Search the archive.

Young voters from the millennial generation and Gen Z are emerging as the demographic center of power in American politics, but new studies by UC Berkeley researchers find they are fatalistic about critical problems such as economic inequality, climate change and the future of democracy.

Younger voters had a broad, decisive impact on the 2020 presidential election and congressional elections in 2018 and 2022, according to research released today by the Berkeley Institute for Young Americans (BIFYA). Now, with the 2024 presidential election just months away, the institute’s analysis raises concerns about possibly low turnout among young voters in November.

Trader Joe’s Co.'s recent trademark lawsuit against a union treads into the murky intersection of intellectual property and labor law, potentially testing the strength of the company’s infringement claims and the workers’ argument that the litigation amounts to retribution.

Trader Joe’s United, which formed last year and represents some of the grocery chain’s employees in three states, faces trademark claims over merchandise graphically bearing the company’s trademarks that go beyond identifying the union. The grocer’s complaint, filed in California federal court earlier this month, says the “purely commercial” sales “to the public is irreparably harming.”

It wasn't so long ago, Michigan's place in presidential elections was considered almost a foregone conclusion.

From 1992 through 2012, it only backed Democratic nominees and national campaigns noticed. U.S. Sen. John McCain, as the Republican nominee in 2008, pulled up stakes early in the state, figuring it was out of reach and that he had to spend resources elsewhere. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as the Democratic nominee in 2016, was criticized for not campaigning there more frequently and ceding it — albeit narrowly — to Donald Trump that year.

Mary Schultz says the Supreme Court decision to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion left her shaken. “I can’t believe they took us back 50 years, that my girls have less rights than I had,” she said. One of her two grown daughters cried over the news, she said.

Yet, Ms. Schultz, 61, who lives in suburban Atlanta, said she is likely to vote this fall to re-elect Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, even though he signed a bill that would ban most abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detected, at about six weeks into a pregnancy.

Laura Wilson is a mother of three who lives in the sprawling suburbs of north Phoenix, a hotly contested electoral area of Arizona that could decide which party controls the U.S. Senate after November's congressional elections.

Wilson, 61, is pro-choice, voted for Democratic President Joe Biden, and knew all about the news last week that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision giving women the right to an abortion.

A new poll found 3 in 5 Americans now say corporate greed is a “major cause” of inflation.

That’s a 15 percent jump to 59 percent from 44 percent in January 2022, according to a new poll from Navigator Research. The left-leaning polling and opinion research group surveyed 1,000 registered voters from Jan. 25-29.

From the veterans who surged into new “bedroom communities” after World War II to the growing number of immigrants now diversifying and reviving them, suburbia has served as a symbol of renewal.

President Joe Biden knows this fresh-start narrative poignantly: The suburbs are not only where he built a soaring career but rebuilt a broken family after a traffic accident took his wife and daughter decades ago.

This study investigated how the national level of IPR is associated with individuals’ access to medicines and households’ experience of catastrophic expenditure for medicines. First, our results show that higher level of IPR is associated with low access to prescribed medicines. This adverse relationship between IPR and access to medicines is significant even after controlling for country income level and individuals’ socioeconomic status and demographic characteristics. Adding other variables, which reflect the characteristics of each country’s healthcare system, in the model did not change the significant effect of IPR on access to medicines, although the magnitude of the effect slightly decreased. These results imply that strengthened IPR for pharmaceuticals is functioning as a barrier to people’s access to medicines. Even though each country’s policy efforts, such as strengthening the infrastructure of healthcare provision and increasing the public expenditure for healthcare, have contributed to offsetting the negative impact of IPR on medicine utilization to some extent, the effect of IPR was still significant. Our results also show that IPR exerts an influence on medicine utilization only in countries above a certain income level. We did not observe the significant effect of IPR on access to medicines in low-income countries where GDP per capita is below $1000, whereas it was negatively associated with access to medicines in middle-income countries. These results are more likely to be related with access to healthcare, which is the premise of utilizing the prescription drugs. This study only included the population for whom medicines were prescribed when they visited health care providers, excluding the population who could not see healthcare providers even though they were in need. Given that a greater number of people are suffering from poor access to healthcare in low-income countries than in middle-income ones, no association between IPR and access to medicines in low-income countries is more likely to be explained by this kind of sample selection problem. Furthermore, a gap between rules and practice in the enforcement of IPR may contribute to the non-significant impact of IPR in low-income countries. As Shadlen and colleagues pointed out,41 low-income countries may have a large gap between rules and reality with regard to IPR, considering their limited resources for implementation and enforcement of IPR. The GP index that we used as an index of IPR in this study was developed by a text-based approach using the existing legal and institutional arrangements for patent systems, so it may not show us the full picture of actual protection level for IPR. Thus, we cannot exclude the possibility of this type of measurement error in low-income countries. We also found that those who live in rural areas have better access to medicines than those who live in urban areas. This may be related to sample selection process. Rural areas are likely to have inferior healthcare infrastructure, so rural residents have more difficulties in utilizing healthcare service. Because rural residents included in this study are those who visit healthcare providers despite this barrier, it is possible that they have more propensity to use healthcare, including prescribed medicines, than urban residents. This possibility is supported by the result that the coefficient of rural residence is bigger and significant in low-income countries, but not in middle-income countries, because the difference in healthcare infrastructure between rural and urban areas would be bigger in low-income countries than in middle-income ones. Next, our results show that the effects of the national healthcare system on access to medicines are not the same across countries with different income levels. Although essential medicines lists and the number of doctors had positive significant relationships with access to medicines in low-income countries, only a public share of total health expenditure had a significant impact in middle-income countries. This suggests that the main types of access barrier that countries face are different according to their income level. Middle-income countries tend to suffer from non-affordable price of medicines rather than availability problems, whereas low availability of essential medicines is a more serious issue for low-income countries. Last, our results show that IPR is not associated with households’ catastrophic expenditure for medicines even though it is significantly associated with access to prescribed medicines. This is due to the possibility that many people cannot purchase medicines at all because of their poor purchasing capacity and the high price of medicines. As a result, they are likely to be excluded from the analysis. Accordingly, the results of this study provide strong empirical evidence for the linkage between IPR and access to medicines in developing countries. As we hypothesized, strengthening IPR led to lower access to medicines in developing countries, and particularly lower access for the poorest of the poor. This result supports previous theoretical debate that patent protection may result in welfare loss in developing countries.

“We know that people 50 and older vote more than any other age group,” says Bill Sweeney, AARP senior vice president for government affairs. Sweeney points out that overall turnout tends to be lower in a nonpresidential year, and that will make the 50-plus vote even more important. Take the last midterm elections, in 2018: Turnout among Americans ages 45 to 59 was 56 percent; among voters 60 and over, the rate was 66 percent. The turnout among voters ages 18 to 29 that year? Just 33 percent. “We also know that voters 50 and older take time to find out where candidates stand on the issues,” says Sweeney. “They want to make sure that the people they are voting for are really going to represent them.” This election, voters across all age groups report being worried about pocketbook items like the price of food and gas. Continuing concerns over COVID-19 and voting rights, as well as local education issues, also rank high in preliminary surveys. But older Americans have their own issues that are top of mind. They want to know candidates’ views on them and will be evaluating how much progress incumbent lawmakers in Washington and in their state have made. Here are four that surveys show are top of mind among older voters. Prescription drugs At issue: Americans continue to pay among the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and the problem’s not going away: List prices of pharmaceuticals increased by an average of 5.2 percent in 2021 for many of the medications that Medicare spends the most on. Medicare beneficiaries, who have a median annual income of just under $30,000, take an average of four to five prescription drugs every month and public opinion surveys consistently have found that many beneficiaries skip doses or don’t refill their prescriptions because of the cost. Status: In December, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act of 2021, which included prescription drug reforms. The U.S. Senate has not acted on this bill even though lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say they want to lower the cost of prescription drugs. In individual states, about 90 Rx-related bills were enacted in 2020 and 2021, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy. AARP’s state offices helped get 53 bills or regulations passed during that time, including measures requiring transparency in drug pricing, allowing lower-cost medications to be safely imported from Canada, creating state-based drug assistance programs, preventing midyear changes to the lists of drugs that plans cover and capping out-of-pocket costs on insulin. What older voters want: AARP’s Fair Rx Prices Now campaign has called on Congress to pass these measures to help lower prescription drug prices: Allow Medicare to negotiate prices with drugmakers, impose tax penalties on manufacturers that raise prices higher than the rate of general inflation and put a cap on out-of-pocket costs for those enrolled in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. “Millions of Americans are looking to their elected leaders from both parties to put their differences aside and work together to lower drug prices,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer.

It has become a political truism that older voters — because of their numbers and their dedication to making it to the polls — decide elections at every level, from the White House to city and county councils. But what matters to them this year seems to vary as much as at any time in recent memory. And no party or candidate appears to have a lock on their hearts. For Mike Britt, 67, of Edmond, Oklahoma, the November elections are about dollars and cents. He’s been hit hard by rising prescription drug prices and inflation. Like others on a fixed income, Britt, a retired ­insurance ­auditor, notices each time property taxes, groceries and gasoline prices go up, especially since he drives nearly 200 miles each way to Texas and back to check on his mother, whom he and a sister help pay basic bills. “She has about the same amount coming in, but costs go up,” Britt says. Robert Fulkerson, 64, of Reno, Nevada, is focused on a more abstract vision: the future of the planet. He can still recall the song he and his classmates sang on the first Earth Day in 1970 as they cleaned up trash. His lifetime of environmentalism carries forward to this year’s election. Fear motivates some older voters this election cycle. “We’re about the only country in the world that doesn’t control immigration,” says Pam L., a 78-year-old from Nevada who participated in an AARP focus group last fall on election concerns. (Last names of those in the focus groups were kept confidential.) “Now that terrorism is going on, it’s not safe for the American people, and nobody seems to care about that.” These and other concerns will be on the minds of older voters when they enter the ­ballot booth. And since presidential elections have been so close in recent years, candidates seek the right formula to motivate a small sliver of the electorate that could prove decisive, says Bruce Oppenheimer, professor emeritus of political science at Vanderbilt University. “Older voters are a remarkably stable group,” Oppenheimer says. “It might take more to move them than those who do not have a long attachment to a political party.” A stronger economy, Social Security are top issues How the economy affects people personally matters most, AARP found after hearing from women 50 and older for a survey. Of women who work, 54 percent said they are not confident they will have enough money to retire when they would like. Forty-one ­percent of the retired women said they weren’t doing as well financially as they expected. “You can always count on older voters to be concerned about the economy, and in their world, it’s Social Security and Medicare,” says Nancy LeaMond, AARP chief advocacy and engagement officer. “And those are reliably the most important issues to older voters, no matter what election year it is.” Other surveys and polls confirm that. A Pew Research Center poll early this year found that strengthening the economy was the top issue for 4 out of 5 people 50 to 64 years old. Making Social Security fiscally sound was important to 77 percent of voters 65-plus, ranking third in a tie with immigration after terrorism and the economy. For those ages 50 to 64, 73 percent list Social Security, after the economy and defending against terrorism. A 54-year-old Arizona independent voter in an AARP focus group said medical deductibles and copays, along with high prices for goods, take a toll. “It’s just ridiculous. You go to the store, everything is expensive,” says Girlie C. High prescription drug prices were also a concern for many. Britt says his wife has a migraine-inducing rare illness that racks up high prescription bills of $1,100 monthly for one drug alone. “There has to be some way they can ­lower these drug prices. They’re just ­exorbitant,” he says. The polarized nature of politics has an impact on what voters see as important, says Beth Rickenbach, associate professor of psychology at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. Immigration is one ­example: Nearly twice as many Republican voters as Democrats said it was important. Crime also is a much hotter issue for ­Republicans than for Democrats. And Democrats were more concerned than Republicans about climate change and environmental issues. In one focus group, a Republican woman said she was so frustrated with politicians’ dysfunction and polarization that she’d like to “give Congress a good talking-to.” She would tell lawmakers to set aside their pet projects and reelection concerns and focus on ethics and working together. Caregiving was on the minds of voters. About 87 percent of women support paid family leave benefits for caregivers, the AARP poll found. Women in the focus groups said they felt their caregiving work was undervalued. A 55-year-old caregiver named Kelley M. of ­Nevada asked, “For somebody like myself that had to give up their job so they could take care of their parent and not get paid for it: What are you gonna do about us?”

A storm has been brewing in the intellectual property arena involving a growing number of small to midsize technology inventors litigating against Big Tech over patent infringement.

"Now you have Google, Facebook and others having more than 50 cases a year in the United States being filed against them. They can't just bury their head in the sand. Where there is smoke, there is fire," said McKool Smith principal Blair Jacobs.

“Cyberwar,” a new book by political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson, reminds us that targeted ads and fake news stories can indeed shift votes, but the numbers are necessarily small. It’s hard to overwhelm your competitor when he or she can play the same games you are playing. Now, take a look at my numbered list. The techniques I’ve described can shift millions of votes without people’s awareness, and because they are controlled by the platforms themselves, they are entirely noncompetitive. If Google or Facebook or Twitter wants to shift votes, there is no way to counteract their manipulations. In fact, at this writing, there is not even a credible way of detecting those manipulations. And what if the tech giants are all leaning in the same political direction? What if the combined weight of their subtle and untraceable manipulative power favors one political party? If 150 million people vote this November in the United States, with 20 percent still undecided at this writing (that’s 30 million people), I estimate that the combined weight of Big Tech manipulations could easily shift upwards of 12 million votes without anyone knowing. That’s enough votes to determine the outcomes of hundreds of close local, state, and congressional races throughout the country, which makes the free-and-fair election little more than an illusion. Full disclosure: I happen to think that the political party currently in favor in Silicon Valley is, by a hair (so to speak), the superior party at the moment. But I also love America and democracy, and I believe that the free-and-fair election is the bedrock of our political system. I don’t care how “right” these companies might be; lofty ends do not justify shady means, especially when those means are difficult to see and not well understood by either authorities or the public. Can new regulations or laws save us from the extraordinary powers of manipulation the Big Tech companies now possess? Maybe, but our leaders seem to be especially regulation-shy these 379 days, and I doubt, in any case, whether laws and regulations will ever be able to keep up with the new kinds of threats that new technologies will almost certainly pose in coming years

Billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel may be backing Donald Trump, and even speaking at the Republican National Convention. But many other technology leaders have come out strongly opposed to a Trump presidency.

On Thursday morning, 145 technology CEOs, billionaire investors, and upcoming entrepreneurs from some of the largest companies and startups in Silicon Valley signed an open letter that condemned Trump as "a disaster for innovation." The list includes Slack's Stewart Butterfield, IAC's Barry Diller, Qualcomm's Irwin Jacobs, Tumblr's David Karp, Box's Aaron Levie, Facebook's Dustin Moskovitz, Reddit's Alexis Ohanian, eBay's Pierre Omidyar, Zynga's Mark Pincus, Medium's Ev Williams, Apple's Steve Wozniak, and venture capitalists Vinod Khosla and Chris Sacca.

Allan Lichtman, a historian who has correctly predicted the results of nine of the 10 most recent presidential elections, said Sunday that if Democratic delegates rebel against President Joe Biden and choose another Democratic nominee, it could spell chaos for the party.

There's no indication that Democratic delegates in large numbers would opt for another candidate to lead the party in November's election. But “Fox News Sunday” host Shannon Bream asked Lichtman what obligations Democratic delegates have “if President Biden says he’s not going to leave the ticket.”

The capable state is a concept that we seem to be unable to live without, though this is admittedly not the same thing as showing that such a state does or could exist. There are, however, empirical reasons to resist the notion that the state is incapable of playing a major and positive role in information policy, and not just because the state must be involved in any such scheme, including that of creating exclusion rights. Might it be that the modern state is in fact better at directly promoting innovation than it is at creating private property rights that are well-configured do the same? After all, the same state that gave us the "Mickey Mouse” Copyright Term Extension Act, which lengthened copyright protection by two decades, not only prospectively but also retroactively (to better incentivize Walt Disney, God rest his soul?), has also funded agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and (more ominously), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which are widely credited with the foundational advances that made the networked information age and the biotech age possible." Governments today fund not only blue sky research, but also “mission-oriented research,” with particular goals in fields like health and energy, where their role is critical not because possible applications are distant in time, but because their social value is hard to internalize even in the presence of private intellectual property rights, or because the private sector is more risk-averse than is government." 67

It is in some sense no surprise that all of this is not well-profiled in recent debates about information policy and private IP law, particularly in the United States. After all, as Erik Reinart has recently put it:

This thesis explores the ways in which contemporary science fiction cinema represent the politicization of human biological life. The philosophical concept which discusses this issue is known as biopolitics and it underpins the theoretical framework of my thesis. The simplest definition of biopolitics is that authorities in power treat individuals and populations as biological entities in order to control, protect and regulate them. Biopolitics is an important concept because many contemporary global issues such as security, migration, health and biotechnology are biopolitical in nature. Three influential contemporary philosophers who have explored this concept are Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben and Roberto Esposito. Relevant sections of the writings of these philosophers are interpreted in Chapter 1. In this thesis, I analyze four important blockbuster science fiction films: The Island, V for Vendetta, Children of Men and 28 Weeks Later using the arguments of these philosophers. The above mentioned films are selected because they each highlight a specific biopolitical issue: biotechnology (The Island), security and terrorism (V for Vendetta), migration and asylum seeking (Children of Men) and responses to pandemics (28 Weeks Later). The main argument of my thesis is centred on the questions of resistance raised by both the philosophers and the films. As I have explained in detail in the thesis, Foucault, Agamben and Esposito feel that biopolitics has become too pervasive in contemporary society and they question (to varying degrees) whether any form of active resistance is if at all possible. Foucault suggests that perhaps we have to promote new forms of subjectivity and based on my understanding of his arguments, this is the closest he reaches to raising the idea of the possibility of resistance. Agamben and Esposito claim that any active form of resistance to biopolitics should take into account the indistinguishable characteristic of biology and politics and must therefore question the biologization of politics as a starting point. However, the films represent resistance in different ways. In these films, resistance takes the form of overthrowing a regime, or an institution or the form of a scientific solution. The films do not take into account the pervasive nature of biopolitics as explained by the philosophers convey the idea that resistance is simple and will always be possible. Although these films identify with contemporary biopolitics and raise ethical questions about some of these practices, I feel that it is in their representations of resistance that the films fail in influencing audiences to realize the inherence of biopolitics in the contemporary world and how difficult it is to actually resist this form of power. These films do not question, unlike the philosophers, whether any active form of resistance to biopolitics lies in resisting the reduction of individuals to biological entities which are then politically managed. They also do not show how difficult it is to really resist biopolitics. Through this process, these films ultimately pacify audiences and function as a form of biopolitics themselves. These points will be illustrated in detail through the analyses of the four films in Chapter 2 (The Island), Chapter 3 (V for Vendetta), Chapter 4 (Children of Men) and Chapter 5 (28 Weeks Later)

This absence brings to mind Haraway’s observation that in these times of climate crisis, extinctions and ecological collapse, there is an ‘unprecedented looking away’ (Haraway 2016, 35), a refusal to know and ‘to be present in and to onrushing catastrophe in time’ (2016, 35). We argue that while others may look away, educators must critically face up to anthropogenic ecological disruption, including extinction, so that current and future generations can grapple with ecological uncertainty and precarity (Jickling et al. 2018; Lloro-Bidart 2015). Educators may be reluctant to turn towards extinction based on the expectation that young children should be distanced, shielded and protected from death and loss (Affifi and Christie 2019). This shielding is seen in early childhood learning settings which, as Iris Duhn (2012) observes, ‘are often prime sites where the discourses of protection, vulnerability and innocence create a highly controlled and closely monitored environment… which can lead to resistance when it comes to addressing potentially challenging, complex topics’ (20). This narrative of protection is also political. The Australian Prime Minister recently voiced his worry that the public discourse on climate change, including school student climate change protests, were unnecessarily making children anxious (Glenday 2019). We suggest, however, that turning a blind eye and deaf ear to what confronts us all is a greater threat to children.

Of course, we don’t mean to suggest that extinction is not being taught. Our concern is that some prevalent approaches to science teaching around the environment and extinction may be insufficiently disruptive of Western binaries and insufficiently grounded in the lives of children. We echo a concern of a recent literature review of climate change education that found that top-down, knowledge-focused (science) and didactic teaching dominated, despite the need for participatory, affective and creative pedagogies based in children’s local environments (Rousell and Cutter-MacKenzie-Knowles 2020). In our experience, children are often taught about the loss of the dinosaurs and the catastrophic Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. They may also be taught the extinctions of individual species occurring in the recent past, typically on account of their failure to adapt to environmental change (see for example, https:// www.forteachersforstudents.com.au/site/themed-curriculum/endangered-wildlife/). We suggest that pedagogical approaches could better recognise that extinction and the threat of loss are part of children’s present, everyday and future lives, and that life and death are woven together (Affifi and Christie 2019). Moreover, encountering extinction in the sense offered by Extinction Studies invites educators and children to relearn the world as an ongoing entanglement of biocultural relations and to trouble their ways of knowing and being.2

In recent years, a few scholars have begun to suggest that certain areas of intellectual property law-primarily copyright-may play a positive role in social justice. They contend that selecting different rationales for intellectual property law-apart from strictly utilitarian ones-may assist with social utility and social justice outcomes.15 They also argue that there is a role for intellectual property acquisition to help individuals achieve economic independence and personal empowerment. 16

Little has been written on the role of trademark law on development and social justice, however, and even less on the role of identity protection as a mechanism for social justice and personal freedom. Several factors support examining these issues now. First, minorities in the United States are much less likely than non-minorities to seek trademark protection from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").17 According to the USPTO, "minority owned businesses are seeking patents at rates almost ten times lower than their non-minority counterparts" and are "four times less likely to seek trademarks."' 8 These statistics demonstrate that "some minority groups are not as likely to participate in the U.S. innovation system."' 9 Minorities may be considered among the marginalized citizens worthy of consideration for targeted legal services as a form of social and distributive justice in the field of intellectual property. 20

In 2019, Chinese entities were the fourth-largest group using the U.S. patent system,28 dramatically increasing their filings by 93% over the prior ten years.29 This increase has largely been attributed to China’s patent subsidy program and the national and provincial-level financial support provided to putative inventors.30 For several years, Chinese patent applicants could receive a wide variety of incentives for developing inventions and filing for patent protection. Incentives could be monetary, such as payment of filing fees and payments to inventors, and non-monetary, including reduced prison sentences for convicted criminals. Not surprisingly, these policy interventions opened a floodgate of patent application filings by Chinese residents.

So what is the United States to do in response? Fight back, and deploy our secret weapon: women and underrepresented minority group members who can be drawn into the inventor ranks. Our nation is now attempting to activate and deploy that weapon in the battle for innovation supremacy.

What are the consequences of understanding creative processes in the way that I have just described? Although the model elaborated in Part III is (ironically) quite abstract, this approach to theorizing the creative process has some very direct implications for copyright policy and doctrine. Decentering creativity disrupts the tight linkage between copyright and creativity that has come to dominate public debate about copyright issues, and that pervades legislative and policy processes. This, in turn, enables an account of the oft-invoked "copyright balance" that emphasizes the process of working through culture and the importance of play within cultural landscapes. This twofold reframing dictates a very different approach to questions of optimal copyright scope. At the same time, it underscores the connections between copyright, cultural progress, and social justice.

Lobbyists for the copyright industries are in the habit of asserting that copyright is the single most critical prerequisite for a vibrant artistic and intellectual culture. Some of this is theater driven by political expediency. No one wants to be against creativity, and if copyright equals creativity then no one wants to be against copyright. Yet beneath the rhetoric, both copyright lawyers and copyright scholars tend to assume that copyright law is centrally important in stimulating a high level of creativity. Since copyright theory and jurisprudence persistently devalue the role of context in shaping culture, that assumption is unsurprising. The tight linkage between copyright and creativity, however, both fuels romantic author narratives and justifies draWing firm distinctions between authors, on the one hand, and consumers, imitators, and improvers on the other. Those distinctions dominate the current landscape of copyright law; they undergird broad rights to control copies, public renderings, and derivations of copyrighted works and expansive readings of the rules that create liability for technology providers.