And we're back at the MIT Media Lab for part two of day one of the MIT IED Computational Law or SHOP course. And now we have to stay a little bit in the morning session to see if we have precisely zero viewers now. So I might do a little bit of banter, a little pattern. Sure. As we musicians call it, vamp till ready. It's called, vamp, vamp till ready. We've got to be a little vamp till ready. We see that the viewers is increasing. It's the same thing that we're getting off to start for the afternoon session of the course. We've got about nine people so far. Give them like a minute or so to... Oh. Okay, so you should go on mute. So here's one good thing during the vamp when ready. We've got real time feedback about a feedback issue. And we have now resolved the feedback issue because of you, our chair of students. So basically... The feedback has enabled us to solve the feedback thereby creating a feedback loop. That's correct. A feedback feedback loop. We're adaptive. Hopefully we can feed back into the presentation. Hopefully. All right, so I think we've got about enough people now so that we can begin to get into this session. So this session is basically a, I'd say, a happy rump is how I hope to structure this conversation through the terrain of rights expression languages in the context of the music industry. And Bill Rosenblatt, who introduced himself at the end of the morning session, as you know, has already done an excellent flip classroom pre-lecture on rights expression languages in this context. I hope you've all seen it. If you haven't, go back to the session and do watch that. And right now we're going to just have a bit of a conversation about the meaning and the impact and maybe some interesting questions raised about the lecture. Before we get into that, I just wanted to invite you, Bill, to maybe say a few words. I just went back on your camera. Camera two is Bill. Just about the nature of the topic, just to remind people and get them back into the theme. So rights expressions languages. What does that even mean? Okay.  And for those of you who don't know who Larry Lessig is, he is a, well, best known as presidential candidate, among other things. But law professor at Harvard and Stanford and Chicago who wrote a book called Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace in 1999, which is a seminal book in the field. What field is that? Well, basically the field of digital copyright and digital law. And what he said, which I thought was really useful is he laid out a framework for how you evaluate an environment such as the internet or the real world in terms of how it is regulated or how it's governed and how people do things that they do. And he identified four factors. And the four factors are law, which are just laws that are written and adjudicated and so on. Then there's the market, which is economics and business. There are, let me pull out my cheat sheet so that I make sure I get the terminology right here. There is architecture, which is the physical characteristics of the environment. So in the internet, it's going to be pure technology. In the real world, it's going to be physics, the natural world. And then there are norms, which are the behavioral constructs under which we exist. What are we expected to do behavior wise? What's considered acceptable? What's considered unacceptable and so on. And essentially you can evaluate, you can use these factors to evaluate any world that you're in. And so we're kind of zooming in from the internet to this area where what we're trying to do is we're trying to implement systems that have to do with media and copyright using digital technology. And so we're trying to create some architecture to use less terminology to implement some concepts that were written as law in the real world and take that into the internet world or the digital world and use that to implement market facing systems, which are services that people use. And that's basically how this set of tools that we're talking about is used. It's used to enable the existing laws to somehow be shoehorned or jury rigged into no pun intended, jury rigged into this world of copyright online. So as you know, if you follow copyright law, copyright law is this sort of mangy beast of a thing that a recent appeals court judge called a patchwork. And trying to get it to apply coherently to the digital world has been challenging. And so one way in which that's been attempted is this thing called rights expression languages, which are machine readable ways to represent the rights that are enumerated or embodied in copyright law. And so the best way to understand this if you're not familiar with law is to look at what the rights are that you're actually granted as a creative of work in copyright law and then how can those be represented in some machine readable way. And then look at what are the other rights beyond the rights that are exclusively granted to a creative of work and how do you deal with all of those. So essentially where copyright starts is there's a list of half a dozen or so exclusive rights that you as the creative of work, such as a photograph or a piece of music. We're talking about music here. So a piece of a musical composition, a sound recording of a composition, you've got rights to distribute that work, to copy it, to make what are called derivative works, which are adaptations, excerpts, translations, whatnot. You have the right to publicly perform it. Those are your rights and then you can license those rights to others in return for some money or other fame or other other consideration. And so rights expression languages are ways to formally recognize those rights and the rights that you're conferring on others under what conditions and for what consideration. That's basically what rights expression languages are. And this as a field, as far as I know, has been in existence for about 25 years. It's been around since the mid-1990s. So we're joined right now by, can you scoot you in a little? Yeah, sorry. That's okay. Perfect. See now you're in the frame. By Brian Ulyssany, who, I don't know, maybe it's not your formal title, but basically among other things you run Thompson Reuters labs and you're in the location right here in Boston. Among other roles, PhD, computational linguistics and a proper legal hacker, I'm going to say. And so you were saying toward the end of the morning session that your company was what participated and you participated in the standard setting exercise that resulted in ODRL 2.2, which is the current version that Bill and I were hacking on in New York for this session, kind of going through the syntax, going through some of the vocabulary to see which rights are expressible in a sense. And then matching it up to other standards such as DDEX to see how we could basically incorporate additional ontology and taxonomies and kind of messaging and syntax and so forth. I'm just curious, just number one, just at a super high level, especially for people that haven't thought about rights expression languages before and how they relate to law, what was the motivation for a company like Thompson Reuters to put such valuable time into doing it? And what kind of use can you get out of it in the marketplace and in networks with services? Sure. Thanks. So the motivation for Thompson Reuters is that we, so we haven't used agency before. We've used agency, obviously, but we also provide a lot of third-party content to our various customers. And all of that content has restrictions about who can be provided what, under what conditions, when, and so on. And so managing that whole set of content and figuring out who was allowed to get what was really a burdensome thing. And so having some, you know, instead of just keeping track and spreadsheets and so on that, you know, this content can be shown in Lebanon on Tuesdays to have the machine figure out, okay, yeah, I can include this in this data stream and not that is the big motivator. So I would say also beyond things being machine-readable, the important thing about something like ODRL is it's not only has a machine-readable syntax, but it has a formal semantics, meaning that you can prove that, you know, such and such follows from such and such. And you can guarantee then that everything that you infer is correct and that all the things that can be inferred that do follow can be inferred. And so, you know, so, so Yvonne Herman at Oxford helped develop the semantic model for this all based on model theory and so on. It's interesting that Bill was talking about worlds because the semantics for modalogics like deontic logic, logic permissions and obligations, what you must do and what you can't do is all based on the idea of possible worlds that are accessible on the basis of certain, you know, policies and so on. So that was all worked out only in the, you know, the 70s. The whole idea of formal semantics for modalogics and now we're seeing these very practical applications. Yeah, and I'd like to just add to that that the news industry really has this problem of fine grained licensing on a large scale. So there's a lot of motivation in the news business that doesn't necessarily exist to the same degree and other content industry segments. In the music industry, it's kind of just starting to exist or has started to exist over the last few years with the rise of streaming services that Vicki Nauman's going to talk about later in the afternoon and probably should have talked about before me, but so it goes. And it's an asynchronous, flexible world. And when we're speaking of like airline flights, you had to leave first. But luckily we did do flip classrooms, so all of you will already know what Vicki had to say. And now, meanwhile, back in real time, take a film. Yeah, so the news industry is kind of a canary in a coal mine. I actually did some work for the Associated Press, not directly on this stuff, but on their metadata architecture for news back in the mid-2000s and found that Reuters is very similar, obviously. There's a huge volume of content that they're just trying to shove out the door as quickly as they possibly can to the waiting world of news outlets that want it. And they have to understand not only what that content is and what it's about, which is the metadata, but also what they want people to be able to do with it and not be able to do with it. And more recently, what they want certain search engines to not do with it or do with it, as the case may be. And that's been a real motivation for the use of rights expression languages in the news business. And I think it's a great area for rights expression languages, real practical need, real pain points, and real adoption. You're here. So I wanted to pose a question. Well, first of all, I'd like to invite those of you that are online, it looks like substantially all of the class is watching now. I know you may just be captivated by the conversation, but if it's raising any questions or ideas in your head, such as what interesting legal use cases could potentially be solved or addressed somehow with the application of rights expression language to that problem domain. Put them in the pigeonhole widget for Bill's session and we will address them. But I have a question, which is what is the relationship? So I was just holding up a book on prologue a moment ago, and apparently people were asking about it on Telegram. And so do you have the prop actually? It's a prop because I literally just skim it. It will be a book, I suppose, when I read it. But I was checking out this book on the art of prologue, and it's a computer programming language that's interesting to me in part because it seems so good at expressing and managing the complexity of almost like pure logic and rules from which one can reason and in a way that I believe could be formally verified, compute from premises to certain conditions, and it could be quite expressive of a whole segment of legal rules potentially. I was just wondering what is the relationship between a programming language like prologue and rights expressions languages which are very different creatures, but educate me and all of us as to what is the role and relationship of each one and where do they fit in the big picture? So I can start, I guess. I don't know prologue, so I'll caveat that. I did study programming languages in graduate school, so I kind of know what it is, but I've never used it. It's awesome. Okay, yeah. The closest I get in terms of my own experiences list. Also awesome.  So my impression of this is that when you're dealing with concepts in copyright law, and I'm going to stick to copyright law, you're dealing with concepts that have meanings that have accreted through the ages, through case law, case court decisions. And it's kind of difficult to map those to formally provable concepts. And the example that I love to point to when I'm talking about this, which is sort of almost an unfair example in a way is fair use. So fair use is a concept in copyright law that it's unique to American law, but there are some analogous provisions in European law, Canadian, UK, Australia. I don't know where everyone is who's watching the course. We have people in all those jurisdictions and several more. Okay, so fair use is a set of four principles that determine whether or not the use that you made of someone's content is a defense to a charge of infringement. So if someone says you've infringed my copyright, they take you to court. You say to the court, to the judge, the jury, no, I made a fair use because da-da-da-da-da-da. And the court looks at a whole body of case law and decides whether or not you made a fair use of that content. So the fact, I mean, I want to get too deeply into this in the time we have, but the factors are what kind of content is it? Is it a Hollywood movie or is it an academic research paper? How much of it did you take, a snippet or the whole thing? What kind of use did you make of it? Was it educational or criticism or was it commercial use? And then did you attenuate the market for that work for the creator? Is what you're doing going to lose them sales, essentially? So those are the four factors and they're meant to be loosey-goosey. I had the temerity in a conference several years ago to suggest, why can't we just automate this, automate fair use decidability, and the lawyers on the panel looked at me like I had not three but five heads. And so it's pretty well established that fair use is not machine decidable on purpose. There are European counterparts called fair dealing under the European copyright directive that get you a little closer to sort of a list. The equivalent of George Carlin's seven dirty words you can't say on television kind of thing, but there's still things that a court has to decide. And so, you know, it's really hard to to pin down this type of concept in a machine readable way, and if you look at certain law, copyright laws they kind of bear this in mind. So one example I'll point to is in American law there is a prohibition against hacking DRM systems, essentially. There's something called the anti-circumvention law. It exists in European law as well and other places. And there have been attempts to create exceptions to that law that say you can hack a DRM if you're hacking it in order to make a fair use of the content. And so copyright owner constituency says, well we don't want that because no one really knows what a fair use is. And we want the benefit of the doubt to fall to us the copyright owners to not even go there, so to speak. So this is where you run into limitations. Where this stuff tends to be better first of all these guys in the permissions and obligations working group put the work into the semantic analysis of this language to make sure that you can make inferences from these primitives which I don't think is the case for other rights languages necessarily. Maybe I don't know. It would be interesting to look at Mark Steffick's work at Xerox Park with DPRL and XRML to see if that was true for that as well. But they put the work into this and it's very important work and it's very useful to work. But in copyright law you have to look at what primitives you're starting with and whether they're kind of semantically sound primitives or not. And with that I'd throw it over to you to comment further perhaps. Well I mean so just on that point so there's the soundness of inference or the validity of inference that if the premises were true then the conclusion would follow but those don't it doesn't prove that the premises you know was this an educational use? Well that's a fact that you have to determine but if that were the case and those other things followed then you can infer that it was a fair use. The other thing I would mention just in terms of prologue is kind of old school tech. That's right. It was around when I was in grad school which makes it really old. But these days you know there is the web ontology language which is called OWL. Which is a logic that uses the syntax of RDF and so on so you can infer things from triples and there are inference engines that allow you to infer things from bunches of facts. There's a very obvious way to express ODRL within OWL. That's not part of the standard but you can certainly do it. So it would be interesting to do that. One thing though about OWL is that it's and why it hasn't really taken off the way people hoped was that it requires complete consistency. So if you have this representation of all these facts in the world that are represented as triples, if any of the facts within there is inconsistent inference breaks down. So if someone asserts in Estonia asserts that Daza is left handed and someone in Australia asserts that he is not left handed that will cause the whole mechanism to stop once the system gets to that. So that's ensuring global consistency of your facts is kind of a high hurdle to clear. And I'll give you another example of this which I mentioned in my talk which is there was a standards initiative which started in the mid-2000s called the Digital Media Project which was, have you heard of this? It was started by Leonardo Chiari-Leone who founded MPEG so this is a guy who knows the thing or two about standards, media standards. And his idea was among other things to create a set of open interoperable DRM standards and kind of in a stack. And one of, in my opinion the most interesting part of this work that was attempted was to create expressions for what he called or he in the committee called traditional rights and usages or trues around content all throughout the world including copyright rights and also including a bunch of other stuff. And what he essentially did was to crowdsource examples of traditional rights and usages from around the world and they got hundreds of them. But the work was judged to be you know let's say at a minimum incomplete and quite possibly impossible to complete because of how difficult it was to represent all of these traditional rights and usages in machine readable form. So now having said that rights expression languages have kind of focused in over the years on these B2B licensing applications such as what Reuters is doing in the news and the AP are doing in the news business and I think the music industry is getting to the point where it's in a position to not only be able to adopt this technology but also have a need to adopt it because of all the massive scale going on with streaming we're in the trillions of transactions per year now and Vicki's going to tell you all about that. So it's a good time to be looking at these issues. It's a good time to be looking at the standards that exist in the music industry such as DDEX and evaluating to what extent they're good for automating transactions for licensing. Awesome. Quick question from actually it's disclosed to anyone that looks at it it's all just out of a co-lector Christian Smith coming somewhat from a crypto and information security perspective are you aware as anyone explored the use of rights expression languages for protecting privacy and personal data any application other than copyright and DRM and one I can start with I don't know too much about this but I'm learning partly part of the reason we're doing this is I think this is very important for computational law and we can learn a lot for the law in general here but you referenced earlier Bill the like RSS and news services is one place where apparently we've seen a lot you could say that's copyright but there's a great deal of like publishing flows and approval chains and so I'd say it's a blur between this and copyright legal but how about Christian's question it seems like this could be great for you know something beyond like extensible access control markup languages for for access to data and the more subtle maybe authorizations for personal data and privacy and anyone aware of anyone trying to apply it in that context Yeah I'm not and I'm not either I'm not aware of anyone doing it one thing that's maybe a little bit related that I'm aware of is there is a company called Intertrust which used to be known as a DRM company they're one of the other early pioneers of DRM along with Xerox and they have something now I can't remember what the product is called but it's essentially a rights management scheme for big data and when you're looking at big data you're looking at sets of personally identifiable information type stuff you're talking this morning about you know a need to aggregate that information into anonymize it and prevent the anonymization and things like that and they have a technology whose name I will come up with let you know what it is because I'm just not remembering it for imposing those kinds of constraints and controls on massive sets of big data and one of the applications that they're using it for is user behavior tracking for you know when they use cell phones and what not for advertising purposes like why else would you want to track that behavior for admins well let's not talk about government surveillance but anyway that's the one thing that I know of that touches on what you just brought up Christian actually and one thing I want to note for everybody oops is the basic reaction was to the extent that there's been any work in this area at all it's not been widely deployed it's not widely known for privacy and personal data and when Brian listening says I'm shocked that it hasn't been there you can take that as a kind of a marketplace of ideas signal that this could be a very fertile area for some innovation and some new development maybe some student projects in this course or maybe some side discussions and we're going to talk more a little later about a kind of a follow on activity at law.mit.edu and our collaborators and legal hackers around the world in March the second annual computational law and blockchain festival where we have a distributed series of groups around the world hacking together learning, building, discussing topics this could be an interesting area we have 56 cities I think we're on tracks and six continents we're on track to have more than a hundred this year going along through the month of March we should remember we've got three chapter chairs of cities around the world in the room here and more online maybe we should inject this as a challenge or as an idea for people to apply right expression languages to privacy and personal information well let me suggest something here as I said this type of technology has been around since the mid 1990s roughly 25 years I first heard about it 25 I think it was when Mark Stefik from Xerox Park walked into my office when I worked in the publishing industry and handed me this white paper that he had just written and I thought it was very fascinating and interesting from that period through let's call it the mid to late 2000s rights expression languages got very closely associated with DRM and DRM is a dirty word in academia a dirty acronym and it's been a dirty word for some time and my view is that so there's dirty word in academia has been one problem another problem has been fear of patent assertion in the space from certain entities that I won't name right now but that has caused people to shy away from this field and what folks like Renato Iannella of ODRL did several years ago was to try and convince everyone that this needn't be about DRM this needn't be about encrypting content and restricting people's rights to it and so on it can be about B2B license automation and things of that nature things like what you're doing at Thomson Reuters and that's kind of given it a new lease on life and what you just said could lead to a new lease on life for these technologies in research and so I feel that it's important for people to kind of know that this stuff has been around people have looked at it but there's been certain negative associations about it which I think are not unnecessary and there is a lot of work that can be done in this field because of these extraneous sort of factors. So one idea for a project that would probably be interesting for people would be so nowadays it seems like you spend half your days accepting cookies on websites and if you could express policies about what cookies you wanted that your browser would just enforce those policies using rights expression language that would be pretty cool. Good one. So team, monitor and advocates and everyone as we start to collect ideas for additional resources to add in our jam session tonight let's definitely capture this the last two that bubbled up on this discussion how about further legal hacking further research projects further exploration development of rights expressions languages for personal data and identity kind of stuff and for how about like a simple use case of this plague of yes I accept the cookie there's two use cases can you come up with more use cases I'll bet you can. Bill mentioned one that's near to my heart from my legal practice days in the 90s which is just being able to have interoperable low coordination costs like low drama ways to do networks of supply chain and different commercial throughput basically so right now we're very much locked in worlds of platforms and standards that don't interoperate so well a little bit of rights based semantics could allow for a lot of open network which means open market capability of transaction getting those purchase orders and those quotes from catalogs and those receipt of acknowledgement that the goods were delivered is the few basic kinds of things where you know when the risk of loss is shifted in a commercial transaction it's not like really complicated semantics here I'd love to see something that extrapolates from uniform commercial code and current purchasing and procurement standards but maybe more pedestrian maybe more achievable and arguably something that would make a bigger difference in most consumers lives and for compliance in another faster privacy this cookie thing it doesn't even really get at what we're trying to get at with the control of tracking so a little bit of rights expression language is going to the underlying use cases and the purposes of the public policy purposes behind these rules which would become rather brittle caricatures on themselves with a click box could go a long way I'm sorry I keep stepping on you could go on. I have two comments first of all do you remember or are you familiar with the Liberty Alliance? Yeah oh yeah I haven't thought about that so the Liberty Alliance for those of you don't know was Microsoft came out with something and I guess it was the late 90s or so called passport which was an attempt at a universal identifier system for the internet. Everyone got freaked out because Microsoft in those days was the evil empire and there was an attempt by a lot of other big tech companies to create an open standard for for personal identifiers online at the time I was working at Sun Microsystems which was sort of Microsoft's arch enemy and about every three and a half seconds there was an everybody but Microsoft standards initiative that someone tried to spin up about something or other so that everyone could say we're in favor of open standards and those mean people over at Microsoft are against them and 999 out of a thousand of these never took off but Liberty Alliance did for a while and Liberty Alliance kind of collapsed under its own weight because it got to be way too complicated way too quickly of course the deep irony is now we've got Facebook, Google and once again Microsoft with their proprietary world garden identifier standards but there was some worthwhile work in the world of the Liberty Alliance and your cookie example is a really nice subset of that stuff that strikes me to be tacklable you know that that's a that's attractable problem and it's an attractive problem to work on so I think that's a terrific example and something that's really good to work on the other comment I want to make in terms of things that are practical to work on that relate to what you just said is and again I come from the media industry and so my examples are going to be limited to that but I've seen various attempts over the years to create online licensing marketplaces for various types of content and you have all these licensing worlds where you've got the extreme high value transactions and then the lower value transactions and it's always worthwhile to try to automate the lower value transactions you're never going to succeed in automating getting Taylor Swift to do a theme song for a Hollywood movie and getting a contract done for that never going to happen you're never going to automate the book deal that Michelle Obama has with a major publisher that's not going to happen but on the other side of the coin you've got these kind of cheap and cheerful little websites for your royalty free production music and your royalty free photos and things of that nature there's a vast ocean in between where the transaction costs are way too high because they involve lawyers who and other business people who probably don't need to be involved if you can automate it through open standards and once you lower those transaction costs the transaction volumes can go way up and everybody benefits and so Vicki talks about sync licensing sync licensing for music which is the licensing of music for videos, for TV commercials, video games, things like that that is an area that in my view is crying out for this type of thing in photos, photos is another area so this would be another really good thing to look at and you know when you're talking about music licensing to make a sexist remark Vicki is the man we're going to put that on the board Vicki is the woman to tell you all about this she knows more of the details about this world than I do but she can be the guide and the guru in helping people create implementations in this world we have a running list of one liners and you just made it hopefully no no that's a terrible comment to have made sexist and inappropriate well you know that's why we iterate but the meaning of the comment is quite right Vicki's coming up next actually she really is the bellwether that's why we've invited Vicki to come to MIT to learn us something about this so before we let you guys go I want to show people something gorgeous with respect to putting tools in your hand with which you can join us in engineering law a little bit so where are we? we're on a discussion page on rights expression languages and if we scroll down scroll down here's Bill's excellent video hey materials presentations here's your slides relevant materials relevant links here's some links that will drop you right down into the correct sections of the standards and some implementation examples for this rights expression language that we were that we've been talking about ODRL how about a deeper dive there's also just scroll back up a little bit among all those standards and things there is a slide share presentation by Stuart Miles from the Associated Press he's the chief architect there who's been in charge of their ODRL implementations and it's an excellent presentation of the practical value of this stuff in the real world I just realized maybe I shouldn't show this I don't know what the rights are on it is that just an example of why we need this now Brian there you go likely what they call likely fair use lawyers like to say it's like a legend infringement every infringement it's a legend infringement it's not fair use it's likely fair use here here and then the other quick thing I would just say is in the big landscape of standards making one of the interesting things about Liberty Alliance that you brought up that was just very very promising was when it first started just little known fact before it was sort of absorbed into a kind of an early standard setting body and evolved and changed a bit it was actually begun by chief information officers and others of large large companies like United Airlines like United and others that purchase goods and who were in the identity management realm we used to call them relying parties people are logging in they didn't want you to have to have all of these different logins they wanted to find a standard space way and I know from practicing law for CIOs of very big organizations being the Fortune 50 kind of weight class that a very healthy way I think in terms of the well the ecology of standards is starting with the people that are paying not necessarily because now we can have a natural alignment of requirements that can help get us to lowest cost, easiest to implement governance that includes core players in the marketplace for using the standards themselves and some wonderful standards certainly come from technologists themselves but it can be hit or miss when you come up with a great most trap or a great solution is a solution to a problem that people have do they have it now, is this the way that makes sense to adopt now so it's something to think about if you out there in internet land are in organizations of people that depend upon and in a sense are the buyers of or major stakeholders within the marketplace to benefit from some of the use cases and scenarios we mentioned you could be particularly well situated even if you're not a technology expert or a legal expert to engage in this discussion that's the kind of territory where lightning can strike and where progress can happen so with that I think we are now exactly pretty much at the time for a transition next segment on the computational law show I guess so I want to thank you very much for coming Bill and for making the trip and for sharing so much and thank you Brian for sharing your expertise as well and your good humor so why don't we just keep rolling and Vicky would you be so kind as to join us so do we have the pigeonhole widget embedded in Vicky's page do we have the video live stream embedded in Vicky's page okay and send in telegram as well so I'm now going to go to can I do this even I'm going to try to hey GMA what was that sequence of buttons you clicked again that made everything work okay thanks we're going to now transition to Vicky's segment and I'd like to encourage everybody to go to the sessions page for the course to click through to Vicky's lecture page where you can follow along with the video I believe or you can open another window and have the video importantly where we can hear from you and so please go ahead and hey you got some action going in pigeonhole where you can thanks TMA your advocate advocating for you and for your voice TMA's making it happen where we can monitor these questions and sort of you know adapt a little bit but first off I just want to switch the camera to boom welcome you to MIT thanks for making the trip you're typically in California exactly I know cold in Los Angeles which is really like the Mecca of action in the media industry and you're very much involved in the front lines of applying some of these topics in the marketplace right just to kind of get us back into your topic and just reintroducing yourself and a little bit about your world and where you're from and what it was that you were addressing when you were context setting and kind of like laying the foundation stones for our topic absolutely so I'm Vicky Naman and I have my own consulting and advisory firm which is called Cross Border Works I also act as a strategic advisor to the Open Music Initiative at Berkeley and work with lots of different companies Berkeley and the MIT Media Lab mostly Berkeley but also just saying and a lot of what I do is work with companies that are on the technology side and help them make sense of music because it's traditionally really really difficult to understand how to navigate who to talk to why does one service that looks like a Pandora mean that you only have to license and pay no upfront advances and then an on-demand service like Apple or Spotify requires tens of millions of dollars of advances and extensive licensing when the underlying catalogs can be virtually the same and a lot of this is an iceberg so people who are entrepreneurs and those that want to get into the music space will see the user experience and that's the tip of the iceberg and say we want to innovate around that and then they start going a few layers under the water and realize that it's this big slippery slope and so I personally get a lot of satisfaction out of making sense of music industry and helping companies navigate it my background is most recently I've been doing this for a little over four years before that I ran I started up and ran seven digital business which is a London based music platform and that's in that role I did probably more music licensing than is advisable for any one person I have recovered but I took four months off when I resigned and worked in my garden and had a pickaxe and I was like this music licensing is crazy and then before that I was with Sonos and helping music services integrated into a Wi-Fi speaker environment and then did an MBA and then I really cut my teeth in the early 2000's in Seattle in digital I worked at MusicNet which was part of Real Networks and then built out one of the first DMCA compliant services at KEXP in Seattle and so I see all of these pieces as building blocks because the rights within the music sector understanding rights and understanding the way licensing works you can't really do much meaningful in music without having a fundamental understanding of that but it's so complex globally that everyone has blind spots and so always having a couple of good minds on this is better than none and I feel like the music industry is dominated by a handful of big labels and really big publishers but it's very diverse and I think there's room to innovate in this space but it may not be the right place to try to do smart contracts for every single song that was ever created people traditionally cut you know take too big of a bite of music and then they find that they can't reach consensus and they can't really find a path through it and so I'm an advocate for identifying small problems in music that you can actually solve and you can then start scaling that and start iterating on problem solving in areas where where there is openness and I think as you spoke about reference Bill spoke about with sync licensing I think especially in a kind of a micro sync environment and a platform environment of getting music with publishing and sound recording rights bundled together for the UGC market yeah yeah there's room there there's room there so question yes we have a question from that's been a little bit and I'll go right to it Kevin Sandoval who's actually one of the people that essentially referring to he's I'd say broadly in the law.mit.edu community and he's been working for a little while on trying to create a kind of a startup that would make it simpler and better for musicians who are putting out little sampleable riffs to have to create a marketplace that's fair to them and that's robust and vibrant and makes it easy for people that might want to put those samples in their music or other types of media artifacts so that's part of where he's coming from but he has a general question that I know also on telegram people are interested in and we're just wondering we've got this new statute now the Music Modernization Act it's sort of idiosyncratic in that just fits in one part of the big landscape that we're talking about in the music industry and that's just one part of the landscape of law and business for sure but it seems to be important somehow and from my perspective I wonder how it could be positioned as a playing field where some of the little steps could maybe happen since the legislation kind of created some standard license terms in the context of a certain type of music to allow for open public databases so excuse me, Kevin's question is what core issues does the MMA address and I would just add a friendly amendment are there any opportunities potentially there to find some incremental progress so just a little bit of background for everyone, the Music Modernization Act was passed in October and this is literally I think the only time I've ever seen labels, publishers, PROs and digital service providers all agree this industry is not great on consensus seeing things through the same lenses so it was a true notable in that spirit by the way it was passed unanimously in the House and by incredibly wide margin the Senate and I know there had been a long road of markups and some competing ideas that led to that moment but when it was enacted true consensus among legislators and in the industry so this is noteworthy I just wanted to highlight that absolutely I know I don't know have we ever had anything passed unanimously? it's very rare and so this is particularly in these times and I think a part of the reason why it was probably unanimous is that for years the publishers would go to Capitol Hill with one story the labels would go to Capitol Hill with another story artists would go with another story and digital service providers would go with another story and so they finally got it they finally came together and then presented a unified view to Capitol Hill but the Music Modernization Act addresses a specific area in U.S. law is under section 115 which is the on-demand streaming services such as Spotify and Apple Music where you can put in a search engine in their service you can search and play a song on demand so these are fully interactive so section 1 15 of the copyright act right, exactly section 115 the copyright act, thank you for that so it is a specific model that is on-demand streaming it involves having a big catalog could be there is a clause under section 115 that is around a limited catalog so it could be a smaller maybe a genre specific but it's largely an area that has until the Music Modernization Act was packed has a lot of chaos around mechanical licensing which is on the publishing side and there's no existing database publicly accessible database there are some private databases but there's no way to really track down all of the owners of the publishing on a catalog of 30 million songs there could be five publishers per song because of the different splits and having different writers contribute and then we're up to 250 million rights holders that need to be cleared and so this created a tremendous amount of chaos and the copyright office enabled some notices of intent to be filed which was really got under the skin of a lot of rights holders and there were statutory damages that were really high for music services that didn't get this right and so the Music Modernization Act is doing a couple of different things that have really important implications they instead of having to get all of the rights from every single publisher it's moving to a blanket environment meaning you can license with one entity and get coverage across all of these that's similar to the way Pandora non interactive service works under the DMCA digital copyright act under section 114 so the complexity around granting the licenses is going to be reduced the statutory damages have been removed so the risk in the financial risk that is also removed and we're going to create a central entity that is going to be granting these licenses processing the payments matching the sound recording to the underlying work and creating an open a publicly accessible database and it's important to use that term because it is that does not mean that it's just a public database that anyone can come in and download everything the rules around that have not yet been set so we're in the implementation stage of choosing partners choosing companies who are going to run this database administer it ensure that all of the songwriters can register and get access to the data and have a level of transparency between the rights holders the licensees and the licensors and just to situate a few things so that people can type along and google along the central entity you're mentioning I think in the music modernization act is called the collective it's called the acronym is MLC which is mechanical licensing collective mechanical licensing collective and it covers and the scope of coverage is for free streaming services so not the sync rights and some of the other stuff non interactive and they will and the rules are being developed and entities are being selected now to to design and deploy what this publicly accessible database will be so more to follow and is the entity is the party that's making those decisions under the statute the distra of copyrights well we right now we have the national music publishing association the NMPA was a sponsor of the bill and so the NMPA is very involved and the US copyright office is also very involved and I think it's a little bit of a moving target right now on where all the decisions are going to be made the selections of what service levels because at the very baseline there's a database of all of the rights that are associated with those positions for music then there's a layer of services matching how do you match the sound recording to the underline work how are you granting licenses what are you know what's the ingest and the the API distribution of data out to third parties and then at the very top level there's there's the overall administration of this we don't know whether these are all going to be one entity if there's going to be a different we'll find out a lot more in the next few months as applicants start putting in putting in their proposals and I believe it's June is the date when there's going to be a final selection and we may have a little more information did you want to add something Bill yeah so I've actually spoken to the folks at the copyright office about this and they're going to be speaking at my conference about this tomorrow but basically that just to embellish on what Vicki said a little bit the copyright office has the responsibility of choosing an entity that's going to be in charge of all this and as Vicki points out that doesn't necessarily mean that one entity single entity is going to do it there are two different schools of thought here one school of thought is that there will be one entity to do it and that's an entity called sound exchange which already does this sort of roughly equivalent task won't get into the details but roughly equivalent task for the what's called non-interactive services like Pandora and then the others and they really want to do it they're lobbying hard to get it and it would be this kind of simple decision to make I'll give it the sound exchange and then the other the other school of thought is that there's going to be some little shell entity that's going to subcontract and delegate pieces of this out to different entities including possibly some of the entities that are already doing this on a private basis for some of the streaming services like the harry fox agency and music reports of the names that come up and so July is the time frame when there's going to be a decision made by the copyright office they're accepting proposals now who at the copyright office well it's a nominally the person well there's a register of copyrights who's in charge of the copyright office the person who I believe is leading this initiative is Reagan Smith council and there's a group of people Steve Rui who's an expert in the music industry there are a bunch of people working on this the other thing I want to steal Vicki's time to mention it is the potential downside of what overall is a really good idea and you know music industry did come together on this in unprecedented fashion is that it replaces what is nominally to some extent a competitive market for these services to do the go find the data and figure out who to pay task which is a difficult task of some of the data is missing or erroneous or what were disputed or what have you there's this sort of pseudo competitive market for those services and it's going to replace that with a single nonprofit monopoly and the concern that I have raised about this is that accuracy and completeness of the data will not be have as much attention paid to it as perhaps it should and I'd be interested to know what you think about that well yeah exactly because I was concerned about the monopoly nature of this and and I think there has to be there has to be some level of transparency but there was a bill that was introduced that modify the MMA that it is actually going to be a monopoly it's a monopoly in the granting of the blanket licenses but most of the existing companies if you think about Apple, Amazon, Google Rhapsody, Spotify you know telcos all sorts of different companies that have these rights most of those they all have a lot of direct deals between the DSP and the publishers and the bill that has modified the amendment enabled any companies that already have direct deals with publishers to keep those deals administered on whatever platform they want so if they want to keep those direct deals administered by MRI or their own internal processes or HFA they can still do that so MRI is music reports and HFA is the Harry Fox Agency sorry I know it's like acronym soob I will be talking in acronyms all day so thanks for correcting that FYI sorry go on we have two questions for cleaning up when you're ready so there isn't going to be a monopoly in the sense that all of the data is going into one place it's still going to have probably a mix where some companies some DSPs will be administering their own rights some of them will have them administered by music reports some will have them administered by HFA the switching costs for this side of the business are significant so I wouldn't imagine that if you have your entire system set up with one of these companies that you're going to voluntarily move it over but on the blanket licenses I think that we will have one central entity and for new entrants that are getting into the space then I think it's highly likely if you were a new entrant that you probably wouldn't do direct deals you would run it through this but the answer this is a long-winded answer to the question which is it's only this very particular use case which is the on-demand streaming it does not include synchronization licensing where you need 100% of the publishing as well as the sound recording it also doesn't include other kinds of applications performance or anything else it's just this really narrow it's the snare you know piece of the music licensing which is where most of the the high value subscribers live right now perfect thank you so are you ready for some mom okay oh thanks Belle it's so awesome having the lecturers in the room I have to say thanks again for making the trip so we now have a winner of the top question it comes from Brandon Marr an MIT Media Lab alumni and I went to college with him he's saying there's a vast complexity of incentives and business models that will emerge and you mentioned the switching cost and really changing the shape of the industry partly so he's got a canny question here a few small protocols are going to transform the industry once the MLC gets up and running and that settles out a bit what do you foresee will be the hardest problems that are not addressed by this reform so it does certain things what are the adjacent major problems that are still out there well I would say at the very top of my list is that we are still doing music licensing on a country by country basis because they're different copyright laws different norms different licenses publishers have some publishers that represent them in particular territories so we're still treating music and licensing music on a country by country basis but it's a global marketplace and so there are literally thousands of entities all over the world collection societies, labels publishers, DSPs in every country in the world and this is only US so the MMA addresses one particular model has one particular market but it's really has to have handshakes and has to be interoperable with all of these other services artists that are self-releasing in Africa should conceivably be able to collect royalties that are coming through in this entity but the reality of it is that there are a lot of different entities that have to have an ability to speak to each other which makes open standards and interoperability essential to the success of this amen so you're definitely talking our language now this is where we live and this is a lot of what we care about so following directly very well from that question especially that answer the next actually just caught up, tied for first question is there are a couple of initiatives that seek to replace Spotify with a different kind of model so even as we finally catch up from vinyl to CD to download to on-demand to interactive and all that it's a moving target and the example here is there may be there's some new competition from decentralized solutions and an example is Decentralization Heap comes to mind among others back in Brooklyn in Consensus there's some interesting decentralized models and there's our song that was provided some R chain decentralized solutions for music licensing and very different ways to structure the market so the question here is does Vicky do you have opinions could you riff or co-think with us a little bit on how successful they may be and I'd go even beyond that to say any kind of impressions of these new very different technical and business models of this type what does it mean within the context of the industry I understand by the way just to put my thumb on the scale a little bit and characterize it that leaving aside your estimation of the probability of success of any one of these things I'd love it if you can use with us a little bit about what we could gain or what the value could be of some of these new types of capabilities such as decentralization I think there's an enormous potential and I think those that are choosing use cases that are specific are going to be much more likely to be successful so like and she releases a lot of her music in blockchain and she has done this because that's what she wants to do as an artist and is a very kind of forward thinking creator who wants to embrace technology I would put her at one end of the bell curve of music and on the other end of the bell curve is a major label where they benefit by licensing a really broad valuable catalog for maximum value and they don't necessarily want decentralization they don't necessarily want transparency and it's not so much that there's always nefarious practices but there's just a lot the entire industry is this daisy chain of private agreements and so the place to innovate is probably not with the biggest stakeholders because they are slow moving and they are very thoughtful about what they do and what they don't do but I think there's a lot of room on the fringes in individual artists there's also a massive trend that's happening which is artists that are retaining their rights so artists have traditionally always signed over their rights to a label or publisher and increasingly now artists are retaining rights and they're using a label or publisher for services or distribution artists using a platform and many of these are performing songwriters so they own both the composition as well as the sound recording in those kinds of environments there's a really great opportunity there because unlike a traditional licensing environment where you say oh I want to license 200 songs for my music video and if you did direct licensing you license 200 different entities whoever owns the sound recording and then all of the different publishers but in a more simple world where those rights are held by the same company or organization and it's in a decentralized frictionless environment you're going to open up an opportunity that many many traditional stakeholders may not see the value in it because they kind of like the friction of licensing but there's a lot of money that's on the table between potential licensees and the traditional industry that if they look at they say oh it's going to take me a million dollars in legal fees in three years to clear all of these rights and by then my opportunity is gone forget it let's move on to a different media type let's not use music let's use images of our cats and that's a lot easier coming up tomorrow so I think there is there's opportunity when I first started learning about blockchain and decentralization I was so excited about it and then I started kind of taking it to the next level and realized there's resistance in the major stakeholders but that doesn't mean that success has to be defined by replacing every single right in a decentralized environment and making it frictionless I think success can be defined as having rights in a decentralized environment and then taking them to market and being able to settle and pay on a faster basis so that activates some ideas first of all thank you for that sense making vantage point on the landscape and what these new really radical types of decentralized technologies could mean when one thinks of the shape of the market there is something about when you get a market participant that gains a lot of prominence becomes a big player and the hierarchical nature for economy of scale which doesn't go away digitally the way we've architected systems there's a naturalness there to how things are set up and that sometimes by its nature and sometimes deliberately creates barriers to entry would be one way economically to talk about what you're describing one of our friends here who we I'm just going to say love without commercially endorsing is Amanda Popper and she's come here from time to time and sort of jammed with us musically but also in terms of rapid prototyping and trying new interesting prototypes that are developed at the media lab some of the reason I'm mentioning her now is because I was thinking a couple of times when you were mentioning where the ripe area the fertile area for innovation could be number one when a rights holder excuse me when a musician let's say an artist composer and performer structures their career pain rights as opposed to to be signed by a label which is almost in American culture thought of as being when I'm successful I'm signed by a label Amanda Palmer will tell the story frequently of how she fired her label when she realized that she could use Twitter and she could use other methods to have a direct relationship with her community and with her fans and that gave rise to an opportunity for a new business model where she could in her case she then further iterated by making a donation base so everybody could hear her music and that was good that made sense and was aligned to her values and also had business value in the sense that people could that liked her music but maybe couldn't afford or were not ready to donate in one year in a future year may donate and it grows the base in a completely different way the idea of paywalls and subscriptions and you know pay per view transactions a transactional environment so there are transactions involved and she is able to generate enough revenue to have a I would say very successful career in like a big touring you know crew and to be able to to have revenue and profit she's got a new baby and you know she's got a whole life and that was to be I wonder if there's any if you're aware of any other examples of either musicians or other situations that exemplify some of the properties you were mentioning where innovation is occurring and where it might be the right conditions and scenarios to start to launch and build new innovative business models anything come to anyone or anything come to mind well there's a couple of things that come to mind you know in the in the Amanda Palmer case I think one of the things that was so beautiful about what she did is that she was able to identify a small group of fans that felt very passionately about her and create an environment where they could contribute and help her continue to create music and be an artist and deliver things back that are you know adding value to all of her fans and that was a really direct relationship that was unheard of years ago in a traditional environment where the only way something could be released as it went through a label and in touring there's always been a closer connection but in the world now where we have many different artists that are going on their own they're not signing with a label they're doing an administration deal only they have a different team around them and that team is usually really incentivized by coming up with new models of how are we going to exploit the music how are we going to get this into the hands of fans and all of the cookie cutter approaches of years ago which is you know you play a little bit you get signed by a label you get radio airplay then you sell your CDs and you go on tour that's all up for grabs right now and so there's a lot of companies that are setting up that are kind of these hybrids they're not quite a label they're not quite an artist development firm they're not quite a distribution platform but they're a little bit of all of that and they're servicing artists that are retaining their rights there's a lot of opportunity in that and that's growing really quickly can you introduce me to all of those so I can know where I'm going to go work soon that sounds extremely interesting it sounds groovy and it sounds like it's just crackling with potential I'm sorry Bill did you give a couple of examples of names so that people know what you're talking about yeah so I think probably the you know the mother you're talking about tunecore or you're talking about something else yeah well I think the mothership of this is what Cobalt has done which is create a technology platform called holocaust services so that you can have your music distributed you know that's kind of a race to the bottom right now is getting distribution it's you know it's pretty much a you know a commodity business at this point but there are other companies you know there's CD Baby there's tunecore there's also these small agencies that are popping up and I don't actually have the name of anything well united masters is kind of a good example because they're also an artist services firm they've been kind of in beta for a few years but but they're song trust and all sorts of platforms that then have a different kind of team that are working to help exploit the music in the way that the artist wants it done and the biggest difference is that the artist is the one that's driving this of what you know if you're retaining your rights you have a much more like a likely chance of you know controlling your own destiny and so so it's a different decision making and it's a different kind of it's a different kind of proposition but I think that if an artist wants to release their music on blockchain that's great if they want to release their music in a you know in a you know live stream and just making everything available for people to remix and put stems out they can do that I mean it's all out there and there's no reasons technologically why artists have to release music in the containers of three minute singles and you know 12 song albums because we don't necessarily service radio as you know the driver of a three minute single and don't necessarily need to have an album but that's just the way the traditional industry works but why do it why not have a 12 minute you know have why not have a 12 minute single and you know and release a new song every month every week you know it's it's really wide open and once you retain your own rights then you can kind of do whatever you want mm-hmm amen so let me ask you when you were fixing to come here to MIT and you know to share what you know but also perhaps to learn or to experience something was there anything on your mind or anything you're curious about or would like to know more about either as part of the class or generally what we're doing around here well yeah I mean I think that I think that the you know the concept of smart contracts and the concepts of simplifying licensing I think that you know I'd be really curious just to know you know what the process is how do you start pulling how do you start pulling that apart and workshopping it and and what in in your world is considered success in you know trying to develop new paradigms around old systems that are existing in the marketplace what a great question that is very much at the at the center of a lot of what happens around here so one thing I would touch to talk about is the mode of innovation that is that represents some of the context here so the core mode at MIT we would call broadly research so we have academics we have research this workshop course is actually coming very much out of research it's not designed as a certificate with a particular curriculum it's very much part of a bunch of rapid prototypes a bunch of standard settings a bunch of reasoning that we're doing thought leadership and specifically at law.mit.edu we hang out a lot with people at Sloan School of Business and other places where you mentioned workshopping where we do workshops and we'll bring people and sometimes we'll get an idea or someone like that to help us facilitate it so that we can have a creative generative session to maybe think up new business models innovations, new types of sometimes it may be like we'll try to workshop a product or a new way to package something digitally that could open new relationships and do something creative in existing markets or to evolve, subvert existing markets or create brand new markets another specific thing that we do here which we love in the law.mit.edu community are hackathons just in some ways it's so it's almost beneath notice for a VC or something like that but a lot of very interesting things happen when you construct the scope of a problem statement which is partly why I was fishing with the last few sessions in a way where it's something that's relevant, it's timely it's challenging, it's achievable to see if we can't come up with a bunch of different people that get together over a weekend which is not a lot of time but it's enough time to spitball ideas and then to try something in a method which I would call rapid prototyping which is a very creative generative method where part of the idea and it took me a little while once I got to MIT in the 90s to let go of some of the kind of legal and policy and political and other successful coping and social behaviors I've learned for those environments and to pick up environment where the idea is to say 50 things quick and we know some of them will be bad, some of them will be dumb, some will be unrealistic but we don't shoot them down right now, we don't play devil's advocate we want to actually popcorn up a bunch of ideas and then take a look at them and then there's different ways we've done in some of these types of sessions where we use tools like right now we're trying pigeonhole but different ways where people can kind of start to prioritize and rate and rank some of the ideas maybe kind of combine some and pick some apart and then make a decision are there any that we want to try right now and that's a little scary because you're doing something that's never been done before but then we might start by doing some wireframes or we might do a business model canvas we might actually just literally try to create an instance of an application we might do a role play kind of thing but we'll find one way or another or make a few modalities to rough sketch what the idea could be enough so that it can be presented and we can get feedback from people and sometimes some of those ideas will then go forward so interesting it might become in the media lab like a research project and then the research project like pubpub is a good example we might launch a computational log journal coming out of this course and the March Golden Festival that's like a medium like thing where people were thinking we should have something that's for open journal open publishing that's more like medium and less like a clunky you know kind of a peer-review you know kind of sequence almost bureaucratic kind of system and they just they workshopped it a bit but then it became some grad students work out for a couple semesters and then it became really good now it's actually spun out of the lab and the Sanford Journal of Blockchain Law and Policy which by the way came from last year's Computational Law and Blockchain Festival from those 56 cities is now on Volume 2 publishing on pubpub so that's a way where we sometimes can have a funnel almost of innovation and try to pop something out to a spin-off or a startup other things that I'm more familiar with maybe just for my consulting or for my private life might be people just are really passionate about something they have an idea and they may be nights and weekends or between gigs work on it and try to do a startup one way or another and either bootstrap it or get some initial funding or I think the best way is to innovate based on revenue now and building without access to revenue, not access to debt and so with some other people in the lockdown in my city I spent quite a few some people are here that have experienced this quite some time in a hacker collective in Oakland where they were working on a certain type of open source transactional system so sometimes people just get together because they have a dream and we seem to still be in this interesting period where there's a rapid evolution in the market and I feel like it started in the late 90s with the advent of the web and it's continued right to today where lightning can strike and you can create like Netscape just came from nowhere and so many other startups so those are a few examples of some I guess like evolution paths to go from idea from napkins and sketches to launch of things that can be successful in existing markets or in fact can reshape markets by the nature of the product and service. Well I think like hearing your answer I think an area that could be really ripe for innovation in that kind of environment is bite-sized things with music not the 30 million song catalog not the on-demand streaming of the services as we know them but how can we scale music so that the costs are reduced to the point where we can have services that are really serving niches because there are particular listeners that are over-served you know everybody has pop and hip-hop and really broad-based music but what about the classical consumer the jazz consumer really local any kinds of things that are you know directed relationships between artists and fans things that just have a small collection of rights and that they're meaningful in the Amanda Palmer sense of the world they're meaningful to a small audience but that audience may be dispersed throughout the world is right now the cost of entry and the cost of operating a service like that are you know the cost don't lend themselves to serving a niche but I think there's a handful of things out there like Gimme Radio is one of them that's just doing metal there's a handful of companies that have tried this but I think it's ripe for the kind of thinking that you describe I love it and we're a little bit over time but I just want to throw out there since I started getting into this open music initiative whole wild wonderful worlds of of new technology to revolutionize the music industry I've been people have been emailing me some of these things one thing I noticed that it's sort of between the use cases you mentioned is people that have a purpose and for which they'd be willing to pay a little bit for like new music so in the Madison Avenue kind of a business bottle you'd have a budget for a jingle for a brand or for a campaign but you want a special song for the 70th birthday of like the matriarch of the extended family that could be a month's worth of rent and other bills for a commission for a musician and so there's something there about coming up with works for your video series and for your event or for your but in more of a distributed way in smaller bites another one is just based on the team's videos apparently is in England where they do what is it called tiny stage or something tiny tiny desk concerts oh I'm sorry but it's something I'll find it I promise I'll put it in the URL but basically they say they have a list of director of musicians who can come to your party or to your event and play live so it's an easy way to find people that can get in their van and come and play and apparently it's doing really well in changing lives like the experience in the invaluable experience of music and so far Sound's is another one where they do little house concerts for in secret locations and they're up and coming artists and they come with 30 people and so yeah so there's all sorts of things out there beyond what we see is the most you know the battleground of the 999 subscriptions of the biggest tech companies and most capitalized companies in the world there's a lot out there but you have to you have to kind of you really have to dig a little bit to find it and maybe one day soon it'll find you so stay tuned so I want to before I thank you I just want to do a quick temperature check with the team do we want to shut the broadcast off and turn it back on in 15 minutes for our last two sessions on computational contracts and and Kristen Smith basically Chris Berent and Kristen Smith on cryptography or do we want to just create basically like a three hour video and turn the kind of mute on yeah Chris is calling in yes I think so I'm not sure actually actually maybe we should shut it off because I don't even we have to figure out how Chris is going to call in okay so hey everybody so we're going to we're going to take a little break so feed your dogs you know get a little bit of air as you need and we're going to come and we'll email everybody right can we email everybody and telegram the new link I'll set up a new hangout and we'll be back in about 15 minutes with Chris Berent on computational contracts and now I want to just thank you so much for making the journey across the country to share your wisdom and shed your light it's really really awesome well I'm very honored to be here so thank you thank you Becky


In chapters 5 and 8, you observe many reactions that were very exothermic. You saw the reaction of potassium in water. One of the most difficult terms to deal with in chemistry is the term spontaneous. When we place potassium metal in water, we get a very rapid reaction and we say that the reaction is spontaneous. Other reactions such as the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen may proceed at such a slow rate at room temperature as it seems to be not occurring at all. If we mix hydrogen and oxygen in a balloon, nothing seems to happen at room temperature. We might initially say that this reaction is non-spontaneous. If we bring in a flame, a very rapid reaction occurs. The reaction is spontaneous. It just needed the right conditions to proceed rapidly. In this chapter, you will learn the real meaning of the term spontaneous and non-spontaneous. You will learn to predict which reaction should and should not occur.


So division is the last and by far the most complicated of our elementary operations. So we'll start out by introducing a definition, and one of the things that makes division complicated is that there's actually two slightly different definitions. And the first definition is the following. It emerges from our definition of multiplication, and if I have whole numbers a, b, and c, then I'm going to say a divided by b gives us the quotient c, if and only if a is the product c times b, which is the divisor, the dividend, divided by the divisor is the quotient, and that's going to be the dividend is the product of the quotient and the divisor. And one of the things that also further complicates the problem of division is that this actually gives us two very different approaches to how we actually perform a division. Well, let's start off by what division actually is. So here's a proved statement, proved that 12 divided by 3 is equal to 4. And since we're trying to prove this statement, we want to go back to our definition of division. a divided by b is equal to c, if and only if a is c multiplied by b. So comparing what we want to prove with what our definition is tells us that a is 12, b is 3, and c is 4. So I have my a, b, and c value. And since I want to prove this, that means I need to start with this statement a equals c times b. Well, I have a, b, and c, and I'll fill it out. And again, because it's part of the definition of division, I don't really need to comment on whether how we are able to find this. You may want to actually verify that it is actually true. And so you might want to think about it. Is it true that 12 is equal to 4 times 3? Yeah, that sounds right. So I can start there. I'm starting with the true statement. And I can just follow my definition of division. Since I have a product, I also have the corresponding quotients. It's 12 equals 4 times 3. That tells me that 12 divided by 3 is equal to 4. Now, because division is defined in terms of multiplication, we can find an interpretation for any quotient that's based on what a division is. Actually, because multiplication is commutative, there's actually two different interpretations for any given quotient. And my example, 12 divided by 3 equals 4. Well, from this we have our multiplication fact that corresponds to 12 equals 4 times 3. And from the definition of multiplication, that means that 12 is equal to 3 plus 3 plus 3 plus 3. And what we see here is that I'm going to write 12 as the sum of a bunch of 3s, in fact, specifically 4 3s. And so the quotient 4 is the number of 3s I need to make 12. So this gives us what's called the quotitive interpretation of division. If I want to look at A divided by B, what I'm really asking to do is I'm going to break my first number A into bits of size B. And the quotient is the number of bits that I need. So here, 12 broken into parts of size 3. I need 1, 2, 3, 4 such parts. And so 12 broken into parts of size 3 gives me a quotient of 4. Let's see how that works. Show as quotient of division, we want to use a concrete representation 12 divided by 3. And so by our quotitive interpretation, 12 divided by 3 means we're going to break 12 into parts with a size, a quota, in other words, of 3, and the quotient is going to correspond to the number of parts that I have. So let's start with the set of size 12, and I want to use a concrete representation, so I'm actually going to show 12 pieces there. So I have my set of size 12, and I'm going to break this into pieces with 3 of these objects in each piece. So I'll form sets of size 3. So here's a set, here's another set, and another, and another, and the quotient is going to be the number of sets that I have. So here I have 1, 2, 3, 4 sets of size 3. And so that tells me that my quotient, 12 divided by 3, is equal to 4. Now because multiplication is commutative, we can actually get a second interpretation of a division. So again, we have our division 12 divided by 3 equals 4, and again, by definition, I know that this must have come from the state of 12 equals 4 times 3. Because multiplication is commutative, I can reorder the factors 3 times 4, and by the definition of multiplication, 3 times 4 is the sum of 3 4s. And the thing to notice here is I've now written 12 as the sum of 3 equal numbers, 4, 4, and 4. And this leads to a new interpretation of division, known as the partitive interpretation of division. And the idea behind the partitive interpretation is I'm going to treat a division like this as being a way of taking my original number, and I'm going to break it into this many equal pieces, and the quotient is the size of each piece. Now, it's worth keeping in mind that when we describe division, we often begin with this notion of a partitive interpretation of the division. But in practice, as we'll see, we actually abandoned the partitive interpretation because it doesn't give us a good way of doing the division. How do we know that? Well, let's try an example. So let's show a partitive division using a concrete representation. Again, same quotient we've been using, 12 divided by 3. And so as before, my partitive interpretation says that I'm going to take 12, I'm going to break it into three equal parts, and the actual quotient is going to be the size of each of those parts. So again, I'll begin with a set of 12, and I want to break this into three equal parts. The problem we have right from the beginning is I don't know how big those parts are. So I can't just draw lines that's going to break this into three equal parts because I don't know how big the parts are. With a quotitive division, I knew how big each part was. If I interpreted this quotitively, I know that I'm going to be taking 12, I'm going to be breaking it into parts of size 3 and see where I go. But with the partitive division, I don't know how big the parts are. So in some sense, what I have to do is I set up some spaces for them. And so here, I'm going to make sure that what I put into each of these three spaces is going to be equal in amount. And so I can now start to set up my partitive division. And because I have three boxes, three bins, I'm going to be putting these in, and I want to make sure that the number in each of these bins is the same, what I might do is I might start off with a set of three. Note that we have a quotitive aspect to this. And if I take this set of three, I know I could put one of these in each of my places. So this one is going to go here, this one is going to go there, this one is going to go there. And I'm going to have the right amount, an equal amount in each of those three places. Well, I'm not done. I have not finished dividing 12. So I'm going to select another set of three. And again, I'm going to drop one in each of my places. Another set of three, drop one in each place. Another set of three, drop one in each place. And now I have done my division. I have taken my set of 12 and broken it into one, two, three equal sets. And the quotient is going to be the size of each of those sets. So here I notice that every one of these has one, two, three, four. Every one of these has four things in it. So 12 divided by three is equal to four.


2.08. RBTs only discuss confidential information with those who need to know the information. They share information for job-related purposes only. Confidential information includes, but it's not limited to, information about anyone whom the RBT works to, information about anyone to whom the RBT provides services. RBTs maintain confidentiality when handling records under their control. This includes written, electronic, and any other format. Handling a record may include creation storage, access, transfer, and disposal. This code is a paragraph on HIPAA. If it's medical information, it is part of that act and it is protected. If it has a client's name on it and it's not locked up, you're breaking a rule. You need to follow these folks. It's respect and dignity and federal law. In an RBT scenario, you're going to have materials that are used as visual stimuli and prompts and whatnot for these kiddos. And they need to have them locked up and stored securely. And any information that is gathered needs to follow these rules.


She's had Coach Laura Martin on Bobby Trossett coming to you live after an 8-0 victory over Lancaster Bible for the Stevenson University Mustangs. Coach probably just what the doctor ordered in terms of a bounce back. Right. Yeah, absolutely. Something very much needed just to increase our confidence and to go into the next game, Shenandoah, which is a big one for us. All right. I need you to either prove me right or wrong on the broadcast here tonight. I said, you know what? Good. It's a bounce back victory, very much needed. But at the same time, if I know Coach Martin the way that I think I do, there's probably certain things that you're going to pick apart from tonight that need to improve moving forward. Of course. I definitely saw some things that we were trying to work on that we did correctly, and then there's things that we still need to improve. We're still not passing the ball at pace, and we need to go at 100% speed because we have the rest that we need with the four quarters. You know, Kelsey year will move on after this year, so you have some opportunities tonight and a blowout win to get some other fresh bodies in there. What's going to be coming in the goal post-Kelsey year? So that's to be determined. I mean, we're graduating two senior goalies, and we have a returning, you know, some younger kids, a freshman goalie and a sophomore goalie that are fighting it out. And then one never knows if there's going to be an incoming freshman goalie. So I can't make that answer right now, but it'll be an interesting battle. You're going to turn the page now quickly for a matchup against Shenandoah. Your thoughts going in there from an expectation standpoint. So Shenandoah is playing well, so they're going to come into the game with some confidence to home game for them. We've played competitively with them year in and year out, sometimes even going into overtime. So I expect a very intense battle, so it could go either way, and we're hoping that we can come on top. All right, we'll be following along closely. Best of luck to you guys. She's Laura Martin. I'm Bobby Trotz. It's signing off. Here from Go Mustang Sports.com.