『LawPod』のカバーアート

LawPod

LawPod

著者： Queen's University - School of Law
無料で聴く

LawPod is a weekly podcast based in the Law School at Queen’s University Belfast. We provide a platform to explore law and legal research in an engaging and scholarly way.Queen's University - School of Law 政治・政府 政治学 社会科学
エピソード
  • From Copyright Infringement to Superintelligence: The Legal and Philosophical Future of AI

    From Copyright Infringement to Superintelligence: The Legal and Philosophical Future of AI
    2026/05/20
    What happens when the law meets a general-purpose cultural machine? In this episode, hosts Matteo Iuorio and Sofia Debernardi sit down with intellectual property expert Professor Giancarlo Frosio to unpack the massive legal battleground surrounding generative AI. We start with the immediate legal technicalities—separating the liability of tech companies training models from the liability of users prompting them—before sliding into the gripping, high-stakes philosophical landscape of what happens to human labor, law, and purpose as we race toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and superintelligence. Key Takeaways
    • The Two Legal Battlegrounds:Copyright issues with AI are split into two distinct phases: theTraining Stage(ingesting data to extract patterns) and theOutput Stage(whether an AI-generated result is "substantially similar" to a protected work).
    • Strict Liability & The Neutral Tool Dilemma:Copyright is a strict liability offense. Professor Frosio shares his perspective that AI labs are placing "neutral, general-purpose tools" on the market. Therefore, legal liability for an infringing output should ideally sit with the user prompting it—provided the developer implemented standard safeguards.
    • The Geopolitical AI Arms Race:Stricter text and data-mining copyright regulations in regions like Europe can function as a bottleneck for local tech development, inadvertently pushing the dominance of the AI "arms race" exclusively toward the US and China.
    • The Looming Threat to Purpose:As the operational capabilities of AI shift from narrow tasks to holistic human replication (AGI) and beyond (superintelligence), society faces a massive conundrum: if artificial entities can outperform human intellectual labor completely, what is left for humanity's sense of purpose?

    Terminology Glossary LLM (Large Language Model): Note: Mentioned contextually as "LMS" during the interview recording. These are AI programs trained on vast amounts of text data to understand, summarize, generate, and predict new content. Substantial Similarity: A fundamental legal doctrine used by courts to determine if an unauthorized reproduction has taken too much protectable expression from an original copyrighted work. AGI vs. Superintelligence: Narrow AI handles specific single tasks. Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) can holistically apply knowledge to any task like a human. Superintelligence refers to a theoretical future entity whose collective intellect far surpasses the capacity of the human brain. References & Links to Explore
    • Learn more about Professor Frosio's work and research at theGlobal Intellectual Property and Technology Centre (GIP Tech).
    • Check out the landmark pending litigation referenced in the episode:Getty Images v. Stability AIin the UK.
    • Learn about the European Union's framework discussed by reading the official documentation on theEU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act).
    • To explore the philosophical warnings mentioned by the "Godfather of AI" Geoffrey Hinton on AGI and systemic alignment risks, check out hisNobel Prize lecturesand recent AI safety advocacy.
    • Read up on the historic sci-fi themes referenced at the end of the episode via Isaac Asimov’s classicFoundation Series.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    50 分
  • Punishment, Politics, and Legal Plunder: Joshua Page on the Long Struggle Over Criminal Justice

    Punishment, Politics, and Legal Plunder: Joshua Page on the Long Struggle Over Criminal Justice
    2026/05/14

    In this episode of LawPod, Dr Alessandro Corda is joined by Professor Joshua Page (University of Minnesota) for an in‑depth conversation tracing his intellectual journey through the sociology of punishment and the politics of criminal justice in the United States.

    The discussion is structured around Page’s three major books: The Toughest Beat, which examines the political power of prison officer unions in California; Breaking the Pendulum, which challenges simple narratives of cyclical change in criminal justice policy; and his most recent work, Legal Plunder, co‑authored with Joe Soss, which explores the predatory extraction of resources through the modern criminal justice system.

    Across the episode, they explore how penal policy develops over time, the role of organised interests and policy feedback, the limits of reform, and the ongoing struggles that shape punishment at federal, state, and local levels. The conversation also turns to contemporary debates over bail reform, fiscal pressures on local government, and the broader political economy of criminal justice.

    In the final part of the episode, Professor Page reflects on living in Minneapolis since the murder of George Floyd, discussing how community mobilisation, public trust, and resistance to state power continue to shape the city’s political and social landscape.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    37 分
  • The Duty to Assist: Law, Risk and Responsibility

    The Duty to Assist: Law, Risk and Responsibility
    2026/05/07
    What does the law expect us to do when another person is in immediate danger? And what happens when someone steps in to help — but is injured in the process? In this episode of LawPod, Dr Rosie Cowan and student host Eva Richards speak with Eoin Campbell, a Queen’s graduate and lecturer in legal English in Lyon, France. Eoin shares a powerful and deeply personal account of intervening during a violent attack in a residential car park in France, where he and another passer-by helped save a young woman’s life. The episode uses Eoin’s experience to explore the legal and moral questions surrounding the duty to assist: a concept recognised in French criminal law, but approached very differently in UK and common law systems. Content note This episode includes discussion of a violent assault, strangulation, serious injury, trauma, post-traumatic stress, and the aftermath of criminal proceedings. Listener discretion is advised. About the episode In UK law, there is generally no broad criminal duty to rescue or intervene simply because another person is in danger. Duties to act usually arise only in particular situations — for example, where there is a special relationship, professional responsibility, assumption of care, or where a person has created a danger. French law takes a different approach (Article 223-6 of the French Penal Code). It recognises a more general obligation to assist a person in danger, provided that assistance can be given without serious risk to the rescuer or others. This principle is often discussed in terms of non-assistance à personne en danger — broadly, failure to assist a person in danger. Eoin’s story brings this legal idea into sharp focus. His intervention was not abstract or theoretical. It happened in seconds, under pressure, and with serious consequences. The episode asks not only whether people should help, but also what support should exist for those who do. Key themes 1. The duty to assist in French law The conversation introduces the French idea that a person may have a legal duty to help someone in serious danger. That does not necessarily mean physically intervening in every case. Assistance might include calling emergency services, alerting others, or using available safety equipment. Eoin gives the example of seeing someone in difficulty in the sea. A bystander may not be required to swim out and risk their own life, but they may be expected to call for help or throw a life ring if one is available. This distinction matters: the law may encourage assistance, but it does not generally require a person to take unreasonable risks. 2. The limits of legal duties in moments of crisis One of the most striking parts of the episode is the gap between legal theory and real-life decision-making. As Eoin explains, when he saw the attack unfold, he was not weighing legal obligations or statutory wording. He saw someone in immediate danger and acted. That raises a difficult question: if the law says a person should help “if they can”, how realistic is it to expect someone to assess risk calmly in the middle of a violent emergency? The episode explores this tension between: legal duty;moral instinct;personal safety;public expectations; andthe reality of split-second decisions. 3. The UK and common law contrast Rosie places the discussion in its wider legal context by contrasting the French approach with the UK position. In common law systems, criminal liability is usually more cautious about punishing omissions — that is, failures to act. This does not mean that UK law is indifferent to people in danger. Rather, it tends to impose duties to act only in defined circumstances, such as where someone has responsibility for a child, patient, employee, or person in their care. The episode therefore raises a broader philosophical question: should law require solidarity between strangers, or should intervention remain primarily a matter of personal conscience? 4. Public messaging and state responsibility A central issue in the episode is whether public authorities can encourage people to intervene without also providing clear protection or support for those who are injured as a result. Eoin reflects on public campaigns urging people to challenge harassment, violence, and threatening behaviour. He does not reject the moral value behind those campaigns. Instead, he asks what should happen afterwards if someone does step in and suffers physical, psychological, or financial harm. This is one of the episode’s most important questions: If the state encourages people to protect others, what duty does the state owe to the people who do the protecting? 5. Compensation, recognition, and procedural uncertainty Eoin also discusses the aftermath of the incident, including his hand injury, later diagnosis of PTSD, loss of earnings, and attempts to obtain recognition or compensation. His experience highlights the complexity of being neither the original target of the attack nor a ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    28 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません