have -- since we operate in -- we have users in so many different countries with many -- they do not embrace an american vision of free speech. they do not have a first amendment. so we're not just talking about pakistan but countries like france and germany will -- famously since the yahoo! days, the early yahoo! days, you know, 2001, 2002, a nazi content, for example. that the rules were established then that, yes, even though you serve this from the united states, this is -- if it's viewable in france, then you are supporting that, that's a violation. but the technological fix, we've avoided that one-way ratchet by things like ip blocking. now we block by ip address. if there's content posted in sweden that's not allowed in pakistan, we can block that. >> so you have seprability.

>> there are many versions of harmonization. conflict of laws doesn't require substantive harmonization. and it's the choosing among them. there are problems that's can be solved with complex rules and problems that require substantive harmonization. the problem is figuring out which one you want to do. it's different than the national government because the ability to get harmonization at the international level is a qualitatively different issue. >> absolutely. >> i'm dan lazzer, a law student at the university of florida. with technology essentially being the last area without significantly broad regulation, in light of the failure and -- the current failure and controversy surrounding sopa and pipa and other proposed bills regulating the technology area, how do you feel that the technology sector will ultimately be regulated either through government, through market forces or through a combination of the two? >> i have an answer.

>> all right. go, richard. >> let's let mark -- the people who were asked to answer maybe have a say. >> this may be our last chance to disagree. >> i'll try to disagree with you. the greatest protection that technology has against regulation is the pace of innovation. that is the more that you can constantly change and morph your product the more difficult it is for people from the outside to take it over. it's when a technology becomes stable like electricity and a telephone that you can start having very impressive national rate regulation systems such as those that developed between 1980 and 1940. i don't think you'll ever be able to get that in the technology business, so i think in effect so long as you -- if you slow down and they start to regulate, you'll never be able to speed up again. >> just sort of one elaboration on that is my intuition is that the future is very sensitive to initial conditions. so if -- you can sort of imagine a model where there's an escape

velocity from politics and you get the positive feedback loop goes quickly enough, the technology outpaces the political system and we continue to see acceleration. that's what's happened thus far in the computer area. or you can imagine a case where the political system sort of dampens down things and then, of course, you end up with monopoly-like industries and you have arguments that they are like utilities and should be regulated more heavily. that's what i submit has happened everywhere else. so because you have this positive feedback loop between technology and politics, whichever one goes faster will dominate and you can imagine radically different in the future and we can imagine a world completely static or we can have one where you have -- progress starts to reaccelerate and the computers sort of take over everything. that's the optimistic cases. there's one goose left but it's powerful enough to overrun everything else.

but that's the question. >> so it comes back to where i started which is the idea of the mother may i regime. so the real question is, do i have to seek forgiven or do i have to seek permission, right? in a regulatory world in which i have to seek permission, if i can't build until the government says yes, if i can't do x or y, you aren't going to outrun it. technology will not outrun politics in that world. in a world in which i can build it and we can do a bunch of things, then if i can run fast enough that the world starts to see the benefits, it turns out to be harder and harder to regulate those benefits away. we've seen that again and again in copyright and new media technology where if i can get my technology up to scale fast enough, the copyright owners who want to shut it down won't be able to, right? tivo makes it big enough, fast enough that even though the copyright owners really, really

want it not to be able to shut down tivo because it allows you to skip commercials and successfully sued a smaller company that hadn't scaled fast enough, they can't sue tivo today. they're not -- it's just -- it's implausible as a matter of regulation. so. >> what you do is you embed the commercial in the show so as to avoid the fact you can go through it. that's the adaptive response. >> or make your commercials better. >> but the super bowl, people prefer it, yes. >> last question. >> i'm meredith ponder. i'm a law student from georgetown. and i -- one of the things that some of my friends and i have been considering during this whole internet piracy debate has been the increasing globalization of media and, in particular, movies and television shows that have

different distribution dates in different countries. and so this question, i think, is for the panel at large. i know that -- i know that i have friends who, for example, downloaded downtown abbey, for example, that was shown in the uk three months earlier than it was released here. and there are programs that won't ever be released here from other countries. how can corporations work on that? how can regulations work on that which is more effective, the marketplace? i mean that's something -- i mean, if -- personally, if distribution is simplified, that -- we would be more, we would be more than willing to

pay to do these things. >> and i think this is critically important, right? so if the -- if hollywood's goal on the internet is make sure it doesn't interfere with our eight-tier distribution model in which it can only go to hulu between week five and month three and then it's got to come back off and it's got to be in redbox only 28 days thereafter, that's all going away. and it should go away, right? this is arbitrage via the internet and it's a good thing. and, you know, there's a piracy problem out there, and, you know, we need to think about intelligently how to solve that problem, but the -- the way to solve that problem, i think, is not a bunch of new laws. we've got a bunch of copyright laws already, right? adding sopa and pipa is not the way to solve that. what hollywood needs is not a new law but a business model

that takes advantage of the digital world. and the music industry is starting to get there. they spent -- a dozen years ago, their goal was stop the digital transition. no music in digital format. they fought and lost that battle for a while. and then they started to kind of make it -- figure out ways to make money in this digital world, in part because we allow lots of people to have lots more access to things they never would have seen because they were only released in the uk. the video industry is not there yet in part because for them the piracy problem is more recent as bandwidth has increased. but that's where they've got to go. >> i have a slight disagreement with this. i don't think we ought to tell firms if they have an efficient business model, forget it because we can't enforce as a first order. there's a deep problem in the law of torts which carries over. the private right of order is very difficult to enforce. what you want to do is get

another action against somebody who is always overbroad. so that, for example, you are at an apartment house and somebody molests you, you can't find the victim you sue the apartment house owner for that. that's the problem you do and the tradeoffs are horrendously difficult. what happens is mark suggests when you see the writing on the wall, after all you go to self-help and the point is we'd rather have as little of that shift as possible without having the overprotection. and that's a very hard problem to solve. >> just one quick point. you know, the -- if hollywood really were satisfied with private enforcement, that would be one thing. but the move you are seeing is hollywood wants the government and the taxpayers to pay the price for that enforcement. and that's especially ironic when the windowing is actually helping drive the piracy problem because firms are not responding to demand by giving users what they want at a price they are willing to pay, a fair price, then the piracy is only going to get worse because you can't get

it legally. >> but the complication with all of this stuff is that what they are saying is private enforcement is broken down. we need public enforcement. this is the same argument people made in favor of consume procedure techs laws. we get all these guys doing something wrong. they commit fraud, we can't stop them. so it's not just enough to say that these characters are completely wrong. you have to be much more specific in trying to figure out the overbreadth and underbreadth on these mechanisms. and it seems to me that the industry is not aware of the fact that there are other things on the other side of this so they always overclaim and then get themselves discredited. >> they are aware now. >> what? >> they're aware now. >> and with that -- i'll just tell you a quick story. i went to chicago. i thought there at the beginning of my career. one thing i learned and the other chicagoans can probably all confirm this. if you are deal with richard, you go to him with any question

you have and then you get the epstein version of the universe and then when he finishes you kind of go, yeah, but and he'll explain all the arguments on the other side and walk away thinking, you are really that smart to have thought of all those arguments. that's true. i've done that on multiple occasions. so thank you very much. thanks to the panelists for a great panel and thank you for coming. >> when you walk outside of the auditorium if you are -- spend the weekend in oklahoma city with book tv and american history tv. saturday at noon eastern, check in on literary life with book tv on c-span2. including governor mary fallon's must-read political books. oklahoma university president and former senator david boren on his letter to america. also rare books from the history of science collection at ou. and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, oklahoma history on american

history tv on c-span3. tour the oklahoma city bombing memorial with co-designer tori. plus a look into african-american life in 1920s oklahoma and native american artifacts from the special collections at the oklahoma history center. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history and literary life of stories across america. this weekend from oklahoma city on c-span2 and 3. sunday on q&a -- >> i don't regard this as just the biography of lyndon johnson. i want each book to examine a kind of political power in america. i'm saying, this is the kind of political power. seeing what a president can do in a moment of great -- in a time of great crisis. great crisis. how he gathers all around. what does he do to get legislation moving to take command in washington? that's the way of examining power in a time of crisis. i said, i want to do this in

full. i suppose it takes 300 pages. so i couldn't -- that's why i just said, let's examine this. >> robert caro on the passage of power, volume 4 in "the years of lyndon johnson," his multivolume biography of the former president. and look for our second hour with robert caro sunday may 20th. environmental protection agency administrator lisa jackson took part in a town hall meet with american university students. she discussed a wide range of issues, including high gas prices, sustainable and renewable energy and climate change. lisa jackson is the 12th epa administrator and previously served as chief of staff to former new jersey governor jon corzine. >> good morning. >> morning. >> on behalf of the school of business and its new ms in

sustainability management program, welcome to the grand finale of au's earth week events. a town hall with epa administrator lisa jackson. i'm dan jacobs. i'm director of the sustainability management program. i'd also like to recognize our dean michael ginsburg from the cogat school of business. just a brief word on our format. administrator jackson will make some initial remarks. following which we will have a question and answer period. in the interest of time and efficiency, we ask that you write your questions on the index cards that have been made available to you and pass them down to the end of the row to the folks who will be roaming periodically to pick them up. it is really a very special privilege and pleasure to introduce administrator jackson. with whom i feel a special bond. we began our careers in

environmental protection in the same year. when lisa jackson first joined epa as a staff scientist, and i first began representing epa as a justice department lawyer. so i guess you could say that lisa jackson and i or rather lisa jackson and her colleagues were my clients for many years, albeit nonpaying ones. more recently, we have shared an interest in seeing that justice is served in the bp gulf oil disaster case. administrator jackson's public service has come both at the federal and state levels. prior to serving as epa administrator, she served as the commissioner of the new jersey department of environmental protection. since we are here on a college campus, i would be remised not to mention that lisa jackson obtained her undergraduate degree from her home town of new

orleans and her masters degree in chemical engineering from princeton. i have many fond memories of my former client, but i want to share just one with you in particular. i was getting on a plane in february to fly out to february to give a talk. just before the plane door closed, lisa jackson got on and sat down across the aisle from me one row up in coach in a middle seat. i was so excited to see her again that i spontaneously shouted, i love you, lisa. she smiled and waved back. then i turned to the startled young man sitting next to me wearing a gonzaga high school jacket and sounding as professorial as i could explained, you know, that's lisa jackson, the epa administrator.

very poised, the high school student nodded and said, yes, that's my mother. startled, myself at this point, i asked inquisitively, in my typical new york fashion. but she's sitting in a middle seat. to which he responded, she likes to be in the middle. well, lisa jackson is sure in the middle of a lot of things these days. and i for one am glad she is. because as someone who has been in the environmental protection business for as long as she has, i have confidence that she will do the right thing for the environment. please join me in welcoming epa administrator lisa jackson.

>> hey. how are you? pretty cool introduction. best one yet, dan jacobs. well done. that personal touch. i'll go even further. everybody talks about how this weekend is white house correspondents dinner weekend. everybody calls it d.c. prom. some people call it nerd prom. but it's real prom season if you have a high school student, so people always ask me, how do you sort of balance it out and keep things in perspective. kids help. with moments like that. it really does help a lot. so thanks for acknowledging them. i have to say a very special thank you to dean ginsburg for coming and for staying and he's going to moderate our q&a which is pretty high level q&a moderator and i'm honored by that as well. and last, but not least, a special shout-out to gineth merchant. your here? okay. so i got an epa e-mail from

vicki who said you were intern extraordinaire and representative of this wonderful institution, so thank you. and i know we're trying to get you back. so thanks for all your hard work at epa this past summer. now i want to spend some time before we have a conversation talking about what has been and continues to be the defining mission of our time in office. and that is, of course, our mission to strengthen the economy and i want to spend some time on how epa and environmental protection in particular fits into that mission. since taking office, president obama and in fact, all of his administration and all of my colleagues have been focused on the urgent need to continue creating jobs. after the collapse of the economy in 2008, there was nothing more important than making sure businesses could get up and running. making sure families had as much help as they could get and making sure that critical industries like the auto

industry could stay afloat. not only because we started and wanted to sustain jobs, say, in detroit, but because we wanted to sustain the companies that make up the supply chain. that make their money sending materials and components to automakers. the economy is growing again. the u.s. has added a total of 4.1 million jobs over 25 months. american manufacturing is creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s, and the american auto industry is coming back. while developing fuel efficient vehicles to save drivers money and cut pollution from our skies. we've also agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion and put in place new rules to hold wall street accountable. good start. but we can do more. what we can do is go back to an economy based on outsourcing and bad debt and phony financial

profits. president obama has called for more than just an increase in job numbers. when outlining his economic vision for our country. what he's called for is an economy and an america that's built to last. for years now economic security for the average american family and members of the middle class has been eroding. we have come to what president obama called a make or break moment for the middle class and those trying to reach it. our mission today is to build and rebuild a country and an economy where everyone gets a fair shot. where everyone does their fair share and where everyone plays by the same set of rules. to get us on the right track, we focused on four pillars. the first is american manufacturing. president obama has laid out a bring back a new era of

manufacturing. keep those jobs here, attract new manufacturing jobs and make more products stamped made in the usa. we need our facilities to be more efficient and give american companies incentives to keep those jobs on our shores. the second pillar is american energy. the president wants to move our nation into a new era for american energy, where our economy is powered by home grown and alternative energy that will be designed by american engineers. some of you may have seen earlier this week that president obama was on late night with jimmy fallon. i don't usually watch but it's my boss. so one of the questions the president got while he was there was if there was any one thing that you could make happen that would change the world just by snapping your fingers, what would that one thing be? and the president's answer was, in short, clean energy. he said that we must invest in the clean energy sources of

tomorrow. he mentioned solar and wind. he talked about supporting electric cars and new sources of energy like biofuels. he said we need to do those things because it's good for our planet, because it will help us deal with climate change and because it's good for our economy. but, of course, those things can't just happen by the president snapping his fingers. it takes hard work, and we need a lot of help. this administration has dedicated more than $90 billion to job creating clean energy projects. in areas like grid modernization, renewable energy and advance vehicles. when supplemented by private capital, that money is supporting more than $150 billion in clean energy projects and those projects are helping put people to work. but a new era of american energy is about much more than just solar panels or increased use of cleaner natural gas. one good example is our work with the auto industry to make

vehicles more efficient. the historic fuel economy standards this administration put in place will nearly double the efficiency of the vehicles we all drive over the next decade. this single step will save american families $1.7 trillion at the gas pump. it will keep pollution out of our skies. and cut oil consumption by 12 billion barrels. i want to stay on that point for a moment because this is one of the most important steps we can take to address the spike in gas price prices that we are seeing right now and see every summer. high gas prices are painful. especially painful for middle class families. they are painful to our economy. and the fact is there are no silver bullets to bringing down prices in the short term. anyone promising they can do that is not telling the truth and the president has said many times that this administration is not going to get into false debates or phony promises.

the only way we're going to really deal with this problem is through a sustained, serious, all of the above approach to developing new domestic energy sources. that means safely expanding oil and gas production, but it also means reducing our overall reliance on oil through fuel efficiency and through the use of renewables. these changes in addition to saving drivers money has also sparked widespread innovation from companies developing components to innovators making advanced batteries. in north carolina an advance battery company recently hired 200 employees as adding 250 more. they are one of many companies operating here in our country that have dramatically increased our global market share for advance batteries. another company is alcoa, not exactly a start-up, but alcoa is investing $300 million in their

aluminum rolling facility in davenport, iowa. why? because they anticipate more demand for their product as the auto industry looks for aluminum and other light weight materials to improve the fuel efficiency of cars. 150 jobs. the auto industry is benefitting as well. we've all read the stories of chrysler and general motors adding technicians and engineers to make the more fuel-efficient cars. and chrysler announced its first quarter profits for 2012 quadrupled from the previous year. the third pillar the president is focussed on is ensuring a fair shot for american workers. the president has put forward new ideas for ensuring our students and workers get the education and training that they need. some of the plans he outlined included connecting our colleges to industries in need of new workers and helping small businesses get up and running. he also proposed extending support for students paying down their student loans which you

may have already heard about. without congressional action, more than 7.4 million people with federal student loans will see their interest rates double on july 1st of this year. we want to make sure that doesn't happen. when we need highly educated people to drive our economic growth, it's not the time to make it more expensive to go to college. the president is also urged congress to reform an immigration system that allows immigrants to come to the united states, get educated and then tell them that they can't stay once they are finished. finally, maybe most importantly, the president has called for a return to american values. values of fairness for all and responsibility from all. it is critical to our economic success that everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules. and all of this, epa, i believe, has an important rule to fill. our mission day in and day out is to protect the health of the

american people. how do we protect health? by keeping pollution out of the air that we all breathe. by keeping toxins out of the water that we all drink, keeping harmful chemicals out of the lands where we build our homes and communities, our schools, our churches. in other words, the work we do each and every day is focused on ensuring that our economy works for the american people it is consistent with american values to say that industry should not be allowed to dump untreated sewage into waters where we drink or swim or waters that we need for agriculture it's consistent with those values to say automobiles should meet some standards and those standards should keep everything from dangerous lead pollution to carbon pollution out of our air and that power plants should have some limit placed on their emissions of mercury and neurotoxin that affects children's brain development. it's consistent with those values to say that the food we

put on our plate shouldn't be coated with harmful chemicals that threaten our health or the health of our children. as president obama has said, we will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. right now there are two ways to go. two visions dominating the conversation. one says that we can rely on science. our laws. innovation. i'm an engineer. i like innovation. to protect human health and the environment and grow a green, sustainable economy. the alternative vision says that moving forward requires rolling back standards for clean air and clean water. it says we have to increase protection for those who might chute to pollute while reducing safeguards for all the rest of .