fred with a litany of excellent questions that really get the debate going. Whenever Doug and Fred go at it, it is a real intellectual clash of the titans.

The upcoming shows look just as good. Next up is a debate between Stacey Byrnes of NBC-Universal and Tim Wu of Columbia University about the DMCA notice-and-takedown process. The November show will include Dan Solove talking about “Privacy in a Networked World.” [I am just finishing up his important new book, Understanding Privacy, and I will be posting a review of it here soon.] And the December show is called “Everyone Hates DRM,” and is set to include Ed Felton of Princeton University versus Dean Marks of Warner Brothers. That should be a interesting conversation.

Podcast – Technology Liberation Front

Podcast: “AI – DC Policymakers Face a Crossroads”

Podcast: What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy?

Podcast on Economic Liberty & the Right to Earn a Living

Skeptical Takes on Expansive Industrial Policy Efforts

Podcast: Tech Policy in the Biden Admin & 117th Congress

“Policy Gone Viral” Podcast on Evasive Entrepreneurialism

PeliCast Event on Evasive Entrepreneurialism & Permissionless Innovation

Podcast: Problems with the Precautionary Principle

Podcast about the Future of Emerging Tech Innovation & Entrepreneurialism

Permissionless Innovation: Book, Video, Slides, Podcast, Paper & More!

James Barrat on the future of Artificial Intelligence

Related Links

Robert Scoble on Wearable Computers

Related Links

Alice Marwick on social dynamics and digital culture

Related Links

Non-Terrible Podcast About Privacy and Do-Not-Track

Podcast about Media Vouchers & Postal Subsidies as Media Reinvention Tools

4 Minutes on What’s Wrong with the FCC National Broadband Plan

Podcast: Jim Harper and Berin Szoka on Google Buzz

Radio Innovation & Audio Competition in the 2000s

TPW 44: Unsafe at Any Setting (A Conversation with Chris Soghoian)

[display_podcast]

Many Ways to Follow the TLF!

TPW 42: The Flare-Up over Facebook’s Revised Terms of Use

TPW 41: Book Corner Featuring John Palfrey, author of Born Digital

[display_podcast]

TPW 38: The Google Kerfuffle — Edge Caching & Net Neutrality

“Intellectual Property Colloquium” podcast with Doug Lichtman