 Public AppResource.org. Our host here is Mitch Kapoor. I thought I would let him welcome us to this law.com workshop. Good morning. Welcome. We're happy to host a workshop today, have a long and productive working relationship with Carl. The space you're in here at 543 Howard Street is home to several organizations that either my life or I have started both for profit and non-profit. And so we're going to host today's Mitch Kapoor Foundation. I think the project of trying to make all the primary legal materials available freely online is a terrific one. I'm keeping with many things that we've supported and I'm going to be able to come back at lunchtime and join you in sitting on that. I wish you the best today. I think it's going to be a great session. Dr. Sandelsen, it's nice to see you as well. You want to say a couple words and then we'll start kind of what the day's going to look like. So I think that part of what is so exciting to me about the project that Carl has gotten started and also the energy that is beginning to swirl around it is that we've had sort of legal information be at least in legal theory free. But in fact as long as it was contained in books and those books were copyrighted, it wasn't as free as it wanted it to be. The chance then to digitize information and legal information was exciting because it did promise to make it more free or free as in at least speech if not fear. And what we saw was in fact an enormous explosion of uses of legal information through Lexis and Westlaw in particular. But although there are freer in some sense, the legal information is freer in that environment than it was when it was just in the books and you had to personally be at the library to look at each book. Because of the protection measures, access controls and because of contracts, in fact it's not been nearly as free as a number of us want. So after a couple of decades of the proprietary services providing us with this information, we now see that there's a new burst of energy about making legal information available and of course the internet and so many of the resources that we all have come to rely on have been incredibly important. So I think that Lexis and Westlaw have provided good value to their shareholders and good value to the entities that were their subscribers. But the underlying philosophy about not protecting legal information is in fact that in a democracy public access to the laws that govern us and the regulations that we are supposed to comply with is sort of a theme that still isn't being fully realized. And so although there have been a number of initiatives, the Legal Information Institute at Mornell was actually an early sort of effort to try to make certain classes of legal information available for free as in beer online, although they also needed to get donations so I get email at least once a year asking for a contribution and I do it. And of course some courts and some legislatures have been willing to make legal information online for free. But it's still been kind of a patchwork of individual things and I think what's exciting to me about the kind of entrepreneurial energy that Carl brings to this particular project is that there is now an opportunity not to just have a little patchwork but in fact to take a broad vision about the public access to information for that kind of democratic purpose that we have had in our legal theory for some time. So I'm really excited to be part of this project and looking forward to the day and to Carl has put together. Thank you. So I wanted to give a very brief kind of introduction to what a lot I've done was all about it. And then I'm going to turn it over to Professor Samuelson for our first session. I want to thank Mitch Kapoor especially for hosting this workshop. We have done a series of 10 workshops throughout the country and in each one we've had prominent co-conveners that have helped put these things together. In this case Professor Samuelson and Mitch Kapoor are the co-conveners for this workshop. So Laudak is about a very simple idea and the idea is that all the primary legal materials of the United States should be freely available from the source as an authenticated bulk feed. Now that's a lot of words and it's a simple concept but it gets very complicated as we dig down into it. How do you do authentication? Should there be charges for service? What about people that are unfairly using services? How do you handle privacy issues? And these are all some of the subtleties and the very important issues that need to be dealt with in making legal information available. And these are not trivial issues. These are issues that if you screw it up people die. If you screw it up people's lives get ruined. And so it's very important to do the issues of privacy and security and how you provision the data and do it in a way that really makes sense. And I think there's really three reasons that we're looking at this kind of initiative to convince the policymakers and government that if they issue primary legal materials they should be broadly available. One reason is pretty simple. It's justice. It seems to be highly unfair that you have some lawyers who cannot afford to do the research they need in order to defend their clients. And some lawyers, I mean some of the obvious candidates like public interest law firms and some solo practitioners, but I also mean lawyers in the Department of Justice who are on budgets for their legal research and in order to defend the United States of America they have to cut back on their research and defend the United States less well. This is partly about democracy. I mean that the laws are really not just for lawyers. Interpreters of law along with judges and the rest of the legal profession are the ones that work with these materials. But when you think about it, building codes are something that every general contractor needs to know about. Electrical codes, fire codes, municipal ordinances for zoning are things that every realtor needs to know about. Every engineer needs to know what a patent looks like and how to interpret them properly. And so the law really needs to be available very broadly at least at the basic level. Now this doesn't mean that lawyers are going to go away, but it does mean in a year of increased sophistication where consumers read financial reports that are filed with the Securities and Estates Commission or look up drugs that their doctor prescribed to them. It's not unreasonable to think that a citizen should be able to read a building code without forking over 100 bucks. And so that's democracy. But it's also about innovation and one of the things that I find really amazing about this law.gov process is the strong participation of firms like LexisNexis and Justia and Fast Case and others because for them access to materials is a cost of doing business. And you would be shocked at how much effort many of these legal retailers go through obtaining the raw materials they need to start their businesses and run their businesses. And as a result, innovation in the legal sector has fallen way behind many of the other sectors. The law is the last place that the internet has yet to come to. And the reason for that is simple. It costs anywhere from 10 to 50 million dollars to buy the raw materials it would take you to get in the business of being a legal information retailer. And that high barrier to entry has meant that there are less internet startups and less innovations and that public interest firms such as my non-profit are unable to access the material to do things like privacy audits. And so innovation has suffered because of our current system. So what we are doing is a three-stage process. Rather than come in with the answers and say, gee, you know, Pacers go good and needs to be replaced. That's a conclusion. And I didn't think one could start with a conclusion. I think the issues are hard enough and difficult and have all sorts of subtleties. So what we have done is a national conversation step on a series of Law Dock of Workshops as well as a series of working groups. And this is the tenth of these Law Dock of Workshops. We started off at Stanford with the law library, was hosting that, did a wonderful job. We went to Princeton where Professor Ed Felton hosted a two-day workshop on transparency and open government. A whole series after that, Columbia University. I saw the Chief Technology Officer, Alexis Nexus, sitting next to the Deputy Chief Technology Officer of the United States, both discussing how this material could become available. At Yale New York Law School, Cornell, we did an in-depth two-day workshop with a lot of the leading technical figures in the deployment of case law on the Internet, looking at issues of authentication and metadata and document IDs. We just got done doing a very successful one at Duke Law School with Professor Boyle and Professor Jenkins. I was very pleased. We had the Archivist of the United States there. We had Andrew McLaughlin, the Deputy Chief Technology Officer. Twelve thousand people watched that event live on the Internet. A new record for Duke. We just got back from Texas where Professor Terry Martin was the interim librarian there, past president of the American Association of Law Libraries, hosted a workshop, a lot of very strong participation from people in industry as well as executives in the court system, part of the Chief Information Officer. We have another five events coming up, and this process will finish in June 18th. There's a series of events coming up in Washington, D.C. Next week we'll be in Chicago where Cali and the OIEH project will be hosting a workshop. In Washington, D.C., I'm really pleased that we are going to have the Vice-Chair of the Committee on House Administration, which is Congresswoman Zo Lofgren, and the ranking member of the committee, Congressman Lundgren, are hosting an event on Capitol Hill. Our speakers include Roberta Schaefer, who is here. She's the Law Librarian of Congress. Eugene Meyer, who is president of the Federalist Society and the American Association of Law Libraries. The message there is pretty clear. This is a big tent. This is not just a bunch of liberals or people trying to nationalize a law. This is a bipartisan issue that really does span party lines. And we will end the workshop process with more than John Podesta is hosting at the Center for American Progress, and then more than John Palfrey is going to be hosting at Harvard Law School. So today, what we're going to do is a conversation until 3 p.m. We're going to start off the morning with, I think, one of the most important issues, and this is Professor Samuelson and Brian Carter from the University of California at Berkeley, are going to talk about intellectual property and the law. Can you copyright the law? Can a vendor copyright the law if they're the reporter? Can you copyright a building code if it was developed with private funds? These are issues that, on their face, seem very, very obvious, right? When we say we're a nation of laws, not a nation of men, we mean we write the law down, and if we write the law down, people have to be able to read it. And so it has to be available. And I think if we look at court cases, and I'm sure Professor Samuelson will go through some of those, the basic concept that the law must be available is very, very clear, and has been clear since 1824. And so we're going to do that for an hour, and then we're going to shift gears. In 1130, we're going to talk about the National Inventory of Legal Materials, something that the American Association of Law Libraries has been assisting Erica Wayne and Paul Romeo and Stanford in putting together groups around the country that are looking at the legal materials and saying, so what do we have in the state of California? Are court cases copyright? Does it cost money to get them? And I think you'll find some rather shocking statistics. And the whole point of the National Inventory is if we're going to put all primary legal materials online, what they are, where they are, and are we able to use them or not. And so that session will be for 30 minutes. At noon, we're going to let you stand up for a few minutes, grab some lunch, and then we're going to ask you to come back to the tables. We have Tim O'Reilly and the Secretary of State David Bohm are going to have a conversation about why this stuff matters, why government information needs to be available to people. And I think that's going to be a lot of fun. And they'll speak for about a half an hour, and then we'll let you stretch your legs for a few minutes. At 1 p.m., we have Alexander McGilveray from Twitter, who's a general counsel, and I'm really pleased we have Professor Robert Bering, who is also a past president of the American Association of Law Libraries and the author of one of the definitive treatises on legal research, former librarian at Bolt, and they're going to be talking about what lawyers need to access when they access the law. And then finally, we're going to have a discussion of privacy and the law. And this is a topic that is a very difficult one and one that we really have to deal with. As a society, we can't simply say we're going to make the price so high that this material won't be available, because as we know, identities do have credit cards, and it's an issue we need to deal with. And I'm really pleased we've got Chris Booth-Mago from the University of California, Berkeley, and Peter Wynn from the Department of Justice. They're two of the leading researchers when it comes to privacy in the courts, and so I'm very pleased that they're here to talk about this. And then we have a half hour at the end of the day for a general discussion. And so that's pretty much what we're going to do. Feel free to talk. I'm going to ask each of our speakers to speak for 10 minutes, and then there's time for a more general discussion as well. So if we could start with Pam and Brian, and if you guys can come up here and you can kick off our first session.