Cary Coglianese (University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School) has posted “Regulating New Tech: Problems, Pathways, and People” (TechREG Chronicle, Issue 1) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
New technologies bring with them many promises, but also a series of new problems. Even though these problems are new, they are not unlike the types of problems that regulators have long addressed in other contexts. The lessons from regulation in the past can thus guide regulatory efforts today. Regulators must focus on understanding the problems they seek to address and the causal pathways that lead to these problems. Then they must undertake efforts to shape the behavior of those in industry so that private sector managers focus on their technologies’ problems and take actions to interrupt the causal pathways. This means that regulatory organizations need to strengthen their own technological capacities; however, they need most of all to build their human capital. Successful regulation of technological innovation rests with top quality people who possess the background and skills needed to understand new technologies and their problems.
David Erdos (University of Cambridge – Faculty of Law) has posted “Assessing UK Data Protection Reform in Transnational Context: What New Direction?” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This paper analyses the post-Brexit reforms to UK data protection put forward in Data: A New Direction. It is found that they are wide-ranging and significant but generally not radical. The great bulk of the proposed substantive changes to data protection (although not the most far-reaching suggestions concerning either e-privacy or automated decision-making) could be plausibly justified under the restrictions regime set out in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The reforms to the integrity duties would be deeper and pose some risk of reducing ʻaccountabilityʼ to formalistic theatre even when high risk processing is underway. Nevertheless, in principle their basic structure remains compatible with Data Protection Convention 108+ (DPC+). Proposals to shift the ICO away from a de jure focus on upholding data protection rights are difficult to square even with the DPC+. De facto the ICO is not acting as an effective enforcer of data subject rights even today, but these proposals would entrench and further this troubling reality. This points to a critical problem with the initiative, namely, its lack of balance vis-à-vis the interests of the data subject. A reform package which sought to marry more robust and accountable enforcement for individuals with some liberalisation of the substance and process of data protection would offer a better way forward.
Peter K. Yu (Texas A&M University School of Law) has posted “The Long and Winding Road to Effective Copyright Protection in China” (Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 49, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In November 2020, China adopted the Third Amendment to the Copyright Law, providing a major overhaul of its copyright regime. This amendment entered into effect on June 1, 2021. The last time the regime was completely revamped was in October 2001, when the Copyright Law was amended two months before China joined the World Trade Organization. Although U.S. policymakers and industry groups have had mixed reactions about the recent amendment, the new law provides an opportunity to take stock of the progress China has made in the latest round of copyright law reform.
Written for the Symposium on “Hindsight Is 2020: A Look at Unresolved Issues in Music Copyright,” this article begins by mapping the long and winding road to effective copyright protection in China, especially in relation to U.S. rights holders. It then focuses on the recent amendment, highlighting five sets of upgrades or changes while offering three closing observations. The article concludes by offering five road tips to help copyright holders accelerate the trip toward their destination of effective copyright protection.