Ignacio Cofone’s book “The Privacy Fallacy” is the starting point for a methodological discussion about how the notion of privacy is approached by law. It is distinguished between law as a practice and law as science. The first is a technique of conflict resolution, while the latter derives empirically testable hypotheses from a theory. In “The Privacy Fallacy” we find both. Epistemological problems arise when the two approaches are not analytically separated. This discussion is guided by the article ‘What do privacy scholars maximize? – Law as a practice and law as a science’, written by prof. Heine.

For the link of the publication of the article mentioned above, please click here.

To get a better understanding of the fundamental problem that economic analysis of law has with autonomous decision-making, different routes for solving the problem are scrutinized. The analysis shows that the toolbox of Law and Economics does not yet provide a clear answer. Doctrinal law can also give no conclusive answers. Instead, this contribution proposes taking a closer look into legal history. The recourse to legal history can neither replace theory, nor can legal rules from the past be transplanted to the present. Yet, a look into legal history can provide fresh ideas on how to deal effectively with the challenges of autonomous decision-making. This podcast is guided by the following paper of prof. Heine: ‘Autonomous Decision-Making as a Challenge for Legal Research’.

For the link of the publication of the paper mentioned above, please click here.

The GDPR has shaken up the world for both businesses and consumers. New rights and obligations have emerged, and many revolve around various data protection requests. The recent case C-307/22 was analysed by Larisa Munteanu in a brief study that highlights how inconsistency may arise from attempted consistency, at EU level:  Can "abusive requests" be both the genre and the species in certain circumstances? Should more guidelines be issued? The case note raised such questions, but also addressed the implications of the CJEU ruling in the context of data protection interpretations and several Private Law branches.

For the link of the publication of the study mentioned above, please click here.

3D-printing aligns the digital and the material world. It questions the necessity of large scale production facilities for producing homogenous cheap products. It also questions the distinction between producer and consumer. This has very tangible repercussions for attributing liability. The podcast is guided by the paper ‘What shall we do with the drunken sailor? Product safety in the aftermath of 3D printing’ written by prof. Heine and S. Li.

For the link of the publication of the paper mentioned above, please click here.

Social media has profoundly changed the communication between scientists and the public. Social media allows scientists to instantly communicate their sometimes not peer-reviewed research results to a wide audience. This gives scientists the chance to get political influence, although the research results are possibly wrong. What are the motives and interests of scientists being engaged on social media with their research ideas and opinions? This trend will be explored through a chapter from a German academic handbook, “Lobbying and Social Media: Science Communication as a Case Study”. This chapter is written by prof. Heine and U. A. Ohliger.

For the link of the publication of the article mentioned above, please click here.

AI causes accountability gaps, but there is not yet a methodological toolkit to close those gaps. What are the problems of the contemporary methods? A distinction is made between law as practice and law as science. Legal history is proposed as a source of inspiration for today’s legal problems of AI. The discussion is guided by an academic chapter called “Liability of artifical intelligence systems – or: in search of lost time” written by prof. Heine for the book Competition, Law and Economic Policy by prof. Heine and prof. Budzinski. This podcast is in English, but the chapter and book are written in German.

For the link of the publication of the chapter mentioned above, please click here.

This podcast asks on the most basic level, what the legal options are for giving AI legal status. This means a rigorous analysis of the relation between human and non-human decision makers. The podcast involves the question of consciousness, the meaning of legal personhood and a discussion of contractarian approaches. Only a good knowledge of these issues lays the fundament for legal reasoning of AI. This episode discusses the chapter “Human Rights, Legal Personality, and Artificial Intelligence – What Can Epistemology and Moral Philosophy Teach Law?” written by prof. Heine for the book Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights by A. Quintavalla and J. Temperman.

For the link to the publication site of the book mentioned above, please click here.

AI creates new problems for the attribution of responsibility. The incumbent law is not yet ready to close those gaps of responsibility. The look back into Roman Law might be helpful to get an idea of how the past dealt with autonomous agents and liability. Especially, how the Romans integrated slaves as decision making agents in their business transactions, is worth getting deeper into. The podcast focusses on the paper ‘Bridging the accountability gap of artificial intelligence – What can be learned from Roman law?’, written by prof. K. Heine and A. Quintavalla.

For the link of the publication of the paper mentioned above, please click here.