Just another WordPress weblog
Select Page

Photo Plugin Test

Beth Tucker Long

Beth Tucker Long

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, an soluta ceteros mandamus his. Nominavi offendit accusamus ne duo, facilisis patrioque in mel. Ullum nonumy ne nam. Sea et dicant corrumpit, per utroque dissentiet cu. Harum prompta insolens at eos, ea mel solet maluisset, no eos case postea.

Melius numquam vix no, usu ne mazim choro. Ad vim regione recusabo, ut nusquam reprimique efficiendi eam, ne illud civibus vis. Per quaestio eleifend ut, causae viderer appellantur eu eum, his dicam doctus inciderint in. Ex libris omittantur qui.

Atqui causae et mea, mei ea putent viderer facilis. Omnesque appetere at vis, tation iisque ei ius, ne eius choro recusabo his. Ex nam esse vero, at est luptatum expetenda interpretaris. Percipit praesent similique nam eu, qui et sale summo eruditi. Diam scribentur has ei.

Nec malis periculis eloquentiam eu, aeque blandit sea an. Ex vim vocent vidisse, ius malis affert sanctus eu, ne pro expetenda assentior. Mei ei oblique malorum, enim fuisset ut eum, qui duis ullum integre et. Sumo posidonium nam in, tale aliquip nusquam nam ne, ea sea meliore fierent elaboraret. Ut vim adhuc pericula incorrupte, quo wisi diceret in. Ludus facete mea ne, eu has iisque sapientem assentior, cum te possim perfecto.

Vim essent labores feugait cu. Ei mel tacimates pertinacia. Sed aperiri salutatus eu, primis invidunt accusata ut vis. Est tantas volutpat at, malorum torquatos vis in.

Magna error nec te, pri id ignota volumus voluptua, ei mei eruditi rationibus efficiantur. No dicta oblique mel, quo liber epicuri id. Adhuc ipsum tollit his in, per constituto theophrastus reprehendunt cu. Has at eirmod laboramus concludaturque. Duis aperiri adolescens has et, mea ne brute aperiri, mei erat tollit ex. Sale dicit ad duo, mei movet congue quidam ut, mel quod fierent molestie ne.

Ne erroribus posidonium vis, ei nisl suas copiosae mea. Atqui prompta deterruisset ei has, te eum hendrerit abhorreant efficiendi. Zril repudiare pri ex. Pro quem reque petentium in. Noster putant ancillae sed et. Inani dictas instructior qui ei, at ius appetere maiestatis, solet albucius hendrerit et nec.

Oratio necessitatibus in nec. In alii ceteros usu. Et nec equidem consetetur. Vel ex imperdiet repudiare, no natum alterum gubergren ius.

Similique pertinacia vim ne, in habemus salutatus eum. Eu stet ludus scaevola quo. Per soleat laoreet ad, nec alia nihil quaestio te. Vix munere saperet adolescens no. Cu pri vocent aliquam referrentur, ut quas honestatis sed.

Duo lorem dicam sensibus ex, te accusam ancillae salutatus vix. Nulla commodo vis cu. Te nec veritus volutpat, per quas decore democritum ad. Commodo scriptorem efficiantur ex vim, ne vim elit invenire, usu decore audire suscipit an. Et mea rebum modus mollis. Elit dissentiet cu mei. Duo exerci aliquip ornatus te, te per feugait accommodare.

Title Testing Post

Will the title be saved? That is what we are testing. It didn’t work in the previous post until I shifted the main post text box to “visual” and even then it only saved one letter the first five times I tried. it. Maybe this will be better?

Will the title be saved? That is what we are testing. It didn’t work in the previous post until I shifted the main post text box to “visual” and even then it only saved one letter the first five times I tried. it. Maybe this will be better?Will the title be saved? That is what we are testing. It didn’t work in the previous post until I shifted the main post text box to “visual” and even then it only saved one letter the first five times I tried. it. Maybe this will be better?

Will the title be saved? That is what we are testing. It didn’t work in the previous post until I shifted the main post text box to “visual” and even then it only saved one letter the first five times I tried. it. Maybe this will be better?Will the title be saved? That is what we are testing. It didn’t work in the previous post until I shifted the main post text box to “visual” and even then it only saved one letter the first five times I tried. it. Maybe this will be better?Will the title be saved? That is what we are testing. It didn’t work in the previous post until I shifted the main post text box to “visual” and even then it only saved one letter the first five times I tried. it. Maybe this will be better?

Footnote Testing Post

A. Michael Froomkin, Blog Post, Discourse.net (2017).

Our footnote plugin has been abandoned, and WordPress advises against using it. 1 I’ve long believed that neither Paul Ryan nor Mitch McConnell were quite nuts enough to fail to extend the debt ceiling. It’s not even mainly that McConnell at least likely understands how terrible it would be for the US to default on its obligations. No, it’s that failing to pass a debt ceiling increase would be political suicide for Republicans. Their major claim (however undeserved) to the public’s trust — that Republicans are the party of fiscal probity — would be exploded for a generation or more.The new one has to work with both old footnote codes. It must respect both codes.

So I’ve been confident that if push came to shove McConnell runs something through by unanimous consent, or some other means. And I’ve been almost as confident that when Ryan finds he cannot tame the crazies in his own party, he accepts Democratic votes to get a majority. So while the debt ceiling vote is easily the biggest domestic political issue on the near-term horizon, and even today there is no obvious road from there to there (not to mention precious few legislative days when Congress is actually in session), I wasn’t worrying about it all that much.

Indeed, both Sen. McConnell and now Speaker Ryan have promised to get a bill out of Congress.

But now there’s a new wrinkle: suppose Congress passes an eleventh-hour bill and Trump vetoes it? He hasn’t said he would in so many words, but the signs are there in his fued with McConnell; there may be no geological formation known as Trump Peak, but Trump pique could be a giant crater.

After all, Trump has tweeted that he wants the budget to be tied to funding for the Gran Muralla, and wouldn’t mind a government shutdown if he doesn’t get it. In terms of really dumb ideas, t’s not that far to the debt ceiling. And Office of Management and Budget director, Mick Mulvaney originally argued that a US default was not such a big deal — although he’s now recanted and said he wants it raised too.

If there’s a veto, and I think at this point there’s really nothing we can’t put past the guy, we don’t just need a majority in both houses, we need a super-majority — and maybe in a hurry. Are the votes there?



  1. So we need a new one.[]
Cite as: Michael Froomkin, Footnote Testing Post, JOTWELL (August 25, 2017) (reviewing A. Michael Froomkin, Blog Post, Discourse.net (2017)), https://zetasec.jotwell.com/699-2/.

Police Force

Works mentioned in this review:

Police carry weapons, and sometimes they use them. When they do, people can die: the unarmed like Walter Scott and Tamir Rice, and bystanders like Akai Gurley and Bettie Jones. Since disarming police is a non-starter in our gun-saturated society, the next-best option is oversight. Laws and departmental policies tell officers when they can and can’t shoot; use-of-force review boards and juries hold officers accountable (or are supposed to) if they shoot without good reason. There are even some weapons police shouldn’t have at all.

Online police carry weapons, too, because preventing and prosecuting new twists on old crimes often requires new investigative tools. The San Bernadino shooters left behind a locked iPhone. Child pornographers gather on hidden websites. Drug deals are done in Bitcoins. Hacker gangs hold hospitals’ computer systems for ransom. Modern law enforcement doesn’t just passively listen in: it breaks security, exploits software vulnerabilities, installs malware, sets up fake cell phone towers, and hacks its way onto all manner of devices and services. These new weapons are dangerous; they need new rules of engagement, oversight, and accountability. The articles discussed in this review help start the conversation about how to guard against police abuse of these new tools.

In one recent case, the FBI seized control of a child pornography website. For two weeks, the FBI operated the website itself, sending a “Network Investigative Technique” — or, to call things by their proper names, a piece of spyware — to the computers of people who visited the website. The spyware then phoned home, giving the FBI the information it needed (IP addresses) to start identifying the users so they could be investigated and prosecuted on child pornography charges.

There’s something troubling about police operation of a spyware-spewing website; that’s something we normally expect from shady grey-market advertisers, not sworn officers of the law. For one thing, it involves pervasive deception. As Elizabeth E. Joh and Thomas W. Joo explain in Sting Victims: Third-Party Harms in Undercover Police Operations, this is hardly a new problem. Police have been using fake names and fake businesses for a long time. Joh and Joo’s article singles out the underappreciated way in which these ruses can harm third parties other than the targets of the investigation. In child abuse cases, for example, the further distribution of images of children being sexually abused “cause[s] new injury to the child’s reputation and emotional well-being.”

Often, the biggest victims of police impersonation are the specific people or entities being impersonated. Joh and Joo give a particularly cogent critique of this law enforcement “identity theft.” The resulting harm to trust is especially serious online, where other indicia of identity are weak to begin with. The Justice Department settled for $143,000 a civil case brought by a woman whose name and intimate photographs were used by the DEA to set up a fake Facebook account to send a friend request to a fugitive.

Again, deception by police is not new. But in a related essay, Bait, Mask, and Ruse: Technology and Police Deception, Joh nicely explains how “technology has made deceptive policing easier and more pervasive.” A good example, discussed in detail by Stephanie K. Pell and Christopher Soghoian in their article, A Lot More Than a Pen Register, and Less Than a Wiretap: What the StingRay Teaches Us About How Congress Should Approach the Reform of Law Enforcement Surveillance Authorities, is IMSI catchers, or StingRays. These portable electronic devices pretend to be cell phone towers, forcing nearby cellular devices to communicate with them, exposing some metadata in the process. This is a kind of lie, and not necessarily a harmless one. Tricking phones into talking to fake cell towers hinders their communications with real ones, which can raise power consumption and hurt connectivity.

In an investigative context, StingRays are commonly used to locate specific cell phones without the assistance of the phone company, or to obtain a list of all cell phones near the StingRay. Pell and Soghoian convincingly argue that StingRays successfully slipped through holes in the institutional oversight of surveillance technology. On the one hand, law enforcement has at times argued that the differences between StingRays and traditional pen registers meant that they were subject to no statutory restrictions at all; on the other, it has argued that they are sufficiently similar to pen registers that no special disclosure of the fact that a StingRay is to be used is necessary when a boilerplate pen register order is presented to a magistrate. Pell and Soghoian’s argument is not that StingRays are good or bad, but rather that an oversight regime regulating and legitimizing police use of dangerous technologies breaks down if the judges who oversee it cannot count on police candor.

In a broader sense, Joh and Joo and Pell and Soghoian are all concerned about police abuse of trust. Trust is tricky to establish online, but it is also essential to many technologies. This is one reason why so many security experts objected to the FBI’s now-withdrawn request for Apple to use its code signing keys to vouch for a modified and security-weakened custom version of iOS. Compelling the use of private keys in this way makes it harder to rely on digital signatures as a security measure.

The FBI’s drive-by spyware downloads are troubling in yet another way. A coding mistake can easily destroy data rather than merely observing it, and installing one piece of unauthorized software on a computer makes it easier for others to install more. Lawful Hacking, by Steven M. Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Sandy Clark, and Susan Landau, thinks through some of these risks, along with more systemic ones. In order to get spyware on a computer, law enforcement frequently needs to take advantage of an existing unpatched vulnerability in the software on that computer. But when law enforcement pays third parties for information about those vulnerabilities, it helps incentivize the creation of more such information, and the next sale might not be to the FBI. Even if the government finds a vulnerability itself, keeping that vulnerability secret undercuts security for Internet users, because someone else might find and exploit that same vulnerability independently. The estimated $1.3 million that the FBI paid for the exploit it employed in the San Bernadino case — along with the FBI’s insistence on keeping the details secret — sends a powerful signal that the FBI is more interested in breaking into computers than in securing them, and that that is where the money is.

The authors of Lawful Hacking are technologists, and their article is a good illustration of why lawyers need to listen to technologists more. The technical issues — including not just how software works but how the security ecosystem works — are the foundation for the legal and policy issues. Legislating security without understanding the technology is like building a castle on a swamp.

Fortunately, legal scholars who do understand the technical issues — because they are techies themselves or know how to listen to them — are also starting to think through the policy issues. Jonathan Mayer’s Constitutional Malware is a cogent analysis of the Fourth Amendment implications of putting software on people’s computers without their knowledge, let alone their consent. Mayer’s first goal is to refute what he calls the “data-centric” theory of Fourth Amendment searches, that so long as the government spyware is configured such that it discloses only unprotected information, it is irrelevant how the software was installed or used. The article then thinks through many of the practicalities involved with using search warrants to regulate spyware, such as anticipatory warrants, particularity, and notice. It concludes with an argument that spyware is sufficiently dangerous that it should be subject to the same kind of “super-warrant” procedural protections as wiretaps. Given that spyware can easily extract the contents of a person’s communications from their devices at any time, the parallel with wiretaps is nearly perfect. Indeed, on any reasonable measure, spyware is worse, and police and courts ought to give it closer oversight. To similar effect is former federal magistrate judge Brian Owsley’s Beware of Government Agents Bearing Trojan Horses, which includes a useful discursive survey of cases in which law enforcement has sought judicial approval of spyware.

Unfortunately, oversight by and over online law enforcement is complicated by the fact that a suspect’s device could often be anywhere in the world. This reality of life online raises problems of jurisdiction: jurisdiction for police to act and jurisdiction for courts to hold them accountable. Ahmed Ghappour’s Searching Places Unknown: Law Enforcement Jurisdiction on the Dark Web points out that when a suspect connects through a proxy-based routing service such as Tor, mapping a device’s location may be nearly impossible. Observing foreigners abroad is one thing; hacking their computers is quite another. Other countries can and do regard such investigations as violations of their sovereignty. Searching Places Unknown offers a best-practices guide for avoiding diplomatic blowback and the risk that police will open themselves up to foreign prosecution. One of the most important suggestions is minimization: Ghappour recommends that investigators proceed in two stages. First, they should attempt to determine the device’s actual IP address and no more; with that information, they can make a better guess at where the device is and a better-informed decision about whether and how to proceed.

This, in the end, is what tainted the evidence in the Tor child pornography investigation. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 does not give a magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia the authority to authorize the search of a computer in Norwood, Massachusetts. This NIT-picky detail in the Federal Rules may not be an issue much longer. The Supreme Court has voted — in the face of substantial objection from tech companies and privacy activists — to approve a revision to Rule 41 giving greater authority to magistrates to issue warrants for “remote access” searches. But since many of these unknown computers will be not just in another district but abroad, the diplomatic issues Ghappour flags would remain relevant even under a revised Rule 41. So would Owsley’s and Mayer’s recommendations for careful oversight.

Reading these articles together highlights the ways in which the problems of online investigations are both very new and very old. The technologies at issue — spyware, cryptographic authentication, onion routing, cellular networks, and encryption — were not designed with much concern for the Federal Rules or law enforcement budgeting processes. Sometimes they bedevil police; sometimes they hand over private data on a silver platter. But the themes are familiar: abuse of trust and positions of authority, the exploitation of existing vulnerabilities and the creation of new ones. Oversight is a crucial part of the solution, but at the moment it is piecemeal and inconsistently applied. The future of policing has already happened. It’s just not evenly distributed.

Cite as: James Grimmelmann, Police Force, JOTWELL (July 4, 2016) (reviewing seven works), http://cyber.jotwell.com/?p=915.

Should Send ONE Para to Zeta v2

R. Rossum, Clank, 23 Univ. Rob. L. 38 (2200).

Welcome to the Program Committee. This year we are planning to organize the work flow a bit differently, using a bigger group, and sub-committees, to do a first read on papers. We hope that this will reduce the reading load for everyone. In order for this to work, however, we’ll need everyone’s cooperation on the timeline, which is why we’ll need to agree one soon (a suggested timeline is below). That way everyone can mark their calendars now.

This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph.

I’ve also attached a first draft of a call for papers. Your comments would be welcome. Please note carefully the proposed timeline. Ideally, we would issue the CFP in a few days.

The Website. I’ve also got the bare bones of our website up at robots.law.miami.edu/2016. In order to give it a bit more life, I would be very grateful if you would each send me one to three paragraphs about either why you like We Robot or who you would like to see at We Robot. The “why I like it” paragraphs will do double duty as they may also find their way into our fundraising packet.

The conferencing system. We’re going to try a new means of managing the paper flow since past year’s systems haven’t been wonderful (and the one two years ago was dreadful). It lives at https://cmt.research.microsoft.com/ROBOT2016/. The main web page for the conference will be at robots.law.miami.edu/2016, but I’m still trying to get some tech issues sorted there so it’s a few days away from ready-for-prime-time.

The timeline. Thanks to our student assistant Bryson Stafford, here’s a first try at a timeline:

Papers due Nov 1
[subcommittees read & vote via online system]
Subcommittee conf call Nov. 8, 5:30pm-7 Eastern (if needed)
Subcommittee decisions due Dec 11
[Intensive reading by all & voting via online system]
Full committee conf call 1: Nov 16 5:30-7pm Eastern
Full committee conf call 2: 18th 5:30pm-7 Eastern (if needed)
Full committee tentative decision Nov 23
Public announcement by Dec 4

Please scrutinize the above carefully. Calendars are my Achilles Heel.

Fundraising. Thanks to Ryan and Dan for pledging support from their home centers! Fundraising is progressing, and we’re actually ahead of where we were 2 years ago, but there’s still a great deal more to do because our budget will be larger due to the workshops. If each of you could identify two strong prospects, we’d probably be done. I’m particularly interested in contacts at Google, robotics companies, professional associations and, well, anyone else who might be interested. You could approach them, or send me the contact info, let me use your name, and I’ll do the ask. Some materials are linked on the Sponsor page, and I’m in the process of creating more.

Cite as: Michael Froomkin, Should Send ONE Para to Zeta v2, JOTWELL (September 13, 2015) (reviewing R. Rossum, Clank, 23 Univ. Rob. L. 38 (2200)), https://zetasec.jotwell.com/should-send-one-para-to-zeta/.

Should Send FOUR Paras to Zeta v2

R. Rossum, Clank, 3 Univ. Rob. L. 38 (2200).

Welcome to the Program Committee. This year we are planning to organize the work flow a bit differently, using a bigger group, and sub-committees, to do a first read on papers. We hope that this will reduce the reading load for everyone. In order for this to work, however, we’ll need everyone’s cooperation on the timeline, which is why we’ll need to agree one soon (a suggested timeline is below). That way everyone can mark their calendars now.

This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph.This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph. This is a new paragraph.

I’ve also attached a first draft of a call for papers. Your comments would be welcome. Please note carefully the proposed timeline. Ideally, we would issue the CFP in a few days.

The Website. I’ve also got the bare bones of our website up at robots.law.miami.edu/2016. In order to give it a bit more life, I would be very grateful if you would each send me one to three paragraphs about either why you like We Robot or who you would like to see at We Robot. The “why I like it” paragraphs will do double duty as they may also find their way into our fundraising packet.

The conferencing system. We’re going to try a new means of managing the paper flow since past year’s systems haven’t been wonderful (and the one two years ago was dreadful). It lives at https://cmt.research.microsoft.com/ROBOT2016/. The main web page for the conference will be at robots.law.miami.edu/2016, but I’m still trying to get some tech issues sorted there so it’s a few days away from ready-for-prime-time.

The timeline. Thanks to our student assistant Bryson Stafford, here’s a first try at a timeline:

Papers due Nov 1
[subcommittees read & vote via online system]
Subcommittee conf call Nov. 8, 5:30pm-7 Eastern (if needed)
Subcommittee decisions due Dec 11
[Intensive reading by all & voting via online system]
Full committee conf call 1: Nov 16 5:30-7pm Eastern
Full committee conf call 2: 18th 5:30pm-7 Eastern (if needed)
Full committee tentative decision Nov 23
Public announcement by Dec 4

Please scrutinize the above carefully. Calendars are my Achilles Heel.

Fundraising. Thanks to Ryan and Dan for pledging support from their home centers! Fundraising is progressing, and we’re actually ahead of where we were 2 years ago, but there’s still a great deal more to do because our budget will be larger due to the workshops. If each of you could identify two strong prospects, we’d probably be done. I’m particularly interested in contacts at Google, robotics companies, professional associations and, well, anyone else who might be interested. You could approach them, or send me the contact info, let me use your name, and I’ll do the ask. Some materials are linked on the Sponsor page, and I’m in the process of creating more.

Cite as: Michael Froomkin, Should Send FOUR Paras to Zeta v2, JOTWELL (September 13, 2015) (reviewing R. Rossum, Clank, 3 Univ. Rob. L. 38 (2200)), https://zetasec.jotwell.com/should-send-four-paras-to-zeta/.

Let’s Test the _Blank Code

Of the many things that may cause us to admire an article, one is the author’s identification of a meaningful relationship between fields that had otherwise seemed entirely disparate. In the past year, two pieces—Tony Reese’s Be Careful Where You Die and Brad Greenberg’s DOMA’s Ghost and Copyright Reversionary Interests—identified just such a non-obvious nexus between a popular issue of great social importance (marriage equality) and a relatively obscure topic of great statutory technicality (termination of copyright transfers).

Both of these articles explore issues raised by two of copyright’s distinctive future interest provisions. Descendants of authors whose copyrights vested prior to 1978 are statutorily entitled, under certain conditions, to reversionary interests in those copyrights. And heirs of any authors stand to inherit the inalienable right to terminate transfers established by the Copyright Act of 1976. The trick, in each case, is that the heirs who enjoy these potential future interests—typically, the surviving spouse and children—are determined by statute, regardless of an author’s estate plan or preferences to the contrary.

The marriage equality implications of these provisions that both Greenberg and Reese note is that in a country where some states recognize same-sex marriage and others do not, same-sex partners of authors suffer a relative disadvantage. Since copyright’s future interest provisions tend to defer to state definitions of marriage, the couple’s celebration of a valid union in one state could still mean that the surviving partner would not be recognized as a “spouse” depending on the state of the other’s death.

Of course, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, we no longer live in such a country. The Court’s eliminates many of the immediately pressing social concerns raised by both authors. (Though it does not, as Reese observes, eliminate them all. Same-sex marriage remains unrecognized in many foreign jurisdictions, so should a couple be domiciliaries of a nation that does not recognize their union, they may remain subject to unequal treatment.)

And while one might think that Obergefell brings down the curtain on the problems identified by Reese and Greenberg, a deeper look shows just the opposite: The marriage equality issue is just one valence of copyright’s largely unexplored family law. The Copyright Act’s future interest provisions privilege a particular view of traditional marital and family structures that operate to the detriment of any author, regardless of sexual orientation, who does not adhere to those traditional norms.

Copyright’s familial structures work well for those who are in happy, traditional nuclear families. If you have an opposite-sex spouse and some kids, and you want them and only them to get your copyright-related future interests (e.g., termination rights or reversionary interests), the statute locks in that preference. But if you are not a member of a traditional nuclear family, securing these interests for those you care about is more complicated. These difficulties may no longer disproportionately burden same-sex couples, but it still works to the detriment of, say, authors who are in committed opposite-sex relationships that have not been memorialized by state-sanctioned marriage. Authors who simply choose not to pursue romantic relationships at all would similarly find themselves at a relative disadvantage, while copyright’s familial assumptions are simply incoherent as applied to the polyamorous (the Act’s use of “surviving spouse” is conspicuously singular). Copyright’s presumptions about family and author preferences may also work to the detriment of authors’ interests even when the author does fit into social norms about matrimony and reproduction. If you have a miscreant kid whom you don’t trust to take care of his part of your literary estate, or a beloved niece who you want to take charge of your literary estate, you’re out of luck: The Copyright Act entitles all an author’s children to a share of her reversion copyright or termination rights (and excludes more distant blood relations), regardless of whether that descendant is included in or disinherited by the author’s will.

Yet as Reese notes in the normative section of Be Careful Where You Die, it’s easier to point out these problems than to remedy them. The whole point of including family-friendly statutory overrides of an author’s testamentary intent was to make sure that the purpose of copyright termination and reversion was not undermined by having authors just devise their future interests to assignees and licensees. This is the bigger issue that is signaled in, but not resolved by, both articles: Does rendering an author’s posthumous rights inalienable requires picking some individuals who will benefit from those rights? Or is there some other statutory structure that would maintain inalienability without disadvantaging authors who do not adhere to a standard hetero- and repro-normative lifestyle?

Like all good work, Anthony Reese’s Be Careful When You Die and Brad Greenberg’s DOMA’s Ghost push readers to ask hard questions that lack easy answers. I was first drawn to these pieces by the novelty of their core insights about the rarely examined nexus between marriage equality and termination of copyright transfers. But Reese’s and Greenberg’s thoughtful analyses do more than just call attention to a doctrinal issue that has been largely (if not entirely) resolved by Obergefell. By shining a light on the underexplored assumptions animating the Copyright Act’s provisions instantiating and privileging a particular vision of the family, both articles open the door to investigations of the entanglement of copyright and family law beyond marriage equality.

David Fagundes, Copyright’s Family Law, JOTWELL (August 11, 2015) (reviewing Anthony Reese, Be Careful Where You Die: Termination of Copyright Transfers and the Road to Marriage Equality, IP Theory (forthcoming, 2015) available at SSRN and Brad Greenberg, DOMA’s Ghost and Copyright Reversionary Interests, 108 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2014). ),http://ip.jotwell.com/?p=748.

Should Send TWO Paras to Zeta

R. Rossum, Clank, 3 Univ. Rob. L. 220 (2200).

Welcome to the Program Committee. This year we are planning to organize the work flow a bit differently, using a bigger group, and sub-committees, to do a first read on papers. We hope that this will reduce the reading load for everyone. In order for this to work, however, we’ll need everyone’s cooperation on the timeline, which is why we’ll need to agree one soon (a suggested timeline is below). That way everyone can mark their calendars now.

I’ve also attached a first draft of a call for papers. Your comments would be welcome. Please note carefully the proposed timeline. Ideally, we would issue the CFP in a few days.

The Website. I’ve also got the bare bones of our website up at robots.law.miami.edu/2016. In order to give it a bit more life, I would be very grateful if you would each send me one to three paragraphs about either why you like We Robot or who you would like to see at We Robot. The “why I like it” paragraphs will do double duty as they may also find their way into our fundraising packet.

The conferencing system. We’re going to try a new means of managing the paper flow since past year’s systems haven’t been wonderful (and the one two years ago was dreadful). It lives at https://cmt.research.microsoft.com/ROBOT2016/. The main web page for the conference will be at robots.law.miami.edu/2016, but I’m still trying to get some tech issues sorted there so it’s a few days away from ready-for-prime-time.

The timeline. Thanks to our student assistant Bryson Stafford, here’s a first try at a timeline:

Papers due Nov 1
[subcommittees read & vote via online system]
Subcommittee conf call Nov. 8, 5:30pm-7 Eastern (if needed)
Subcommittee decisions due Dec 11
[Intensive reading by all & voting via online system]
Full committee conf call 1: Nov 16 5:30-7pm Eastern
Full committee conf call 2: 18th 5:30pm-7 Eastern (if needed)
Full committee tentative decision Nov 23
Public announcement by Dec 4

Please scrutinize the above carefully. Calendars are my Achilles Heel.

Fundraising. Thanks to Ryan and Dan for pledging support from their home centers! Fundraising is progressing, and we’re actually ahead of where we were 2 years ago, but there’s still a great deal more to do because our budget will be larger due to the workshops. If each of you could identify two strong prospects, we’d probably be done. I’m particularly interested in contacts at Google, robotics companies, professional associations and, well, anyone else who might be interested. You could approach them, or send me the contact info, let me use your name, and I’ll do the ask. Some materials are linked on the Sponsor page, and I’m in the process of creating more.

Cite as: Michael Froomkin, Should Send TWO Paras to Zeta, JOTWELL (September 5, 2015) (reviewing R. Rossum, Clank, 3 Univ. Rob. L. 220 (2200)), https://zetasec.jotwell.com/should-send-two-paras-to-zeta/.

Should NOT Go to Zeta

R. Rossum, 3 Universal R.L. 23 (2200).

Welcome to the Program Committee. This year we are planning to organize the work flow a bit differently, using a bigger group, and sub-committees, to do a first read on papers. We hope that this will reduce the reading load for everyone. In order for this to work, however, we’ll need everyone’s cooperation on the timeline, which is why we’ll need to agree one soon (a suggested timeline is below). That way everyone can mark their calendars now.

I’ve also attached a first draft of a call for papers. Your comments would be welcome. Please note carefully the proposed timeline. Ideally, we would issue the CFP in a few days.

The Website. I’ve also got the bare bones of our website up at robots.law.miami.edu/2016. In order to give it a bit more life, I would be very grateful if you would each send me one to three paragraphs about either why you like We Robot or who you would like to see at We Robot. The “why I like it” paragraphs will do double duty as they may also find their way into our fundraising packet.

The conferencing system. We’re going to try a new means of managing the paper flow since past year’s systems haven’t been wonderful (and the one two years ago was dreadful). It lives at https://cmt.research.microsoft.com/ROBOT2016/. The main web page for the conference will be at robots.law.miami.edu/2016, but I’m still trying to get some tech issues sorted there so it’s a few days away from ready-for-prime-time.

The timeline. Thanks to our student assistant Bryson Stafford, here’s a first try at a timeline:

Papers due Nov 1
[subcommittees read & vote via online system]
Subcommittee conf call Nov. 8, 5:30pm-7 Eastern (if needed)
Subcommittee decisions due Dec 11
[Intensive reading by all & voting via online system]
Full committee conf call 1: Nov 16 5:30-7pm Eastern
Full committee conf call 2: 18th 5:30pm-7 Eastern (if needed)
Full committee tentative decision Nov 23
Public announcement by Dec 4

Please scrutinize the above carefully. Calendars are my Achilles Heel.

Fundraising. Thanks to Ryan and Dan for pledging support from their home centers! Fundraising is progressing, and we’re actually ahead of where we were 2 years ago, but there’s still a great deal more to do because our budget will be larger due to the workshops. If each of you could identify two strong prospects, we’d probably be done. I’m particularly interested in contacts at Google, robotics companies, professional associations and, well, anyone else who might be interested. You could approach them, or send me the contact info, let me use your name, and I’ll do the ask. Some materials are linked on the Sponsor page, and I’m in the process of creating more.

Cite as: Michael Froomkin, Should NOT Go to Zeta, JOTWELL (September 5, 2015) (reviewing R. Rossum, 3 Universal R.L. 23 (2200)), https://zetasec.jotwell.com/should-not-go-to-zeta/.