Podcasts about professor epstein

Discussing Birthright Citizenship, with Professor Richard Epstein In this episode of The Rational Egoist, Michael Liebowitz engages with Professor Richard Epstein, the esteemed Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. Together, they explore the concept of birthright citizenship, examining its historical roots, legal interpretations, and implications for modern society. Professor Epstein's unparalleled expertise sheds light on the complexities of this contentious issue, offering insights that challenge conventional thinking and provoke thoughtful debate. Description:

Ralston College Humanities MA   Dr Paul Epstein is a distinguished classicist and Professor Emeritus of Classics at Oklahoma State University, renowned for his extensive knowledge of Greek and Latin literature.  In this lecture and discussion—delivered in Savannah during the x term of the inaugural year of Ralston College's MA in the Humanities program—classicist Dr Paul Epstein considers how Sophocles's tragedy Women of Trachis and Aristophanes's comedy Frogs arise from—and reflect upon—the polis-centered polytheism of ancient Greece as it appeared during the Athenian flourishing of the fifth century BC. Professor Epstein explores how these Greek dramas articulate the relationship between human beings, the gods, and the community. Tragedy, in Professor Epstein's account, is about the overall structure of the community, while comedy starts with the individual's exploration of that community. Yet both forms ultimately reveal an understanding of the individual that is inseparable from the polis in which he or she lives. Professor Epstein argues that our contemporary notion of the self as an entity fundamentally separate from context would be entirely alien to the ancient Greeks. Grasping this ancient understanding of the individual is vitally necessary if we are to correctly interpret the literary and philosophical texts of Hellenic antiquity. *In this lecture and discussion, classicist Dr. Paul Epstein considers how Sophocles's tragedy Women of Trachis and Aristophanes's comedy Frogs arise from—and reflect upon—the polis-centered polytheism of ancient Greece during the Athenian flourishing of the fifth century BC. Professor Epstein explores how these Greek dramas articulate the relationship between human beings, the gods, and the community. Tragedy, in Professor Epstein's account, is about the overall structure of the community, while comedy starts with the individual's exploration of that community. Yet both forms ultimately reveal an understanding of the individual that is inseparable from the polis in which he or she lives. Professor Epstein argues that our contemporary notion of the self as an entity fundamentally separate from context would be entirely alien to the ancient Greeks. Grasping this ancient understanding of the individual is vitally necessary if we are to correctly interpret the literary and philosophical texts of Hellenic antiquity.   —   0:00 Introduction of Professor Epstein by President Blackwood 6:25 The Polytheistic World of the Polis 01:09:35 Dialogue with Students on Polytheism and the Polis 01:22:40 Sophocles's Women of Trachis 01:44:10 Dialogue with Students About Women of Trachis 01:56:10 Introduction to Aristophanes' Frogs 02:24:40 Dialogue with Students About Frogs  02:49:45 Closing Remarks for Professor Epstein's Lecture   —   Authors, Ideas, and Works Mentioned in This Episode:    Athenian flourishing of the fifth century BC  Sophocles, Women of Trachis  Aristophanes, Frogs William Shakespeare Plato, Symposium Aristophanes, Lysistrata Homer, Odyssey  Aristotle, Poetics Peloponnesian War   Plato, Apology nomizó (νομίζω)—translated in the talk as “acknowledge” nous (νοῦς) binein (Βινέω)  Johann Joachim Winkelman  Nicene Creed  Titanic v. Olympian gods  Hesiod  Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility  Sigmund Freud  Existentialism  techne (τέχνη) logos (λόγος) eros (Ἔρως)  hubris (ὕβρις) Philip Larkin, “Annus Mirabilis”  Athansian Creed psuche (ψυχή)—translated in the talk as “soul” thelo (θέλω)—translated in the talk as “wishes”  Aristophanes, Clouds mimesis (μίμησις)  —   Additional Resources    Dr Stephen Blackwood    Ralston College (including newsletter)   Support a New Beginning    —   Thank you for listening!  

Dr Robert Epstein is an American psychologist, professor, author, and journalist. He is the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today and founder of the American Institute for Behavioural Research and Technology. As well as authoring many books on psychology, Professor Epstein has been an outspoken critic of Google and the influence of Big Tech on democratic processes, noting the danger of “allowing big technology companies to decide which news stories are legitimate”. On this episode of BASED, Senator Antic and Professor Epstein discuss Big Tech's control over access to information online, and how such a monopoly can undermine our democratic process.

Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes back to the podcast Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Steve Renau, Husch Blackwell's Head of Thought Leadership, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Court held 6-3 that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial requires the SEC to pursue civil penalties for securities-fraud violations in federal court. No longer can the SEC rely on its own in-house tribunal to secure these penalties. Although Jarkesy applies only to the SEC, the Court's reasoning could have far-reaching implications across a number of federal agencies, particularly when “the ‘public rights' exception to Article III jurisdiction does not apply.”Our discussion highlights the administrative law history that was brought to bear upon the case and how it was that the adjudication of civil penalties came to be matters before non-Article III courts. We then pivot to some of the impacts Jarkesy could have in the future, including whether the Supreme Court will take up related issues of due process in future challenges to federal agency enforcement actions.Finally, we discuss Jarkesy in light of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision that ended the doctrine of Chevron deference and the implications of both decisions for administrative agencies and the private businesses they regulate.Gregg N. Sofer BiographyFull BiographyGregg counsels businesses and individuals in connection with a range of criminal, civil and regulatory matters, including government investigations, internal investigations, litigation, export control, sanctions, and regulatory compliance. Prior to entering private practice, Gregg served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas—one of the largest and busiest United States Attorney's Offices in the country—where he supervised more than 300 employees handling a diverse caseload, including matters involving complex white-collar crime, government contract fraud, national security, cyber-crimes, public corruption, money laundering, export violations, trade secrets, tax, large-scale drug and human trafficking, immigration, child exploitation and violent crime.Richard Epstein BiographyRichard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.Professor Epstein has published work on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporation criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation.Epstein's most recent book publication is The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020). Other works include The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2014); Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011); The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (2009); Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (2008); How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (2006); Overdose (2006); and Free Markets under Siege: Cartels, Politics, and Social Welfare (2005).He received a BA degree in philosophy summa cum laude from Columbia in 1964; a BA degree in law with first-class honors from Oxford University in 1966; and an LLB degree cum laude, from the Yale Law School in 1968. Upon graduation he joined the faculty at the University of Southern California, where he taught until 1972. In 1972, he visited the University of Chicago and became a regular member of the faculty the following year.He has been a senior fellow at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics since 1984 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985. In 2011, Epstein was a recipient of the Bradley Prize for outstanding achievement. In 2005, the College of William & Mary School of Law awarded him the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize.Additional ResourcesThe Justice Insiders, “The Administrative State Is Not Your Friend: A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein” (Episode 7), June 21, 2022The Justice Insiders, “SEC Plays Chicken with Jarkesy” (Episode 18), October 16, 2023U.S. Supreme Court, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, June 27, 2024Gregg N. Sofer and Joseph S. Diedrich, “Landmark Supreme Court Decisions Restrain Federal Administrative Agency Power,” June 28, 2024© 2024 Husch Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved. This information is intended only to provide general information in summary form on legal and business topics of the day. The contents hereof do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific legal advice should be sought in particular matters.

Send us a Text Message.Confessions by criminal defendants are regarded as the most powerful evidence of guilt. So why would an innocent person confess to a crime they did not commit? That question and the troubling issue of false confessions is at the heart of the research of Professor Saul Kassin, the author of Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions. Professor Kassin is the distinguished Professor of Psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Professor Emeritus at Williams College. He is regarded as the foremost expert on false confessions. He has served as an expert consultant in many high-profile cases and as a TV analyst. His work has been widely cited including by the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada. We are also joined by Professor Jules Epstein from Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia. Professor Epstein is a practicing criminal defense lawyer, and also an expert on scientific evidence. He is the co-author of Scientific Evidence Review: Admissibility and the Use of Expert Evidence in the Courtroom, Monograph No. 9 

New Ep is Up! Bankers brought the global economic system to its knees in 2007 and nearly did the same in 2020. Both times, the US government bailed out the banks and left them in control. How can we end this cycle of trillion-dollar bailouts and make finance work for the rest of us? Busting the Bankers' Club confronts the powerful people and institutions that benefit from our broken financial system—and the struggle to create an alternative.Today we have Professor Gerald Epstein, author of Busting the Bankers' Club: Finance for the Rest of Us. It was a great talk, about the history of banking regulation, the revolving door between government and industry that poisons our financial system, central bank independence, a fascinating concept called public banking, and my favorite topic, bailouts, what does that word even mean, who is getting bailed out, and WHY. Listen up, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, you should have Professor Epstein on, because that last question boils down to privatization of profits and socialization of losses, a favorite topic of Mr. Stewart's. Follow Professor Epstein on LinkedIn or at UMass Amherst. Buy the book here or wherever books are sold.

#PREVIEW: #SCOTUS: #IMMUNITY: #DOUBLE-JEOPARDY: Richard Epstein of Hoover analyzes the claim of immunity by former president Donald J. Trump prior to oral arguments before a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. Much more to say of this Friday 12 January with Professor Epstein. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/appeals-court-judges-probetrumps-immunity-claim-in-election-interference-case/ar-AA1mGLDb 1909 President Theodore Rooevelt's desk.

The Rational Egoist: Unpacking the Colorado Decision with Richard Epstein In this compelling episode of "The Rational Egoist," host Michael Liebowitz welcomes the distinguished Professor Richard Epstein for an enlightening discussion on the recent Colorado decision that excluded Donald Trump from the ballot. Professor Epstein, a revered figure with affiliations to the Hoover Institution, NYU Law School, and the University of Chicago, brings his vast legal expertise to analyze this controversial ruling. Throughout the conversation, Professor Epstein delves into the intricate legal nuances and constitutional implications of the decision. He offers a critical examination of the case's impact on electoral integrity and individual rights, providing listeners with a clear understanding of the legal principles at play. With his unique blend of academic rigor and practical insight, Professor Epstein challenges the audience to think deeply about the balance between collective governance and individual freedoms. Join us in this episode as we navigate the complex intersections of law, politics, and individual rights, shedding light on a decision that has stirred significant public debate. "The Rational Egoist" continues to offer a platform for thoughtful, informed discussions that resonate with those who value reason and individualism in public discourse. Michael Leibowitz is a renowned philosopher, political activist, and the esteemed host of the Rational Egoist podcast. Inspired by the philosophical teachings of Ayn Rand, Leibowitz passionately champions the principles of reason, rational self-interest, and individualism, seeking to empower others through his compelling work. His life's narrative exemplifies the transformative power of Ayn Rand's writings. Having faced challenging circumstances that led to a 25-year prison sentence, Leibowitz emerged from adversity by embracing the tenets of rational self-interest and moral philosophy put forth by Ayn Rand. This profound transformation propelled him to become an influential figure in the libertarian and Objectivist communities, motivating others to adopt reason, individualism, and self-interest in their own lives. Beyond his impactful podcasting endeavors, Leibowitz fearlessly engages in lively political debates, advocating for the protection of individual rights and freedoms through compelling YouTube videos and insightful interviews. His unwavering commitment to these ideals has garnered him a dedicated following of like-minded individuals. Leibowitz is a versatile author, co-authoring the thought-provoking book titled “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime.” This groundbreaking work delves into societal attitudes surrounding punishment and rehabilitation, shedding light on how misguided approaches have contributed to the rise of crime and recidivism. Additionally, he has authored the book “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” offering an intimate portrayal of his personal journey while exploring the philosophies that influenced his transformation. As you embark on your intellectual journey, join Michael Leibowitz as he advocates for reason, individualism, and the pursuit of self-interest, inspiring others to embrace a philosophy that empowers and uplifts the human spirit. For a deeper exploration of his ideas and insights, don't miss the opportunity to read “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime,” co-authored by Michael Leibowitz. And also, delve into his book “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty.” Both books are available for purchase using the following links: “Down the Rabbit Hole”: https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X “View from a Cage”: https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj

Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes back to the podcast Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, a case that has the potential to vastly alter the way the SEC initiates and adjudicates enforcement proceedings, as well as its ability to choose its own in-house venue for those proceedings.Gregg N. Sofer BiographyFull BiographyGregg counsels businesses and individuals in connection with a range of criminal, civil and regulatory matters, including government investigations, internal investigations, litigation, export control, sanctions, and regulatory compliance. Prior to entering private practice, Gregg served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas—one of the largest and busiest United States Attorney's Offices in the country—where he supervised more than 300 employees handling a diverse caseload, including matters involving complex white-collar crime, government contract fraud, national security, cyber-crimes, public corruption, money laundering, export violations, trade secrets, tax, large-scale drug and human trafficking, immigration, child exploitation and violent crime.Richard Epstein BiographyRichard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.Professor Epstein has published work on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporation criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation.Epstein's most recent book publication is The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020). Other works include The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2014); Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011); The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (2009); Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (2008); How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (2006); Overdose (2006); and Free Markets under Siege: Cartels, Politics, and Social Welfare (2005).He received a BA degree in philosophy summa cum laude from Columbia in 1964; a BA degree in law with first-class honors from Oxford University in 1966; and an LLB degree cum laude, from the Yale Law School in 1968. Upon graduation he joined the faculty at the University of Southern California, where he taught until 1972. In 1972, he visited the University of Chicago and became a regular member of the faculty the following year.He has been a senior fellow at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics since 1984 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985. In 2011, Epstein was a recipient of the Bradley Prize for outstanding achievement. In 2005, the College of William & Mary School of Law awarded him the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize.Additional ResourcesJarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 20-61007 (5th Cir. May 18, 2022).SCOTUSblog, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

Richard Epstein takes us behind the scenes on the Amicus Brief he wrote with John Yoo about a Supreme Court case that has important implications for what kind of income is allowed to be taxed.

Richard Epstein takes us behind the scenes on the Amicus Brief he wrote with John Yoo about a Supreme Court case that has important implications for what kind of income is allowed to be taxed.

It's said that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. The State of California has repurposed this adage lately, finding ways to remake the country in its own progressive image through the food industry. The last time Professor Richard Epstein joined the show, we took up the “pig case” aka NPPC v. Ross. The Supreme Court is now deciding whether California can foist its values on the rest of the country through regulations that would impact pork producers nationwide. Based on oral arguments in October, it looks like it will be a close call. Meanwhile, a new battle has been brewing over fast food restaurants and other franchises in the Golden State. Governor Newsom signed the FAST Recovery Act (AB 257) into law on Labor Day, celebrating the bill's dramatic minimum increase from $15 to $22 for fast food and other franchise workers. Organized labor cheered, but the bill has now been put on hold until voters can weigh in by referendum in 2024. We can hope that voters will see through the bill's lofty promises for workers to the harms of minimum wage increases for workers, employers, and consumers alike. Even the Washington Post called the bill “ham-handed.” Professor Epstein joins me to review the economic case against the minimum wage. However, this is not like normal minimum wage legislation. The FAST Recovery Act also gives sweeping new powers to the state – and “Emperor Newsom” in particular – to regulate every aspect of thousands of businesses in California that qualify as large franchises. Such powers were unthinkable for the Founders, but Epstein points out that the courts have increasingly deferred to state authority since the New Deal Era. The FAST Act takes the administrative overreach that has become common and goes a step fruther – consolidating that power into the governor's hand. Beyond the possibility of overturning the law by citizen vote, Epstein sees a larger opportunity to challenge its constitutionality on equal protection grounds – setting a precedent for similar cases of power grabs by state executives. The battlelines have been drawn. To quote an old Union hymn, Which Side Are You On? Team Liberty or Team Newsom?

John is joined by renowned American legal scholar Richard A. Epstein for a discussion about American society in the wake of the overturn of Roe vs. Wade by the Supreme Court. Professor Epstein traces major changes in American legal theory and governance from independence through to the present, highlighting the shift in legislative power from the local to the national level and increasing activism by and politicisation of the Supreme Court.

In this episode of The Justice Insiders, we welcome Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. Host Gregg Sofer and co-host Steve Renau explore with Professor Epstein the implications stemming from the recent Fifth Circuit decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, as well as possible future developments with respect to administrative law and regulatory compliance.Richard Epstein BiographyRichard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.Professor Epstein researches and has published work on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporation criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation.Epstein's most recent book publication is The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020). Other works include The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2014); Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011); The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (Hoover Institution Press, 2009); Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (2008); How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (2006); Overdose (2006); and Free Markets under Siege: Cartels, Politics, and Social Welfare (Hoover Institution Press, 2005).He received a BA degree in philosophy summa cum laude from Columbia in 1964; a BA degree in law with first-class honors from Oxford University in 1966; and an LLB degree cum laude, from the Yale Law School in 1968. Upon graduation he joined the faculty at the University of Southern California, where he taught until 1972. In 1972, he visited the University of Chicago and became a regular member of the faculty the following year.He has been a senior fellow at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics since 1984 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985. In 2011, Epstein was a recipient of the Bradley Prize for outstanding achievement. In 2005, the College of William & Mary School of Law awarded him the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize.Links of InterestJarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 20-61007 (5th Cir. May 18, 2022).Epstein, Richard A. The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law. Rowman & Littlefield. 2020.Diedrich, Joseph S. “Judicial Deference to Municipal Interpretation,” 49 Fordham Urb. L.J. 807 (2022).

Richard Epstein covers our new Supreme Court Justice's legal background, California's overreach on pork, Merrick Garland's January 6th investigation, and Elon Musk's new position on Twitter's board.

Richard Epstein covers our new Supreme Court Justice's legal background, California's overreach on pork, Merrick Garland's January 6th investigation, and Elon Musk's new position on Twitter's board.

It's hard to ignore the role of wine during the Passover Seder. It's also hard to ignore the haggadah at a Passover Seder. So what about wine in the Passover Haggadah? To discuss wine in Medieval Haggadah Art is Professor Marc Michael Epstein.Professor Epstein is the Professor of Religion on the Mattie M. Paschall Davis and Norman H. Davis Chair and Director of Jewish Studies at Vassar College. He has written on various topics in visual and material culture produced by, for, and about Jews. His most recent book, Skies Of Parchment, Seas of Ink: Jewish Illuminated Manuscripts (Princeton, 2015) was the winner of the National Jewish Book Award. His The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, and Religious Imagination (Yale, 2011) was selected by the London Times Literary Supplement as one of the best books of 2011. He is a graduate of Oberlin College, received his PhD at Yale University, and did much of his graduate research at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/JewishDrinking)

Frequent guest, the erudite and always interesting Richard Epstein – aka “the Libertarian” – joins me to review the first year of the Biden Administration. We will discuss the infrastructure bill, changes to the tax and regulatory code, the COVID response, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and more.Last time, I spoke with Professor Epstein's about his book [*The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law](https://www.amazon.com/Dubious-Morality-Modern-Administrative-Law/dp/1538141493)* (published by the Manhattan Institute) – a 200-page *tour de force* and a must-read for any student of modern American government*.* After providing context for the history of the administrative state pre-New Deal, it shows how case after case set dangerous precedents requiring courts to defer to agency actions when the law in question is ambiguous.Tune in for the Professor's report card on Biden's handling of the economy, foreign policy, and pandemic response. Epstein has been critical of government intervention in the economy since the beginning of COVID, which he says is now clearly *en*demic.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 364. This is my Soho Forum debate held Nov. 15, 2021, in Manhattan, against professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "all patent and copyright law should be abolished" and Professor Epstein opposed it. Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 20 to 29 percentage points, gaining about 9; Richard went from about 44 to 55%, gaining about 11, so he won by 1.7 percentage points. My notes, and a Transcript, are below. Postmortem episode to follow. Update: See KOL369 | Soho Forum IP Debate Post-Mortem with Greg Morin. Note: Reddit forums discussing the debate. Youtube: https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys See Gene Epstein's note about Oxford debate rules at Soho Forum and the margin of error: From Reason: Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? Patent lawyer Stephan Kinsella debates Law Professor Richard Epstein GENE EPSTEIN | 11.24.2021 1:00 PM Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? The United States Constitution explicitly calls for copyright and patent laws  to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by "authors and inventors." But would getting rid of all intellectual property laws actually encourage more creativity and innovation by inventors, writers, and artists? That was the topic of a November 15 Soho Forum debate held in New York City. Stephan Kinsella, who's spent 28 years as a practicing patent law attorney, argued in favor of the proposition that "all patent and copyright law should be abolished." He believes that government-created intellectual property laws empower patent and copyright trolls and powerful corporate interests while limiting the free flow of information, thus reducing the rate of innovation and creativity. Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, says that our current system isn't perfect but sees copyright and patents as a natural extension of private property rights and believes that it should be defended by libertarians accordingly. The debate took place in New York City in front of a live audience and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Production by Caveat. Photos by Brett Raney. In 2018, Gene Epstein retired from a 26-year stint as Economics and Books Editor at Barron's, where he wrote the weekly column, "Economic Beat." He's director of the Soho Forum, which he co-founded in 2016, a monthly debate series that receives fiscal sponsorship from the Reason Foundation. ❧ —✦— Kinsella Notes —✦— Resolved: All patent and copyright law should be abolished. A Soho Forum Debate Stephan Kinsella vs. Richard Epstein Nov. 15, 2021 Caveat, 21 A Clinton St. New York, NY 10002 MAIN PRESENTATION – NOTES Resolution: All patent and copyright law should be abolished Why? because these laws violate property rights, they violate freedom of speech and the press, they distort culture, they impede innovation, they literally kill people, and they impoverish the human race. There is nothing good about patent and copyright law. They are total abominations and harm humanity. They are a mistake. [No, you don't have to be an anarchist, anti-legislation, a Rothbardian, Austrian, or even a libertarian to oppose IP law] (By the way I've been practicing patent and IP law for 28 years, representing clients such as Intel, General Electric, and so on. So I have some rough idea of how the actual system works.) What are the laws in question? Copyright protects the right to copy of make “derivative works” of “original works of authorship” for the life of the author plus 70 years = 120–150 years. This is enforced by injunctions and legal protections, such as statutory damages of $150k per act of infringement

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 364. This is my Soho Forum debate held Nov. 15, 2021, in Manhattan, against professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "all patent and copyright law should be abolished" and Professor Epstein opposed it. Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 20 to 29 percentage points, gaining about 9; Richard went from about 44 to 55%, gaining about 11, so he won by 1.7 percentage points. Transcript and postmortem episode to follow. My notes are below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys From Reason: Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? Patent lawyer Stephan Kinsella debates Law Professor Richard Epstein GENE EPSTEIN | 11.24.2021 1:00 PM Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? The United States Constitution explicitly calls for copyright and patent laws  to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by "authors and inventors." But would getting rid of all intellectual property laws actually encourage more creativity and innovation by inventors, writers, and artists? That was the topic of a November 15 Soho Forum debate held in New York City. Stephan Kinsella, who's spent 28 years as a practicing patent law attorney, argued in favor of the proposition that "all patent and copyright law should be abolished." He believes that government-created intellectual property laws empower patent and copyright trolls and powerful corporate interests while limiting the free flow of information, thus reducing the rate of innovation and creativity. Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, says that our current system isn't perfect but sees copyright and patents as a natural extension of private property rights and believes that it should be defended by libertarians accordingly. The debate took place in New York City in front of a live audience and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Production by Caveat. Photos by Brett Raney. In 2018, Gene Epstein retired from a 26-year stint as Economics and Books Editor at Barron's, where he wrote the weekly column, "Economic Beat." He's director of the Soho Forum, which he co-founded in 2016, a monthly debate series that receives fiscal sponsorship from the Reason Foundation. ❧ —✦— Kinsella Notes —✦— Resolved: All patent and copyright law should be abolished. A Soho Forum Debate Stephan Kinsella vs. Richard Epstein Nov. 15, 2021 Caveat, 21 A Clinton St. New York, NY 10002 MAIN PRESENTATION – NOTES Resolution: All patent and copyright law should be abolished Why? because these laws violate property rights, they violate freedom of speech and the press, they distort culture, they impede innovation, they literally kill people, and they impoverish the human race. There is nothing good about patent and copyright law. They are total abominations and harm humanity. They are a mistake. [No, you don't have to be an anarchist, anti-legislation, a Rothbardian, Austrian, or even a libertarian to oppose IP law] (By the way I've been practicing patent and IP law for 28 years, representing clients such as Intel, General Electric, and so on. So I have some rough idea of how the actual system works.) What are the laws in question? Copyright protects the right to copy of make “derivative works” of “original works of authorship” for the life of the author plus 70 years = 120–150 years. This is enforced by injunctions and legal protections, such as statutory damages of $150k per act of infringement Patents protect the right of inventors to their inventions for 17 or so years. Also can be enforced by injunctions, unless the government grants a compulsory license There are obvious objections to these laws: they violate natural prop...

Curious about pro bono work? Interested in hearing from your professors? Listen to our podcast episode with Professor Jules Epstein about his experience working pro bono and his commitment to advancing the cause of justice. Professor Epstein is the Edward D. Ohlbaum Professor of Law and Director of Advocacy Programs. He is actively involved in pro bono work in addition to teaching criminal law and evidence courses at Temple. For more about Professor Epstein, visit the Law School Directory and Advocacy Is Portfolio. Links to Resources: Law Library Web Page: law.temple.edu/library Email: tulawlib@temple.edu Tags: #templeuniversitylawlibrary #law #templelaw #templeresources #tulawlib #lawresources #criminaldefenselaw #probono #probonowork #lawprofessor #studentresources

The men of Law Talk are getting Memorial Day weekend off to an early start with a spirited session in the faculty lounge. On the agenda: does a new Mississippi case mean Roe v. Wade is living on borrowed time? Does international law provide a remedy for a journalist’s imprisonment in Belarus? Or a potential lab leak in China? Will Florida get laughed out of court for attempting to regulate big tech on its own? And is the Supreme Court on the cusp of revolutionizing college sports? All that plus Professor Yoo has a gripe with President Biden that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, and Professor Epstein is … doing impressions of British economists? 

The men of Law Talk are getting Memorial Day weekend off to an early start with a spirited session in the faculty lounge. On the agenda: does a new Mississippi case mean Roe v. Wade is living on borrowed time? Does international law provide a remedy for a journalist’s imprisonment in Belarus? Or a potential lab leak in China? Will Florida get laughed out of court for attempting to regulate big tech on its own? And is the Supreme Court on the cusp of revolutionizing college sports? All that plus Professor Yoo has a gripe with President Biden that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, and Professor Epstein is … doing impressions of British economists? 

Richard Epstein analyzes the dramatic events of the last week through a legal prism: Did Congress really have the power to object to the electoral vote? Should President Trump be removed from office in light of the assault on the capitol? Does the prospect of President Trump pardoning himself call into question the breadth of the pardon power? Plus, a look back at the consequences of the 2016 Presidential election in which Professor Epstein finds himself in the rare position of finding a question too difficult to answer.

It’s out of the frying pan and into the fire, as professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo take us from the just-concluded drama of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings to the just-emerging drama over the Supreme Court’s role in the 2020 election. Along the way they consider how seriously we should take the court-packing threat; whether super-precedents are actually a thing; if Roe v. Wade and the ACA are actually in danger with a Justice Barrett on the court; and what the newest Supreme Court justice's judicial blindspot is most likely to be. Then it’s on to the Supreme Court’s unpredictable role in the 2020 presidential election. Will Chief Justice Roberts surprise us all again? Do any of the lessons of Bush v. Gore apply this year? And does ACB have a duty to recuse herself? Come for the top-shelf legal analysis, stay for Professor Epstein posing a grammar brainteaser for the ages.

It’s out of the frying pan and into the fire, as professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo take us from the just-concluded drama of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings to the just-emerging drama over the Supreme Court’s role in the 2020 election. Along the way they consider how seriously we should take the court-packing threat; whether super-precedents are actually a thing; if Roe v. Wade and the ACA are actually in danger with a Justice Barrett on the court; and what the newest Supreme Court justice's judicial blindspot is most likely to be. Then it’s on to the Supreme Court’s unpredictable role in the 2020 presidential election. Will Chief Justice Roberts surprise us all again? Do any of the lessons of Bush v. Gore apply this year? And does ACB have a duty to recuse herself? Come for the top-shelf legal analysis, stay for Professor Epstein posing a grammar brainteaser for the ages.

In their new book, Law and Leviathan: Redeeming the Administrative State, Harvard Law professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule mount a defense of the federal government’s maze of policymaking agencies and departments — institutions that many critics say operate outside of the nation’s constitutional architecture and any meaningful democratic controls.    Earlier this year, Professor Epstein released his own book, The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law, making precisely the opposite case. Tune in as Professor Epstein explains the differences between the two sides and explains what an effective, constitutionally-constrained administrative state would look like.

Richard Epstein is the Inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor at NYU School of Law. He has served as the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000. His newest book, The Dubious Morality of the Modern Administrative State, was published by the Manhattan Institute in November 2019. Today, he will discuss the impact of COVID-19 on higher education and the questionable assumptions that have been drawn from many COVID-19 models.Professor Epstein believes Americans have largely been given a false choise between either entirely shutting down our economy or letting COVID-19 run rampant through the population. He believes there is a much wider array of outcomes depdendent on variables we don’t yet fully understand. But overall, he believes the country should have a bias toward trying to safely reopen as fast as possible.Go to NoLabels.org to learn more about how we are bringing together a bipartisan group of public and private leaders working to solve America’s toughest problems. Follow No Labels and Gridlock Break Twitter • Facebook • Instagram

Progressives argue that modern problems demand a modern approach to governance – one which is incompatible with the Founders' view of limited, separated powers. The Constitution, it is held, must accommodate a wider role for administrative agencies to interpret laws and craft rules for unexpected situations that arise due to new technologies and threats to public safety. Since the New Deal era, these progressives have largely succeeded in bringing about their vision of a more expansive “administrative state.”I've done countless shows on the abuses of this fourth branch of government – including its “midnight regulations,” and stealthy rule-changes that turn law-abiding property owners into environmental criminals overnight. But perhaps I've been unfair to the proponents of the administrative state. After all, we can't expect Congress to foresee every contingency when they write laws, and some sort of administrative apparatus is necessary to maintain tax rolls, administer patents and so on. Professor Richard A. Epstein (aka “the Libertarian”) has kindly agreed to help me distinguish between these vital functions of the administrative state – which co-existed harmoniously with constitutional principles until the 20th century – from the illegitimate lawmaking that characterizes much of the modern administrative state. Professor Epstein's new book The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (published by the Manhattan Institute) is a 200-page tour de force and a must-read for any student of modern American government. After providing context for the history of the administrative state pre-New Deal, Epstein shows how case after case has set dangerous precedents requiring courts to defer to agency actions when the law in question is ambiguous. If you haven't been following my long-running series on the administrative state, this Sunday is your chance to catch up. For a primer, be sure to read my free 50-page guide The Shallow State to see what Classical Liberals are up against.We also discuss the changes brought by the Trump administration regarding the controversial “guidances” issued by administrative agencies – statements that function like final law without granting affected parties the right of de novo review – including the status of the Title IX “Dear Colleague” letters that led to so much confusion around the transgender bathroom issue.

In this conversation, Liberty Law Talk discusses with Professor Richard Epstein his new book Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law. Professor Epstein notes that the rule of law requires substantive commitments to generality in application and that it must ensure predictive efficacy if private property and commerce are to […]

What are the flaws of eyewitness testimony? Can we rely on it? And, how does it intersect with cognitive science?   Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Jules Epstein, of Temple’s Beasley Law School, to discuss eyewitness testimony. A professor of law and the Director of Advocacy Programs at Temple, Jules is an expert in today’s topic, with his research focusing on criminal law and procedure, evidence, trial advocacy, Pennsylvania Criminal Law and procedure, the death penalty, and forensic science. In today’s episode, Aaron and Jules discuss the idea of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, the science behind it, and the questions of whether or not it is reliable.   Can we trust what we see? Do we always remember things as clearly as we think we do? In today’s conversation, Jules breaks down some of the biggest reasons why eye witness testimony can be flawed, including the idea of ‘contaminated memory’. Aaron and Jules talk about the impact of developing sciences, such as DNA, and the effects they can have, as well as the role juries play in deciding and interpreting eyewitness testimony. Jules and Aaron discuss a recent case in which an innocent man was freed in Philadelphia after being wrongly convicted 27 years ago and Jules explains the significance that recreating the crime can have in assessing the risk of an eyewitness’ testimony. Aaron and Jules consider racial bias, super rememberers, estimator and system variables, and more throughout the conversation.     A graduate of Penn’s Carey Law, Professor Epstein began his legal career as a public defender with the Defender Association of Philadelphia. He is a former partner at Kairys, Ruovsky, Messing & Feinberg, LLP, where he remains of counsel. He was an adjunct professor at Penn from 1988 through 2006, has taught in and prepared materials for countless continuing legal education programs, and has authored dozens of articles and book chapters on criminal law and evidence topics.   Professor Epstein’s work has concentrated, in recent years, on capital case, eyewitness, and forensic issues. He has taught death penalty law nationally, and continues to handle capital cases at the appellate and post-conviction stages. Professor Epstein served as a member of the National Commission on Forensic Science from 2013 until the Commission’s demise in 2017. He is faculty for the National Judicial College, teaching courses to judges in advanced evidence and capital case law. In Pennsylvania, he is a member if a group of lawyers, judges and academics revising the Suggested Standard Jury Instruction, Criminal, and served on a commission addressing issues in cases of wrongful convictions.    To learn more about Professor Epstein, please visit his Bio here. To learn more about the Willie Veasy case, please click here.   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Jules Epstein     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Matt talks about the FBI indifferent to possible China hack of Hillary Clinton personal email. Professor Epstein hits back at Hillary Clinton on Google manipulating votes and Elizabeth Warren can't win because she's a woman.

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The symposium opened with a keynote lecture by Prof. Richard Epstein on "Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?"KEYNOTE TOPIC: Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?Is Lochner v New York constitutionally indefensible? It is commonly asserted that there are only four cases in American constitutional history that are beyond the pale: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v United States, and Lochner v. New York. The stark contrast between decisions that have thwarted economic and social liberties and the one case that defends it, should itself be sufficient to explain why economic liberties today deserve increased constitutional protection. In this lecture, Professor Epstein will examine the yawning gulf between Lochner and these three other decisions.Featuring:Grant Frazier, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of LawDean Douglas Sylvester, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of LawProf. Richard Epstein, New York University School of LawAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The symposium opened with a keynote lecture by Prof. Richard Epstein on "Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?"KEYNOTE TOPIC: Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?Is Lochner v New York constitutionally indefensible? It is commonly asserted that there are only four cases in American constitutional history that are beyond the pale: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v United States, and Lochner v. New York. The stark contrast between decisions that have thwarted economic and social liberties and the one case that defends it, should itself be sufficient to explain why economic liberties today deserve increased constitutional protection. In this lecture, Professor Epstein will examine the yawning gulf between Lochner and these three other decisions.Featuring:Grant Frazier, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of LawDean Douglas Sylvester, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of LawProf. Richard Epstein, New York University School of LawAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

34 Minutes Suitable for All Audiences Pete welcomes Professor Richard Epstein to the show. Prof. Epstein is the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. Professor Epstein comes on the show to take apart the proposed "Green New Deal," as well as comment on other programs pushed by Progressives such as the $15 minimum wage and Medicare for all. Professor Epstein at the Hoover Institute Wikipedia Page Pete's Patreon Pete's Bitbacker Pete's Books on Amazon Pete's Books Available for Crypto Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter  

In a jam-packed hour of Law Talk, Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are tackling all the big questions: Should Michael Avenatti stand trial for his role in the Kavanugh hearings? What does international law have to say about the Jamal Khashoggi murder? What power does President Trump have to stop the migrant caravan from Central America? Plus, we argue the merits of the Commerce Department (forgive us, its sweeps), get called to account for inadvisable World Series predictions, and learn what kind of taxi passenger Professor Epstein is (spoiler alert: chatty).Sponsored by Casper, RXBARJoin the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/law-talk/the-big-leagues/.Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/join/.Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

In a jam-packed hour of Law Talk, Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are tackling all the big questions: Should Michael Avenatti stand trial for his role in the Kavanugh hearings? What does international law have to say about the Jamal Khashoggi murder? What power does President Trump have to stop the migrant caravan from Central America? Plus, we argue the merits of the Commerce Department (forgive us, its sweeps), get called to account for inadvisable World Series predictions, and learn what kind of taxi passenger Professor Epstein is (spoiler alert: chatty).Sponsored by Casper, RXBARJoin the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/law-talk/the-big-leagues/.Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/join/.Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Professor Richard Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. He previously served as the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000. Professor Epstein is also the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago where he taught for 38 years. He is a prolific writer who has authored more than a dozen books on topics ranging from private property to torts, and anti-discrimination law to antitrust, a frequent podcaster and one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th century. I had Professor Epstein, one of the preeminent classical liberal thinkers in modern American history on the podcast to discuss a variety of topics including private property rights and eminent domain, why classical liberalism is the most sound of philosophies and minimal regulation the most prudent of policies, whether America should abolish the administrative state, attacks on free speech, the wisdom or lack thereof in regulation of social media companies and much more. What We Discussed The role that Professor Epstein's famous book, Takings played in Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing -- and then-Senator Joe Biden's hectoring Professor Epstein's groundbreaking theories on private property rights, eminent domain and the Takings and Commerce Clauses The practical argument against progressivism Whether we should deconstruct the administrative state, and if so how to do it The danger to free speech emanating from college campuses in a world of microaggressions, trigger warnings, de-platforming The folly of regulating Silicon Valley social media companies Classical liberalism versus socialism and libertarianism  Check out other episodes, show notes and transcripts at benweingarten.com/bigideas. Subscribe, rate and review: iTunes | Stitcher | Google | YouTube Follow Ben: Web | Newsletter | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn Advertising & Sponsorship Inquiries: E-mail us. ___________ Backed Vibes (clean) Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Contemporary Korean music is not limited to K-Pop. South Korea boasts a vibrant indie music scene, and neighborhoods such as Seoul’s Hongdae have live bands performing across various venues every night. Our guest for this episode, Stephen Epstein, is probably one of the most acute observers and academic researchers of the Korean independent music scene. He kindly agreed to talk to us about the genesis of Korean indie rock since the 1980s, its political and societal underpinnings, the relationship between indie and mainstream, and of course some of the most influential bands in Korean indie music. Stephen Epstein is Associate Professor and Director of the Asian Studies Programme at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. He earned his BA from Harvard and his MA and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. Professor Epstein has published widely on contemporary Korean society, popular media and literature, and has translated numerous works of Korean and Indonesian fiction. Recent work on Korean popular music includes the articles Girls’ Generation? Gender, (Dis)Empowerment and K-Pop (with James Turnbull), and Into the New World: Girls’ Generation from the Local to the Global. He is also the co-producer of the documentary Us and Them: Korean Indie Rock in a K-Pop World (2015), a follow-up to his earlier documentary Our Nation: A Korean Punk Rock Community (2002; both co-produced with Timothy Tangherlini). Both movies were selected by several film festivals worldwide.

Today on the Ricochet Podcast, a rare three guest show: first, the dean of political pundits Michael Barone stops by to give us the low down on Trump, Jindal, and the rest of the field. Then, our own Richard Epstein (aka “The Human Paragraph”) stops by to opine on King v. Burwell (spoiler alert: Professor Epstein thinks the court got it wrong), and finally. R.R. Reno, Editor of First Things joins... Source

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The recent health care bill represents what is likely to turn out to be the most comprehensive health care reform ever, Medicare included. Yet many of its provisions were included in the last minute without serious discussion or debate. And those provisions that have been in all versions of the bill since the outset are likely to have profound, if unintended consequences. In this talk, Professor Epstein will explain why he thinks that the combined weight of these many programs is likely to produce a major implosion in health care services in both the short and the long run.He will also discuss the opportunities lost on health care reform, all of which involved some program of market liberalization with respect to such key matters as interstate competition for insurance, government mandates, and medical licensing and malpractice.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The recent health care bill represents what is likely to turn out to be the most comprehensive health care reform ever, Medicare included. Yet many of its provisions were included in the last minute without serious discussion or debate. And those provisions that have been in all versions of the bill since the outset are likely to have profound, if unintended consequences. In this talk, Professor Epstein will explain why he thinks that the combined weight of these many programs is likely to produce a major implosion in health care services in both the short and the long run.He will also discuss the opportunities lost on health care reform, all of which involved some program of market liberalization with respect to such key matters as interstate competition for insurance, government mandates, and medical licensing and malpractice.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. As you may already know, Professor Richard Epstein is not President Obama's biggest fan. Obama favors some economic regulations that Epstein does not. In his Chicago's Best Ideas talk on Tuesday, January 27, Professor Epstein spoke about three proposed laws in the area of labor relations: the Employee Free Choice Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act. Epstein spent most of his time on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), so my attention will focus on that law. (Epstein has a column about the Lilly Ledbetter Act on Forbes.com.) The EFCA is an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. As you may already know, Professor Richard Epstein is not President Obama's biggest fan. Obama favors some economic regulations that Epstein does not. In his Chicago's Best Ideas talk on Tuesday, January 27, Professor Epstein spoke about three proposed laws in the area of labor relations: the Employee Free Choice Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act. Epstein spent most of his time on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), so my attention will focus on that law. (Epstein has a column about the Lilly Ledbetter Act on Forbes.com.) The EFCA is an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Music and engineering, mathematical models of music, Expression Synthesis Project. Dr. Elaine Chew's research research includes collaborative projects in music information retrieval, distributed immersive performance, and musical expression synthesis. She also developed a course on computational methods for music perception and cognition. In 2004, Dr. Chew was honored with an NSF Career award for her proposal on performer-centered approaches to computer-assisted music making, in which she stated that her purpose was to establish engineering music research as a core academic discipline and to promote the use of computational research in music processing by humans as a basis for creating and improving human-computer interaction in computer music systems.

Music and engineering, mathematical models of music, Expression Synthesis Project. Dr. Elaine Chew's research research includes collaborative projects in music information retrieval, distributed immersive performance, and musical expression synthesis. She also developed a course on computational methods for music perception and cognition. In 2004, Dr. Chew was honored with an NSF Career award for her proposal on performer-centered approaches to computer-assisted music making, in which she stated that her purpose was to establish engineering music research as a core academic discipline and to promote the use of computational research in music processing by humans as a basis for creating and improving human-computer interaction in computer music systems.