limiting trade with us, that's essentially a declaration of hostile intent. >> later at 10:00, on "reel america," we look back to the 1966 campaign for california governor, between edmond g. pat brown and ronald reagan. >> my experience has turned me inevitably toward the people for the answers to problems. instinctively, i find i believe and put my faith in the private sector of the economy. i believe in the people's rights and abilities to run their own affairs. >> every single solitary category of business that tells whether or not california's economy is good is proven that we have done a good job. >> sunday morning at 10:00 eastern on "road to the white house rewind." >> next tuesday, all of you will go to the polls and stand there in the polling place and make a decision. i think when make that decision,

it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? >> our proposals are very sound, very carefully considered to stimulate jobs, to improve the industrial complex of this country, to create tools for america to work with and at the same time would be tine-inflaegs nary in nature. >> the 1980 debate between incumbent president, jimmy carter and former california governor, ronald reagan. >> and at 7:00 -- >> a realist would not have given his life to fighting slavery and said, a sis lugs of the union for the cause of slavery would be followed by a war between the two severed portions of the yun. the result might be the extra pags of slavery from the continent. as decimating as this must be, so glorious would be its final issue. i dare not say it is not to be desired.

>> at the new york historical society, james traub, author of john quincy adams and historian and columnist robert kagan debate the question, was john quincy adams a realist? they also talk about the foreign policy views and legacy of our sixth president. four our complete schedule, go to cspan.org. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. now, look at how the internet and new technologies are transforming the economy. panel lists looked at the sharing economy through websites like uber and air b&b and the effects of new technologies like

self-driving cars and 3-d printers. hosted by the group "new american." this is an hour and a half. >> welcome. i'm will arimus, seen dwrur technology writer for slate. we are here to talk about whether technology will make ownership object see leet. this is a partnership between new america, arizona state university and slate mag sfwleen that explores emerging technologies and their transformative effect on society. central is a series of events in washington, d.c., new york city and the blog on slate. in addition to regular editorial content, we have the hybrid of journalism and digital learning where we choose a new technology or idea and break it down, what's the state of the science, who are the researchers leading

its development, what are the primary ethical and policy debates involved. this month, it is the end of ownership which serves as an inspiration for this event. a couple house keeping items. please, silence your cell phones. we will have some "q" and "a" at the end of each panel. during the "q" and "a," we will be live streaming the event. please wait for the microphone before you start speaking or nb will be able to hear you. make a comment in the form of a question with a question mark p in the end. got it, question. you can follow the discussion online using the hashtag ftownership, all one word, and follow us at future also one word. i would like to invite the speakers for our first conversation to the stanl. our first speaker is lauren baliv, senior ned ral government relations manager for lift. welcome, lauren. >> we have holly main, senior

director for mid-atlantic sales for spotify. welcome, holly and susan lund, partner at mckenzie global institute. welcome, susan. our first conversation is why own anything when you can access everything. i am going to sit down and we can start our conversation. lauren, let's start with you. cars are an exciting space right now. they have been much the same for decades. the industry is changing fast. talk a little bit about the future of cars, how it is changing, how fast it is changing and what might not change, what might change and what might not in the next decade or two in terms of

whether we buy cars, whether the cars drive themselves, and what that means for our ownership and relationship to cars. >> first, thank you so much. i am so pleased to be here. right off the bat, i get the same question probably every single day. what's the difference between lift and uber? it really comes down to how we were founded. uber was founded to be a taxi alternative. they started with luxury black cars. lift, on the other hand, was founded to be a full alternative to car ownership. we have two co-founders who were studying all these different inefficiencies on the market. 80% of seats on highway were empty. people own these cars, these assets but they are only using it 4% of the life of the car. the other 96% of the time, the car remained park. when you think about what car ownership means today, people spend on average $9,000 a year on cars when you think about gas, maintenance, insurance.

when you look at how the trends are changing in the american cities today, you have millennials that are moving into cities and getting more and more of the market buying power. do you think they would like to have the burdens of ownership or perhaps the access to services and services of rides through technology? it's been a very interesting way this trend is happening already organically. in 1983, the year i was born, 43% of 16-year-olds got their driver's license. in 2014, only 24% of 16-year-olds got their driver's license. that was something i was 100% sure i wanted when i turned 16. you are starting to see this happening organically. with lift, what we've been seeing is a trend toward the self-driving car. we see it as a way to help eliminate these inefficiencies in the market. if you think that 96% of the time, a car is parked. that means you have cars in

cities on roads and in parking spaces just sitting unused. if you can reimagine cities and the way people utilize cars, we can get rid of parking spaces. that could be a real way to bring more commerce. instead of parking, have parks, more housing for people. we are really excited to see what that means. at lift, we believe that in urban environments, people will stop owning cars completely by the year 2025. that's a fact timeline. it is one that i think is already well on its way. >> what about in suburban and rural environments? >> that we will see in slower trends. as the technology grows richer and the testing grows more concrete, you will see that move to suburban and rural environments. >> we just had news today of the first self-driving truck shipping 50,000 cans of

budweiser about 120 miles down the highway. i should note it was following a path that had been very well mapped out for it in advance for two weeks and a police cruiser following along behind. we are a little bit a ways from all our beer being shipped around the country via a truck. >> holly, can you talk about the trends of music ownership to music as a service? >> i think there are a lot of similarities to some of the things that lauren touched on. i think for spotify, we were in the streaming business before streaming started to become mainstream, which is where it is today. we are a ten-year-old company, swedish in its roots but we feel happy to see streaming starting to pick up. we've been waiting for that to start happening. our general feeling is that with the shifting consumption driven primarily by millennials and the advent of technology and smart

phones and the devices that all of us as individuals are dependant on, that we are able to bring more music to more people with more diverse backgrounds and people that may not have had access to it or even known that they liked it, certain genres and things like that, to more people than we were ever able to do when it came down to buying that c.d. or that piece of vinyl for those of us that are my age. i probably dated myself. vinyl is coming back. it proofs the adage, what is old is new again. we feel from our position streaming that we are seeing all of those things start to pick up and that we have two tooes. so if people too want to pay for something and kind of own a more customizable experience with music, they can certainly do that. i think the trend is, people want what they want when they want it and they want it

customizable. it is more about experience than ownership, having that 400 lp collection. >> a lot of the benefits to the consumers are easy to see. you talked about having what you want when you want it. when we talk about turning goods into services, you have the chance to get access to things that you would never be able to afford to own. there is another side of this, which is, what about the people involved? what about the workers? this is something you have looked at closely, susan lund. when we talk about cars, lift and uber have provided employment opportunities for a lot of people. at the same time, some of those same people are anxious now about this transition to self-driving cars. are those jobs going to be obsolete? when we looking at something like spo phtify. the musicians, we have heard

have complaints are they able to make a living when people just stream their music instead of buying it. what are some of the trends in terms of how employment and jobs are being affected? >> the short answer is, they are being affected a lot. there are two big things we are talking about. one is auto mags, like self-driving cars. then, there is the independent work. what happens to the workers. you have a job with one full-time employer. the automation part is still to be seen. if we do move to a sharing economy, the auto industry and the chains is a major employer in the u.s. today. if we move to a point where none of us own cars and there is a fleet of cars driving us all around, i think we would have something like 90% fewer car sales each year. that is a huge hit to u.s. manufacturing. what happens to all those

people. i don't have great answers on the automation point. we did just release a study for those interested on the gig economy, what we call independent work. the government statistics on this are really poorly done. the way policymakers and most people. say, your parents thought about employment as a payroll job with one employer. those are the jobs numbers that are released the first friday of every month and everybody is watching carefully. we do a very poor job of tracking but actually part of the population doesn't make their living having one traditional employer. we did our own survey in the u.s. and five european countries. what we found in the u.s. is that 27% of the working age population, almost 1 in 3, people today, don't just have one traditional job. they are either a full-time

freelancer or self-employed person or independent contractor or they are using the gig economy for driving for lift or uber as supplement to their main economic activity. along with the sharing economy, it is interesting for people who want to be their own boss and not have a traditional job, things like uber, task rabbit, up work and air b&b, enable you to more than easily put together a bunch of different income streams and make an income that way. it is a whole new world. the trend has been, we think, fwro growth in this. there is other research to suggest over the last ten years, the share of people in alternative work arrangements has grown significantly. the sharing economy might actually spur a faster shift in

that direction. >> there is some ambiguity when we talk about the sharing economy in terms of what we are talking about. there are a few related strand that is we are discussing here today. >> when we talk about cars and car sharing, in some cases, people are sharing a car together and many in others, there is one car picking up different people over the course of date. something like music, it is not sharing. we are still talking about a transition from something you used to own to something that you now subscribe to it. it has gone from basically a good to a service. in a sense, what you were talking about, susan, with the economy, employers are sharing workers. they never owned their workers but they used to have a defined number of workers who gave them their full attention. now, there is a sort of sharing among these gig economy companies. we have talked about cars. we have talked about music.

another really obvious one one, other types of media, people are streaming movies and tv. can each of you name a none offus area? it is easy to go from well-defined things that are being shared or have moved from a good to a service? you can say, everything is defined by service. we still own our own clothes, personal devices, home appliances. what are something else besides your own area that you see being shared now or in the future? >> great. one thought that just comes to mind is the way that cities are changing, the nature of work is changing and people are coming together and share ting their bn trusts that helps advance them in a professional manner but

also has changed the nature of work in a lot of ways. you are not going to a static-one work environment. like we work. >> you touched on it, clothing. you have rent the runway. that's one. there is luxury services. there are apps where you can schedule massages, v luxe is an app that comes to mind. massages, blow dries, they will come to your home and do it for you. some of it is convenient. some of it is i want it when i want it and how i want it. snacks, grays. you can have a customizable snack box delivered to you. there is a lot. >> from a labor perspective, we

went through a long esoterick discussions on what couldn't be filled by a freelancer or an d indones independe independent worker. apps in retail, fast food, dry cleaner, people pick up a gig through an app and say, i'm going to work this shift and come in and do it. we see it in medicine. highly specialized surgeons share their services on a piece meal basis and get paid for each surgery they do. they will go to this hospital and the next one and the next one. in the world of work, ronald coats wrote this article, why is there a corporation or a company? he said, because it is easy to manage people and reduces transaction cost to much people within your company contracting everything out to the

marketplace. what absent digital platforms are doing that is completely changing the equation. it is cheap, efficient, transparent. you get this whole pool of potential workers. i think it is a long transition. you can imagine the size of large companies shrinking in terms of their full-time employees. there is some knowledge you are going to want to keep in house. e a lot more can be done oven a project task basis with independent contractors. this is a shift. it is not new. we have seen the evolution of outsourcing with companies for the last 10-20 years. these new on-demand platforms and apps for labor could actually -- we may see another wave of that shift. >> i was thinking, what is new and what is old in terms of share s

sharing? the idea of sharing things is not novel. we have had public libraries and shared taxi cabs and we've rented tuxedos and prom dresses. we share a lot of services that are provided by the government, infrastructure, public transit. are some of the more old school forms of sharing at risk from these new forms of for-profit sharing. libraries might be one example. public transit might be another one. how do you think about lifts effect on public transit in a world where we can heal a car at any time. does that encourage the kind of sprawl and car-dominated environments we thought we were beginning to move away from. >> that's a wonderful question. we don't view ourselves as a competitor to mass transit. we view ourselves as a complement. one of the beauties of how this isn't a taxi alternative, there is data all the time where the

rides are coming and going. there is a huge population of lift riders, underserved transportation. they live too far from bus stops and too far from bus stops. the idea you can get a ride to the trap. lift line is a shared ride. for a reduced cost, in some places, $3, you can get a ride in a lift if you share it. 70% of our rides in san francisco are line rides and po% of those are happening 100 meters from a transit station. people are starting to look at this as a complement to how they are utilizing transit. the theme i am hearing is there has to be a consumer demand that drives all of this. uber and lift came to the scene. people, all of the sudden, could have a door to door ride without

the sirn dip it tussness of trying to hail a cab. they know it is coming. you droent on't have to pay wit credit card. you can have an easier experience. that's something consumers really loved. you see other technologies that emerge that just didn't work out in the first iteration. we are not sitting here wearing google glasses. maybe in a couple of years. no matter what industry and market, it is the consumer drive and choice that will amplify how people are going to use these emerging technologies. >> you all can feel to jump in at any point if you want. duff something on that, sue? >> okay. i wanted to ask what will we still own 10 years or 20 years from now?

what doesn't lend itself to being transformed into a service that you subscribe to or something that you hail on demand on your smartphone? >> i would say whatever we care about. i find myself funny i don't consider myself a car person. there are a lot of people that like to own a car. they say, i bought a new car and it is really fun to drive. i think what we are going to own is what we care about, what we want to own. i know e i know plenty of women that may continue to buy designer clothes and keep them in their closet, because they are theirs. you will own what you actually care about. >> that's an interesting point. i like that pithy formulation of what we will still own. i manly y i imagine you guys might push back on that. people will still care about cars and music. you still think that they will

move from ownership to streaming. i think there are powerful personal feelings around this. we heard a story a few months ago of someone who claimed that apple music had stolen his music, that it had converted the mp 3 files on his computer and replaced them with file that is were available through apple music and some of them were gone and music that he owned was gone. there was an investigation to get to the bottom of what happened. doesn't that show, holly, that people still do want to own their music, at least the songs they like the most. >> yes. streaming, i think about my own personal when i listen to music. i shouldn't probably say this. sometimes i stream from other services. it really depends on what i'm doing. if i'm having a dinner party and i just want music to play, maybe i might not stream from spotify. if you want to do things that

are more customized and i want to listen to things i've created, maybe spotify is going to be a better plas form. i have lps and vinyl and i love the sound of it. sometimes i want to listen to that. i think it is about -- i want to say i think what we are going to own is less of the actual material side of thing but the experience and the joy and things like that that these services bring you if that makes any sense. it is a little bit of what sue an touched on. you are going to own what you want to own and someone that is going to be the experience, not necessarily the distribution channel or the hard material is stick good. >> you mentioned that vinyl sales are going up. interesting case in point. once we can get most of the music easily through a sr advice like spotify, maybe the stuff we really care about when we do own it, we want to really have that

tactile, analog experience with it. does that imply in the future if you really love cars, you will rent your little electric buggy to get around. you will hail it on your phone. maybe you will still have your classic ford mustang in the garage. >> my first car as way volvo red wagon. i loved it. my brother totalled it. it is something where people have a love affair with cars. in the 1960s, getting your driver's license and going on to the open road was a freedom. now, it really has become much more of a burden. you think of how much space in your house is dedicated to hard cover books and dvds that now you don't need to utilize that space. it is the same idea with parking. in the united states, right now,

there is more parking than the entire square mile annage of th state of connecticut. there are different way toss think about how can you utilize space and think about it? >> i think there will be a gradual balance and it will be organic. the world is not going to go autonomous overnight. you will see human driven cars and autonomous vehicles operating side by side as it continues to emerge. >> i would contradict what i just said. i think the next generation could be much less about tangible goods. this could be a generational issue. i look at my kids. i have a teenage daughter who is finally sort of pushing learn tog get a driver's license. there was no need. she can take lift and uber

around. driving is a service. she may never love the way i do. they don't have physical books and physical music. they are growing up without this knowing as these things as a tangible good. people like me might say, i read a lot of books, e books but for a really good novel, i will go buy a hard copy and put it on my bookshelf. they may not do that. 15 years out, we may, in fact, be in a world that's much less about physical goods and much more digital. >> going back for a second to the idea of the gig economy and people sort of not owning a job but having these different gigs that sustain them, are these people making a good live sng do they feel like they have good job security or are they accounted as unemployed despite gigs? zi don't want to get into how

the government counts things. who knows. we didn't ask about income. getting people to tell you about their income is difficult to do accurately. we did on a scale of 14 points of how satisfied and unsatisfied are you with different elements of work life. people with traditional jobs as well as independent workers. on 12 of the 14 metrics, people that are independent workers are more satisfied with the elements of their work life, income level and income security and on two measures, including health care benefits, they are equally satisfied with traditional workers. we don't know what their income is but we know they are very happy. another study by jpmorgan found that people that have gig work

or independent work have less variable income than payroll employees. it is a way of filling in, which if you are working part time, get the number of hours you want. when you look at nonsalary people, their income is quite volatile. >> going back to that theme of owning things that you care about, if you don't have a career, a full-time job, a career is something you can care about it is something you can pour your passion into. there is this question of security. when you don't own something, can it be taken away from you. not just a gig. if you are an uber driver, you know your company's plan is to make you obsolete eventually. your media in spotify, you could

have that. if they go down, you don't have any music. we had the dns outage because of that attack on a domain name server took down all sorts of services and netflix went down. nobody has been buying dvds because they have netflix. is there a downside to ownership or ac sis ownership that something could go down or be taken away from you? >> sure. it can go down. that's technology. i feel like that every day at work when my computer crashes. they are great when they work. you have to wait for everything to reboot and things like that. sure, there is a down side, you are relying on technology which 95% of the time works in our favor but there is always that moment where it might not.

>> two thoughts on it. even in the nondigital world, things do break down. your car will need to go in for services. it is part of life. for us too, you have touched on shared economy drivers. our drivers at lift are as much of a consumer of the platform as our riders. there is a life's blood of the platform. we are going towards an autonomous future and so is the whole world. we see in some ways that our driver's numbers in the next few iteration are going to be increasing. we are going to continue to look at ways we can support our drivers with what they need. that is something we take very seriously at lift just to let everyone know. >> i would say this has been a very optimistic panel. i think cybersecurity is a real issue and privacy. in this digital world where everything is streamed, guess what, spotify knows what i like

to listen to, because they are always suggesting more things i would like to listen to. our phones know where we are. i think the issues of cybersecurity and privacy are real down sides and could be major blockages to realizing this future if we don't solve them. >> for a lot of people, that's what prevents them from signing up for services. i think it is very generational. millennials don't think as much about it. this is a general zation. you talk to older demographicses, it is the reason they don't want to to download apps and the reason my father has a flip phone with electrical tape around t he might buy a smartphone because he is convinced it will track him. he might be on to something. i would asoum for lift that data, we are so protective of it, from a consumer standpoint and a product development

standpoint. it is creepy. we can probably figure out your personality and your day based on what you stream. we have 85 passwords we have to log into to make sure that space is protected. we won't get into advertising partnerships with certain companies. we won't share first-party data. it's a huge concern. >> i'm really glad you brought that up. it is not just security and the idea that something can be taken away from you and the people that own it can monitor your usage at all times and restrict your usage. if you had an enpsych low paid ya at home, people can track it. that's another potential down side to this transition. i wanted to talk about one more up side and then we will go to some question and answer from the audience. one way i have seen that companies that offer subscription or sharing services

are able to give people a sense of ownership flew customization. one of the smart things that spotify has done. i started using the free version and then you build play lists on there. you feel like you own those and then you want to listen to those play lists but they are within spotify so maybe you sign up for the premium. i wondered if you could talk a little bit about the idea of how you personalize a car that's not yours? i have heard the ceo of gm has talked about their ideas for how you can step into your car and your smartphone can give you an experience that's your own. >> we have a wonderful partnership with gm looking for the future. it is this idea that you can reinvent the idea of car a car. you are coming off of work and going to the nats game. maybe you can call a sports lift. it will come. for us, it is all about efficiency. you could have a few different

fans in the car and be streaming the pregame in the car and going fot game. it is a whole different idea of how people are think being it now and slogging through traffic. maybe there is a wi-fi, a quiet lift and you are able to drive through. maybe you work a little bit outside of the city but you can take your autonomous wi-fi lift and do your morning meetings before lunch. if you are reinventing an idea of the car, you look at, this is something lift is doing. different populations, senior mobility, people who may not be able to drive for themselves, lose that responsible tan nighty in life. at a touch of a button, they can be able to have a car at their fingertips to do medical appointments and grocery shopping and all the things people want to do. it is changing the way people are living their life joef all. that is ownership they are able to get back. that's exciting. >> so we can go and see if

anyone in the audience has a question they want to ask. if you are called on, wait until you have the mike to ask your question. hi, there. i'm curious about the idea of workers unions, how the gig economy and there have been court cases in l.a. or california with uber and its workers. how does this change the way unions work and their rel vancy in the future? >> do you have any thoughts. >> i can't comment on the specific court cases. i'm not a lawyer, thankfully but i am an economist, which some people might think is even worse. i think that the whole idea of unions and guilds, is an interesting one. you can imagine them getting new life. the freelanceers union gets group health insurance rates for its members. the hollywood screen writers

guild is a great example. they do some compensation negotiation but they provide a range of trining and benefits like retirement and health insurance. i think there is definitely an opportunity and it could be guilds and union toss do things like benefits, income security, training and career progression. and all the back office stuff. the fact is a lot of people that want to be a gig worker, a freelancer, sure, i'll do some economics research. i am not good at marketing and sales and i certainly don't want to file my taxes. there is a whole ecosystem of different services to enable people that want to be their boss to do the back office skut work that they are not good at and don't want to do and maybe it is the unions start to move in that direction. >> it is a worthwhile point. we have an economy and a social

system that has been built up around the idea of goods, of manufacturing goods, distributing them, selling them at retail stores. we know how to build an economy and a society around that. i think we are still figuring out how you build a society around an economy full of services. included in that is the people working part-time jobs. my former colleague, ali griswold has a newsler called jt oversharing." i was reading her latest issue. she was talking about a series of start-ups that are explicitly hiring o workers as employees, rather than contractors and giving them a share of equity in the company. these are not so far the leaders in their spaces. they are upstarts and we will see how that model fairs against contractor model. maybe that will provide some

hope for the idea that the sharing economy could lead to stable careers. yes. >> i'm wondering about linking platforms going forward. i don't have a facebook, which is normally not a problem. i just log into things in my e-mail. there are some things i can't access but it is really okay. one in an app would want to use, facebook is for central i.d. verification. thinking about consolidation of i.d. verification going forward, is that a concern? are we thinking we might have a consumer super user i.d. provided by a google or facebook where i would log into my uber and spotify and if there are any conversations about that that you have heard whar, what are sf the concerns and opportunities?

>> can you address how you log in and what your options are for logging into spotify? >> right. ours is all based on your user name which is linked to the user name or address. i have not heard of a super cob assume er log in. that's horrifying to me to be can did and just to have everything in one place. >> it's a great question. google plus at one point had designs for the web and that sort of did not pan out, but i think we actually had an event here that i moderated about virtual assistance and how they're becoming the portal and if you have an amazon echo, you can use that to hail -- i don't know if we have lift yet but you can hail a car or play the music

then do those assistance gain control over what you have access to and don't have access to. the question is once teslas are able to drive you can rent it out to other drivers and it will come back and pick you up. this is a really nice idea. the other day it was that you can only represent out your car through the feet. they control what drives the car and they consider them to be the driver so that you don't own the car and cannot know, you know, rent it out to somebody through lift. does that worry you for the

control? >> well, it's an interesting and concerning element and i don't think that i ever gave them my social security number and the fact is that. >> yeah, if you have a retail environment, who gets the storage space. tons of different people own land and can lease that commercial property any number of tenants and you can go to the mall and shop at, you know,

tower records or go down the street and go to best buy. when you're buying online and that sort of thing, it's not clear that we will have a level playing field. i know that spotify's stance is that competition is healthy and the fact is that a big new level is made by apple and they control and they can take the time. >> my question is is this a shift because of desire or more of a shift out of necessity to

sharing? if the economy improves, do we see a shift back to ownership? it's growing at a slow rate. i know that i would like to own my own car but cannot aafford it because of student loans and things like that. zpl yeah, is it the anxiety that's leading people to be willing to stream things and share things and own things. there's the question of new technology when a younger generation adopts it, is that the future or as they get older, they have a change. >> well, you look at the united

states and we're a country that works hard. highways and free ways and parking spaces. that's going to be exciting. in terms of the shifts or or not, at lift we hope that we can continue roads to reduce congesti congestion. we will see how that ends. >> we have to wrap up. thank you for the guests of lift and holly main of o spotify. thank you so much for joining

us. now for the second phase of the afternoon i would like to invite monica pots to give a presentation on the society. she is a writer in virginia and a fellow with the asset building program, and she writes about a variety of subjects including poverty, and culture. monica potts.

>> it's important to talk about the way that the adulthoods have been shaped by the internet and other trends that have involved a lot of in securities. i graduated after the.com bust. my first was the city government was coming off a hiring freeze because of of that recession and

because of 9/11. i had no idea. we shared this when it was the industries ask people were walking off after getting the diplomas with really great jobs lined up. those of us that we want to college were better than the age mates that were stuck in the booming service company and that was minimum wage jobs and they were really un certain the

youngest group of workers hit were hit harder and took longer to recover than that age group did in the earlier recessions like 1980s and 1990s at the same time, the cost of

living has gone up and the jobs are really increasing in cities like austin company george, d.c. and same with cisco. the cost of living has gone up really dramatically. what you find is people who covered the basics about 75% of their income will cover the basics. the 50% of people's incomes are going to basics like housing, health insurance and education. no one else had almost all of their money on rent and health insurance. that means a bunch of things. that means that they're living in this basic cities and they are not able to get to the point where they are owning homes. a group of millennial's in their late 30s now buy homes at later ages and also by fewer homes. that means they are not building wealth. they are living in places as they mention on the earlier panel, places underserved by city services. part of the reason they are using things like lyft and uber to get home as the city they live in doesn't provide buses to take them there. that is a

different change. they also uncertain as was mentioned earlier. almost one in three people are supplementing their incomes in one way or another are working solely in the gig economy. i am freelancing as well and a lot of people are freelancing straight out. it has its benefits. it means a lot of freedom but also thought of insecurity. if you're a bartender and you also drive for lyft, you could be working all the time. the benefits to having a child is jobs are there for you when you experience a downturn. if you are a lyft driver and your car gets totaled, you are not going to be able to earn money in that time. if you're a worker and you get sick there is nobody paying for sick days and so that changes the relationship people have to work. so things like sharing economy tend to make less

possible for people. if you are living in a city and you can't afford your rant, you can go away for a couple weeks at a time and rent your home out while you were on vacation. but that really contributes to geographic inequality. if you live in a place where no one wants to go, you're not going to be able to rent your place out on airbnb. if you're living in a place that doesn't have the booming jobs are aware uber drivers aren't in demand, the ways you can supplement and, alas. in many cases, it is because people are not getting enough money from the regular nine to five jobs. they also don't pay as well as they used to. because the cost of living has gone up so much, people are saving money for retirement. these kinds of trends can have huge consequences down the road. if you're not buying homes and not saving for retirement, even if you start doing that in your late 30s and early 40s, that is

a step back. you have some catching up to do and that is what we are going to see a lot in 30 and 40 years for millennial start to retire if they release that back by that time period. the relationship that has two the sharing economy is if you've been supplementing your work with things like uber and replaced by driverless cars, you haven't been building skills that other employers will necessarily be translated to their work and how you move on to an economy with some of those pieces start to disappear and during that time you are contributing to a 401(k) and you are buying a house and building wealth and able to save. i also

want to think about the ways that the sharing economy could take the air out of some of what we used to do that as mentioned before. there was an old farmer sherry and we had which was where we let the government do things like spread our risk around and do things for us. government programs like public transportation, are we altogether pay for a service that was able to get us around in cities and suburban areas in more rural areas. that is also important because if new technology like charmless cars takeover, people who can't afford to participate in that are locked out of these new technologies. if you can afford to buy a driverless car if you can afford to rent or hail, then you're going to start to see an increasing inequality broadly based around geography. we also as i said use the government to share risk. because work lives are so insecure, i do think there's a bigger appetite among younger workers to let the government or unions or other

more traditional institutions take on some of that security for them and take on some of the risk for them. things like public option and health exchanges. there's a political appetite that wasn't there before. i think it's important to continue to think about inequality and why people may or may not be able to afford if we are talking about ownership versus accessing services on a continuing basis. so that's [applause] >> thank you, monica. i'd like to invite john mclaughlin and the speakers joining her in her second conversation to the stage. jen mclaughlin is a reporter and she covered at mother jones and jena.

>> hello, everyone. this conversation is a little bit new for me. i tend to focus on national security and policy and some of the things that came up in the last panel. these issues of ownership are broader reaching the not and i'm excited to talk to my panel about it. our panel is called the illusion of ownership and we touched on some of the concerns about losing our ownership of data services, but we will talk about the others. i'd like to welcome my participants, charles director of the patent reform project right here public knowledge and he will tell you more about it working to reform an enhanced patent quality and prior to joining public knowledge, he was a research assistant for professor paul lom who i also know. patrick is the chief communications officer at the united states patent and trademark office and he will be

able to tell us a little bit more about what the administration is thinking about these issues. so, welcome. >> so to start our conversation, i would like to start with kind of what are your guys thoughts about the end of ownership. and pitfalls that might occur that were not addressed to the panel. what kinds of things do we need to be thinking about besides, you know, will we be able to access uber and lyft and things like that. >> all go ahead and start. thank you for having me here. i'm glad to represent the administration

on this. president obama we think about these kinds of issues every day so it's great to speak on it. provocative title, the end of ownership. i remember after 9/11 talking about the end of history. this election would be a good example. i think you can think more broadly about the spectrum of ownership and to the previous panel, my 18-year-old son turned 18 today. all i can think about is cars. i know we're going to have that conversation this summer. he gets all of his music through apple music. my daughter is 21, lives in los angeles. where better to own a car? she doesn't own a car and takes a bus to and from lift and takes an uber or lyft to see her friends or go to museums or bring groceries home. but she loves final. i think it's important to remember as technology changes we still have vinyl before we

went to cd's and mp 3s. based on your economic situation as we just heard from monica or your own personal taste, we are going. to have different approaches to reach different product or service we buy in terms of ownership. >> thank you for inviting me to be on the panel. you know, in terms of we been talking about i find it very exciting. i take advantage all the time. but it is worth considering why ownership is still important. i heard this story on the podcast where it talks about a design firm with the design houses

reconstruct it for people who lost them in an earthquake. so they would build up -- they would know the house. half of that would have your room and kitchens and bedrooms. it was un finished on the other house and why was it like that because they wanted to give the people moving into these houses the chance to house the ability to make these their houses. the government provided services. they talk about what the store's look like. you go to a and the houses all the same. some of them have ulcers of crazy stuff. you know, i think that really says something about why ownership is important and that it allows people to take advantage of the creativity and do things that are also really unexpected. a professor at m.i.t. has done a lot of studies

on what's called lead user innovation. the idea that when people purchase things, sometimes they come up with really creative uses that you wouldn't expect. you know, they might turn paper plates into frisbees, for example. i started creativity is something that drives people forward on an individual matter. that this is really important to people in their daily lives, but also we take advantage of the learning that each of us can do. you go to a website like life hacks.com and learn all sorts of things expect it. it is found in that depends on the basic right of ownership

to do things you have. >> i think that's a really interesting issue in some and we can explore and do about more deaths. we are really sure sometimes how much we own specific things. you sit in your house all day. this is my chair. this is my pillow. i can paint it a different color. in terms of my phone in the software, there are updates every couple days and you don't really read through what is going on. oftentimes it's a security update you definitely should use. we don't necessarily know what's going to happen. we don't have a choice in terms of what is coming from that. how bizarre how... digital spill over and how much do manufactures own the objects do manufactures own the objects?

>> >> the interesting thing these days is i assume i own a share. computer software i'm not really sure. for a long time it was a simple distinction. for a while court cases followed software and physical is another thing. today we have the things that your car has got a computer in it and that means that you have a merger of things. the boundaries are not clear anymore. the companies that are manufacturing them are taking advantage of the same techniques that they use in the software field and you're not allowed to use irrelevat on sundays and wh what. it's a little different than

saying you're not allowed to use itunes for improper purpose verses your thermometer. what is happening is people are starting to recognize that as they click through more contracts in order to own their own physical devices, that it's not clear whether or not it >> i think ideally we don't think about it. you mentioned you on our home. technically they own it because i haven't paid it off yet. but i just paid

per month until i hit the two year mark. you mentioned manufacturing. i was fortunate enough. a lot of auto manufacturing parts going on and through the supply chain. sometimes someone becomes an inventor and says i need the design. they may sit down and if they're getting involved in it, they may be a coowner. it's like i just need this made and they need the ip. in other cases it's like maybe it's others. i saw these being made for dodge ram trucks. the designer or maybe they were selling it to

forward. we don't think about that. all this stuff is happening in the background. we don't have to sit and think about intellectual property and think about ownership every day >> absolutely. that is something that goes on in the background that you may not notice when something bad happens i guess. one thing i think about a lot when i'm writing is the idea of technology and the law. technology is rapidly progressed through the past two years we've seen the new services. but how does the law always kept up with privacy and nothing i've read about regularly. i honestly do not know all that much about patent law, but i know you both do. i would love if you could >> so i direct early talks a lot about this and how we are moving into this tangible economy. i don't think i've heard that word today that it's common in the spaces we have the new products and services disrupting business model. i think airbnb certainly

talks about the mayor of new york and talk about the disruptions they are experiencing the regulations. it goes probably. i think it is important to recognize often you don't need to completely rethink the law. we've been using the term sharing the economy but in reality basically it's like a rental economy. in the 90s i was covering the tech boom and it would appear on a program called the new economy show. the assumption was the economy was new. change your dog provider, change your world. and then we have the bus. turns out it was just regular. the sharing economy is changing the ways we interact with each other and products and services. but ultimately it is still driven by economic forces. susan would agree with that. you can work within the law, but you do have to recognize there is going to be

implications if you're an entrepreneur to maybe get ahead of those which is what direct lee advises to people. >> one of the things i think is interesting as you can look at how ownership affects law. one of the things is when you have a device you on, this is how it works. you can figure it out and tell people maybe you shouldn't hide this and things like that. a lot of times the devices are black boxes that know what's inside of them. they put the restrictions and we have to figure out the security flaws and some of the protections are technological protections. they're going to prevent you from getting inside. there are laws that make it

potentially criminal for that sort of thing. that is some what concerning because that means that we can not fully understand the things that we supposedly own. the whole thing with the bmw scandal is a good thing. people could though the figure out that they had a computer inside of them to cheat the admissions testing program because cannot just go and open up the computer and figure out how the program works. they put things on it to make it difficult to figure out what is going on.

they put a low-budget layers of inscriptions on it to make it difficult to figure out what's going on. the car manufacturers have sought to block security researchers from doing that sort of investigation. i find that is unfortunate because it is a public service and people go out and figure out that these products might have some sort of defects or some sort of problem and to the extent that companies are able to prevent them from doing that >> absolutely. as a journalist i see public awareness and so that's an important aspect of it. also i feel like this could be an issue in terms of creativity. i mean, when you have a device are sent a new use, you want to modify and someone we want to use that product to create something on your own. does your lack of ownership there cause problems for your creativity and in what ways could you envision that? >> i definitely think it is kind of an issue. one of my favorite websites is ikea hackers or people will take a chair and turn it into some in completely different. they turned it into an expanding table. you flip out the box and you can make a table of whatever size you want. people do really cool stuff with materials that you would not expect. but there are a lot of

companies out there who really want in the way they expect. the most famous of these companies sell a program where only program where only about two use it once. once it's done you have to return it. you're not allowed to do anything else. what that means is if you come up with some sort of unusually for doing that, for example people figure out how to get food coloring into ink cartridges so they can print on cakes. you're not allowed to do it because you're not allowed to do it and taken advantage of legal techniques to avoid that. >> yeah, i'm glad both of you mentioned not by the way. i like this notion of being an end-user creativity like with your ikea

example. with the supply chain we have creativity throughout the chain so somebody came up with a way to design those pieces of ikea furniture were you could assemble them with an allen wrench. in theory you can assemble them. you think about lyft, so it just seems intuitively obvious to us. i also enjoy how easy it is to tip the driver. i like that feature. we just heard lyft identified this need and some algorithms to solve it. that was creativity at the front end. and i.t. plays a role in that, too. it's important to recognize a think about ownership is end-user and think about ownership as a end user, but that's not a bad thing. >> there are all kinds of new technologies coming out there that might change these questions of how is the patent office considering things like

3-d printing at how could that infringe on these things other people have created? >> we held an event a few months ago. we are kind of nerdy, but his 3-d printing. one of the five manufacturing plants i toured only did 3-d printing and they've been around since '96. i find that fascinating if they're not in the marketplace for a while now. there are certainly implications in terms of copyright and patents and trademarks in the ability to download something that may have a trademark from somebody else and manufacture it yourself. the consensus is this is truly revolutionary technology that's going to improve our lives. the manufacturing plant were designing these parts that were designing these parts that wehw designing these parts that wewe designing these parts that weyw designing these parts that we w

designing these parts that were going to be used in machines to make other things. they were able to create passages, for example, fluid and oils that you literally physically cannot do with a drill. there is no way to drill through metal and get these things. and so, we are going to have to work it out. we have to figure out the nuances in some of them will make headlines. but more broadly, we will see greater economic growth and opportunity. >> one of the most exciting things, one of the most exciting things i think is that it takes manufacturing that used to be in the hands of people who knew how the entire supply chain work. they knew a fabrication plant and they knew the designers and a new specification for the drawing. it takes that and they

put it in the hands of you and me. i don't know any fabrication plant that can cap model for me, but if i'd call it a design and i can design it using any computer program for modeling, a week later they get these things that i ask them to print. i am excited about 3d printing for replacing three toys. i have a kid that loses his lego every week. i'm excited about the fast pro toe typing. right now if i want to try out a new idea, i have to send it to the factory and take them a month and then turns that there's a problem. i have to redo the design and then it's very 3d printing. it's like i will redesign here and let's reprint it. it will take an hour.

>> you think about the auto industry because we talked about that. traditionally, you get the new model every four or five years, right? a car i own they completely change the interior from the 15 to the 60 model. i suspect 3-d printing was involved in that. because they can make these prototypes cheap. they contest them, run through. i think, we may not even 10 years from now, we may not have model years of cars. they may just keep iterating them in real-time. you just keep getting the latest one. it changes the way we think about things. >> definitely. i'm curious whether or not you both think that types of 3-d printing will butt heads with manufactures? we talk about apple and the iphone. i think i know probably 100 people broken the iphones. i'm not one of them yet, knock on wood. i probably will tomorrow, break my screen. we were discussing in the greenroom about it's incredibly challenging to replace that

screen without spending a lot of money. do you think things like 3-d printing, things like other solutions will be good for that but also butthead with of the companies? >> so yeah, i was talking about my experience a couple weeks ago of replacing an ipad screen. the problem of replacing the screen, in case any of you want to try this out, involves prying open the glass with a pry tool while blow drying the glue that holds the glass together with the other hand. because it's less it's something. the glass breaks off often small pieces. you were sitting there, pieces of glass are flying in your face. it's a wonderful experience. i did manage to do it. what it says i think is, if something the way these manufactures are treating these devices, that i also have, i

also have a keyboard i purchased maybe about sixers ago. that think has entirely held together with philip screws. i can take a screwdriver and opened it up, replace the logic board, clean off the keys, all the things i want, screw it back together and it works fine. that process takes me about maybe a half an hour. when companies move from things like standard hardware to these screws they use on laptops and gluing things together and parts they can't be replaced by parts about a custom fit so you can't replace them with other parts, it makes it a lot harder for people engaged in ordinary repairs. and that means that if the iphone breaks, unless you don't like a lot of skills and a lot of time for a willing to go to some specialist repair shop, you probably just had to throw it away. that i think is kind of unfortunate for a number of

reasons. it's the recycling problem because it contains lithium battery, glass, metal. you can't separate them all out. so i think this sort of trend is a little concerning. 3-d printing does make it a little better because it does offer the option of retrieving the customize parts that you might not be able to find. there's a particular curve that's on will iphones that is broken and you can find the replacement. you print it and then you'd have a just a. that i think is kind of cool. a lot of companies are not terribly happy. they want to be the only one selling repair parts and clothing to be something of conflict of there. >> absolutely. as the journalist who works in a very small

segment, i work with people who are interested in things like security, i know that there are a lot of users who have different priorities, maybe the standard iphone, iphone isn't assumed a good example, but the standard android user. most people have androids in the country but they don't have great security. and when they push out the software and there's a flaw in it and is not to update it at all these users are vulnerable either to criminal hackers, sometimes even state actor thing on who it is, i've know certain people who are at risk to that. how do we properly to that. how do we properly incentivize companies to be up to develop those things would even give us the choice to do not? >> this is something commerce secretary put stress focus on a lot, cybersecurity. ntia is a part of commerce and she works with them, some agencies including the u.s. patent and trademark office. it's a real challenge. we work a lot with

startups at the utbso. generally what you see, special attack started, you see the engineer, wozniak let's call it. you see the evangelist, the jobs, and maybe they get in someone that can understand the money part which is good. and then they just plow for and they get the customers. secretary pritzker like to remind people you should probably early on be thinking about electric property and to think about cybersecurity. both of them are really hard to of them are really hard to back load once you start getting down the chain. in terms of creating an incentive and we're doing this through public education. we are going around and doing roundtables, talking to schools. we have the usbto and happy camper we work through first six greatest basically it's like a

camp that you bring in old ibm selectric and modify them. would try to help them understand some of these principles. it's a >> security is an interesting issue. we all know about the recent -- that nearly caused by like iot cameras that were easily hacked because they had a fixed username and password that know what to change, not even the user. the thing is there are two approaches dealing with security vulnerabilities. the first one which is the sort of like this is what you seem to want to do is lock device of them as much as possible. make it really would hard for anybody to pick up what's going on. it sounds very attractive but the issue is that most security from those that are discovered are not discovered by the company. i discovered by third parties who do research on it, you know, they do the penetration testing and realized this is something the company overlooked. especially these companies, the

design companies, software second or third on the list for them. software security may not be at the top of the priority chain where as it would be for users and security researchers. that leads to different approach which is open the device up as much as possible. let people figure what's going on. maybe make the software open source of that way take advantage of the crowd, they can figure out what are all the issues, they can report on them and you can incrementally improve the device at a much more rapid pace. i think it is that aspect of owning and understanding devices, that is very significant helpful. >> you talk about security researchers. there's also some areas of the law when we could fear penalties with messing with those devices come anything with patents or the computer fraud and abuse act as and abuse act is something i wanted to

sometimes. people are persecuted because they may just be doing security research to try to help the company, but they are penalized because the axis that system without authorization. what other sort of ways that people run into issues with doing that kind of tinkering? >> the most often cited legal concern for this sort of activity is section 1201 of the digital of a new copyright act. that section was originally designed as a way of enforcing drm technologies unlike music or dvds or e-books. the idea was that the plan of some sort of encryption or some sort of technological protection measure they call it, that protects the

internal copyrighted contents, then efforts to circumvent that protection measure would be punishable as a crime and civil lawsuit and any number of other ways. companies have sought to use that as a way of protecting not just copyright content, but also doctors and medical devices and all sorts of -- because they all have software and the copyright, but there any technological measures on the device for protecting the software, and i think the assertion of that law apparently fairly a stranger, that i think is somewhat concerning. there's a similar other issues. >> digital millennium copyright act is an interesting thing to bring up and up in some isolated cases that were involved some kind of questionable interpretation of that. you may know that the copyright office has a procedure and i think you guys have participated in that we've got to go and articulate

ways in which you think it's been used they can create exceptions and they have created exceptions. we are not a law enforcement agency at the uspto but we did several years ago start a conversation brought on copyright and innovation in the digital economy. and we did a green paper in 2013 and the white paper in 2015 where as the green papers like your other problems. white paper, potential solutions. i did know that before i joined the government. we get to the department of commerce and we received so many comments. under public knowledge process but in those as well. and roundtables around the country and one thing that we kept hearing over and over again is that there are these issues but the marketplace is working some of them out. that was encouraging. that's not surprising because we've been talking all the about what do consumers want, what do we as

end-users want if you have a bunch of consumers unhappy things will be somebody that will try to target that. so nothing ever think of salt or there will be future problems but it is interesting to see based on what we heard that things are working themselves out in some ways. >> well, i will open it up to the audience the remember our previous instructions, to please wait for the mic and when asking a question make sure it is question and not just a statement. anyone want to kick things off? >> i feel bad because our past one and that's what i was giving it some time. i'm curious about changing attitudes in this space toward law and ownership. are their partisan trends? are the trends for fall and hoping it between younger people have different ideas about ownership and the role that patents should

play? i don't think about patents at all because i don't create anything, i wonder if i am representative of millennial's will be involved in creating something they would approach this with any of those questions about ip. so going forward are you seeing any trends? >> it's an excellent question to reduce them to live in partisan times. i will so you don't think patents are told by with a. i mentioned my kids earlier. they had been forced to think about far to often. i bring it up at the dinner table. they are both in college now. i will say that for the most part, intellectual property policies been a pretty bipartisan issue. in 2011 congress passed overwhelmingly bipartisan in both the house and senate and act which we've implemented at the uspto and is actually provided some tools to help improve patent quality, provide a stable funding, provided a postgrant courts are anybody can challenge a patent if they think it is illegitimate

to bring before the court. it's faster and cheaper than the u.s. court. but i think what you are seeing here is to the extent there's division of debates and the patent community it really has to do with your business model. our patents essential to your business model, or other peripheral? in some cases like trademarks the important everybody. lyft was a little pink, i think that's an important part of their portfolio. patents vary from industry to industry and that's >> addressing a different part of the question which is a great question, what of the interesting trends i see particularly among younger people is that talk a lot about sharing economy like ours, there's something of sharing economy of ideas, too. it started with, i think so with the idea of open software. instead of i create the software and so, therefore, i want to

make a lot of money by selling it complied with the software so i will share with people and other people can prove it and we will have like a big emitters of people who are helping to put together this really cool linux operating system or open office processing system. then it gets to different models of innovation even from other things. one of my favorite examples is kickstarter. the idea somebody could have a really cool idea, and a lot of times they attend as a trademark but sometimes they don't. the idea is that the way to talk about the idea is by saying let's get the crap people will be willing to contribute enough be willing to contribute enour be willing to contribute enouow be willing to contribute enoud be willing to contribute enou pl be willing to contribute enouo

will be willing to contribute enouf will be willing to contribute enough money to make it worth my time to manufacture, put together this artwork or do any number of things. i think that's in a sense really turned on its head the traditional way we viewed monetizing ideas which is i have an idea, i have exclusive rights and not go make money. i have an idea, i will ask people for money and then i will make the idea. i think we're starting to see new business models and new norms about how innovation can happen among them as technologies develop it as we have generational change. that's re re really exciting to me, i think. >> question? >> a question on tinkering. as we, especially talk ipads, et cetera to move towards more software that is touch enabled a force enabled, i used to work at apple and i could tinker and make series rethink so someone find customers but then they started audible downcourt kindle and

where it could make a break for the customers and anti-to find a different path. so what's the solution and patenting and tinkering when it comes to disabilities and making sure that we are indicating for all groups? >> so let me start by saying i've now learned that if i need to replace the classroom ipad i'm calling charles. we've got a tinkerer right here. there are lots of challenges in terms of is that we were talking about this before and. i think all three of us shared it's not always intellectual property are not always patents. you mentioned the end-user license agreement or a lot of these are simply business transactions. most about want that to happen so we are allowing it to get all this personal information or although when you read it's like why did all the stuff? so maybe that's where consumers can step in. and sometimes it hits on intellectual property but a lot of times it's more just a pure business model. >> i agree. she is the mac repair expert. >> i'm going to go to you

actually. >> she's great. i think that it's right that a lot, this was, you know, this was an agreement or dispute between apple and amazon on the issue of whether god you will be allowed to play for his things over certain systems. i think at least the first answer is that the people using these things just need to express that this was bad. back when apple was thinking of i think moving all of their itunes music to drm format, that you would be able to move on to different devices can there was a huge public outcry and they walked back and we introduced the format for think like 1 dollar per more. they have to listen to conservative people

say this about what we want, we want to build the tinker, we want to build our music on different devices and things like that, than i think as of this is that they have to listen. >> i think we can fit one more question and. if not, i will ask one of my own. anyone? no? okay great. we've talked a lot about specifics in ownership and what we're losing, gaining, but i feel broadly the average american may not know what things they're losing. they may not know the privacy and they may not realize that they can not alter and tinker and have someone else do it for them. how do we communicate those issues to the public. >> so that's something we think about a lot at uspto. i mentioned are convention program. we have far convention coming on the third and fourth of november, and we do the hall

of fame, so there after talking to schools and talking to educators. it really has a lot to do with consumer awareness i think. i think events like this are useful, and it's online and so we will be able to share that. i do think, and charles can speak to this, there are times where consumers rise up against the more broadly and heard. boldly that's what matters, the power of the consumer. >> i think that's exactly right. these issues affect consumers over the whether or not they realize it or not. it's just a matter of realizing all the contacts actually mean mean something and you might want to actually consider what the policy issues are behind that. people are starting to realize that. >> read the fine