WEBVTT 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lawrence Lessig: Thank you very much. It's extremely cool to be here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's just about as cool as when I spoke at Pixar. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think of these two as being highlights of my career (check). 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, thank you very much for having me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I have two small ideas I want to use as an introduction to an argument, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 about the nature of access to scientific knowledge in the context of the internet, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and use that argument as a step towards a plea about what we should do. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So here is the first idea. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I want to call it the "White-effect". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I name that after Justice Byron White, justice of the US Supreme Court, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 appointed by John F. Kennedy - here he is in 1962 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 - famous before that as 'Whizzer' White on the Yale University football team 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he was a famous liberal, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 renowned liberal, the only appointee that John Kennedy had to the Supreme Court. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But 'Whizzer' White grew old, and he is probably most famous for an infamous opinion, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which he penned on behalf of the Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 an opinion where the Supreme Court upheld the Criminalization of Sodomy law. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Here is the passage: 'Against this background, to claim that a right to engage 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in such conduct' - homosexual sodomy - 'is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.' 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, this is what I want to think of as the "White Effect". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 To be a liberal or a progressive is always relative to a moment, and that moment changes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and too many are liberal or progressive no more. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, that's the "White effect". Here is the second idea. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The Harvard Gazette is a kind of propaganda publication of Harvard University, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it talks about all the happy things at Harvard. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So here's an article that it wrote, about an extraordinary macro-economist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Gita Gopinath, who has just come to Harvard, received tenure last year 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and is one of the most influential macroeconomists in the United States right now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This article talks about her work and her research, and at the very end, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there is this puzzling passage, where it says: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 'Still, the shelves in her new office are nearly bare, since, said Gopinath, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Everything I need is on the Internet now." ' 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Right, that's the second idea. Here is the argument. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, copyright is a regulation by the State intended to change 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a regulation by the market. It's an exclusive right, a monopoly right, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a property right granted by the State, which is necessary 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to solve an inevitable market failure. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, by saying that it's necessary to solve an inevitable market failure, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm marking myself as a pro-copyright scholar, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the sense that I believe copyright is necessary, even in a digital age. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Especially in a digital age, copyright is necessary to achieve 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 certain incentives that otherwise would be lost. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But in the internet age, what we've seen as a fight about copyright, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 about the scope of copyright, waged most consistently in the context 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the battle over artists' rights, in particular, in the context of music, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where massive 'sharing' - sharing which is technically illegal - has lead to a fight 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 fought by artists and especially by artists' representatives. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we from the Free Culture movement, have challenged the people 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who have been waging that fight. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they defend copyright in the context of that fight. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But if we get above the din of this battle, the important thing to keep in mind 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that both sides in this fight acknowledge that copyright is essential 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for certain creative work, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we need to respect copyright for that creative work. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We, from the Free Culture movement, need to respect copyright for that work, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we need to recognize that there is a place for sensible copyright policy 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to protect and encourage that work. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But, however - and here is the important distinction - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not only artists rely upon copyright, copyright is also relied upon by publishers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and publishers are a different animal. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We don't have to be as negative as John Milton was when he wrote publishers are 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of books 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 - men who do no labor in an honest profession, to [them], learning is indebted." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We don't have to go quite that far to recognize why publishers are different, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the economic problem for publishers is different 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the economic problems presented by creating. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So who is copyright for? The publishers or the artists? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, since the beginning of copyright in the Anglo-American tradition, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the Statute of Anne of 1710, there has been this argument about whether copyright 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 was intended for the publishers or the artists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When the Statute of Anne was originally introduced, it gave a perpetual term of copyright, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which the publishers understood to be a protection for them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It was then amended to give just a limited term for copyright. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Publishers were puzzled about that, because it wouldn't make sense to give a limited term 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if it was the publisher that was to be protected. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In 1769, a court case in the context of Millar v. Taylor seemd to suggest that 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 despite the limitation of the Statute of Anne, copyright was for ever. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But in 1774, in a very famous case about this book, The Seasons, by James Thomson, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the House of Lords have held that copyright protected by the Status of Anne was limited, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 holding for the first time that works passed into the public domain. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And for the first time in English history, works including Shakespeare 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 passed into the public domain. And in this moment, we can say Free Culture was born. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it also clarified that copyright was not intended for the publisher. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Even if it benefited the publishers, it was a creative right 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and author's right. Even if benefitting publishers, copyright was for authors. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, I remark these obvious borders about the scope of copyright, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because we tend to forget them. We've been fighting a battle in the context of copyright 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where copyright is essential, and we are spending too little attention 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 about a battle in a context where copyright is not essential. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I mean by that, in the context of science, in the context that Gopinath was speaking of 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when she talked about everything being available on the internet. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the consequence of failing to pay attention to this second context 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 within which this battle is being waged is that there is a trouble here 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that too few see. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So let's think about this claim that everything is on the internet now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What does that mean? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Here is a particular example to evaluate what that means. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Much of my work, these days, is focusing on corruption 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the context of this institution, Congress. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So let's say that we wanted to study, you wanted to study with me, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 corruption in this context. Go to Google Scholar and enter a search for campaign finance. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Here are the top articles that would be listed from that search. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So let's say you wanted to browse through these articles 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and get a sense of campaign finance and how it might be related to corruption in Congress. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So here are the top 10 articles. This first one, a very famous one 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by my former colleagues Pam Karlan and Sam Issacharof. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You would find, to get access to this article, you'd have to pay $29.95. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The second article, housed at JSTOR, you'd have to get through to get permission 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the Columbia Law Review - not quite clear how you would do that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Third article, again, $29.95. The fourth article, protected by Questia, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we learn that you can get a 1-day free trial to all these Oxford University Press articles, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you'd only have to pay when that day is over 99 dollars 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to continue for a year. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Here is the 4th article again, protected by JSTOR. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The 5th article, it's an economics article, so the price is right on the surface: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 10 dollars to purchase access to this article. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Here's the 7th article, Columbia Law Review. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 8th article, Columbia Law Review, 9th article, protected again by JSTOR, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 10th article, $29.95. So, how accessible is this information to the general public? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, one of these you can get access to for free, at least one time only, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 One of them you can pay $10 for. 3 of them, $29.95, and 5 of them, terms unknown, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 protected by JSTOR. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, when Gopinath says "Everything I need is on the internet", 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what does she mean? What she means is if - and this is a big if - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you're a tenured professor in an elite university or we could say a professor, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or a student or professor in an elite university, or maybe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a student or professor at a US university, if you are a member of the knowledge elite, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 then you have effectively free access to all of this information. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But if you are from the rest of the world? Not so much. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, the thing to recognize is we built this world, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we built this architecture for access that flows from the deployment of copyright, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but here, copyright to benefit publishers. Not to enable authors. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not one of these authors gets money from copyright. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not one of them wants the distribution of their articles limited. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not one of them has a business model that turns upon restricting access to their work. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not one of them should support this system. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As a knowledge policy for the creators of this knowledge, this is crazy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the craziness doesn't stop here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, my third child is this extraordinarily beautiful girl, Samantha Tess. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When she was born, the doctors were worried she had a condition 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that would suggest jaundice. I had jaundice as a baby, so I didn't think it was serious, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and I was told very forcefully by her doctor, this is extroardinarily serious. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If this condition manifest in the dangerous condition, it would produce brain damage, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 possibly death. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, of course, we were terrified. I went home and I did what every academic did, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I pulled everything I could from the web to study about what jaundice was 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and what the conditions were. Now, because I am a Harvard professor, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of course, I didn't have to pay to get access to this information, but I just kept the total. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 To get access to these 20 articles that I wanted access to was $435, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for the ordinary human, not a Harvard professor. OK. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So I gathered these articles and set them aside, believing this problem 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 would not manifest itself in such a serious way. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But on her third day, she fell into a stupor, and we called the doctor, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the doctor was panciked and he said we had to get to the hospital immediately. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, at 3 o'clock in the morning, we trundled the baby up and raced to the hospital. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We were sitting in the waiting room, and I brought the articles with me, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because I wanted something to do, to distract me from the terror 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that my child had this condition. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I picked up the first of these articles, which is actually free, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 published on the web for free, at the American Family Physician, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and I started reading about this condition. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I got to this table, a table that was going to describe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when you should worry about whether the child would have too severe of this exposure. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I turned the page, and this is what I found: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "The rightsholder did not grant rights to reproduce this item in electronic media. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For the missing item, see the original print version of this publication." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I had this moment of liberation from fear about my child, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because I turned to fear about our culture. I thought, this is outrageous! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The idea that we are regulating access down to the chart in an article 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that was published for free to help, not doctors, but parents 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 understand what this condition was. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We are regulating access to parts of articles. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now here and throughout our architecture for access, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we are building an infrastructure for this regulation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Think of the Google Books project, which is perfecting control down to the sentence, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the ability to regulate access down to the sentence. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By the way, I alway forget to tell this: the kid is fine, she didn't have jaundice, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it is a complete non issue. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But the point is, we are architecting access here, for what purpose? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 To maximize revenue. And why? Revenue to the authors? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Revenues necessary to produce the incentive to create? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is this a limitation that serves any of the real objectives of copyright? (14:00) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The answer is no. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It is simply the natural result of for-profit production 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for any good that we, quote, must have. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As Bergstrom and McAfee describe in a really fantastic little bit of work, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if you compare the cost per page of for-profit publishers 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the cost per page of not-for-profit publishers in these different fields of science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's a 4 and a half times factor difference cost per page. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That is a function of different, of these having different objectives. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 One objective is to spread knowledge: that's the not-for-profit publishers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and one objective, to maximize profit: that's the for-profit publishers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, this architecture for access is beginning to build resistance. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, think about the story of JSTOR. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 JSTOR was launched in 1995, with an extraordinary amount of funding 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the Mellon Foundation. That funding produced a huge archive 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of journal articles. So that there are now more than 1200 journals, 20 collections, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 53 disciplines, 303'000 issues, about 28 million pages in JSTOR archive. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When this archive was launched, everybody thought it was brilliant. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Everybody thought the access here was extraordinary. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But today? There is increasingly criticism growing out there 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 about how JSTOR makes its information accessible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We could think of it as a kind of "White effect". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It was liberal when it was launched, but what has it become as it has grown old? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, for example, here is an article published in the 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 California Historical Society Quarterly. It's 6 pages long. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 To get it, you have to pay $20 to JSTOR, this non-profit organization, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 leading Carl Malamud, who of course is famous for his Public Resources site, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to tweet in the following way: "JSTOR is morally offensive. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 $20 for a 6-page article, unless you happen to work at a fancy school." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, you might say, "This is a really important academic archive", 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the question is whether this really important academic archive 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is going to become a kind of RIAA for the academy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Begging the question that the "White effect" always begs, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whether we could do this better under a different set of assumptions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, of course the Open Access movement is the movement that was launched 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to try and do this better under different circumstances. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, it has a long history, but its real push was inspired by 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a dramatic increase in the cost of journals. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, if this is a study between 1986 and 2004 by the American Research Libraries, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this is the increase in inflation, this is the increase in the cost of serials, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's obvious that the market power of these publishers is being exploited, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because the purchasers of these serials have no choice but to buy them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's in part motivated by this cost concern, it's also motivated by a sense of unfairness. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We do all the work, they get all the money, here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the response to these two kinds of concerns has been two: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 #1 an open access self-archiving movement, where the push has been 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Let's get as many things out there archived on the Web as we can, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 pre-prints and whatever we can get up, and make sure 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the Web can make them accessible" - and an Open Access publishing movement. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, what's the difference between these two movements? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The difference is licensing. Some "open" is "free", in the sense that Richard Stallman 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 made famous by his quote: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 not as in free beer." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, some aspect of the Open Access publishing is free as in free speech, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 some "open" is not. Some is just free as in: "You can download it freely, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the rights that you get from the download are just as broad 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as narrowly granted by some implicit copyright rule. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, "free", as in licensed freely, has been the objective that the Science Commons project, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which is a project that Creative Commons has been pushing, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and pushing as part of a broader strategy for producing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the information architecture that science needs, as they announce 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in their "Principles for open science". There are four principles here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The first is, there should be open access to literature, by which Science Commons says: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you should be on the internet, literature "should be on the internet 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in digital form, with permission granted in advance 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the full texts of articles, crawl them indexing, pass them data to software, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or use them for any other lawful purpose, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 without financial, legal or technical barriers other than those inseparable 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from gaining access to the internet itself." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's what "free", here, means. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Second, access to research tools: there should be "materials necessary 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to replicate funded research - cell lines, model animals, DNA tools, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 reagents, and more - should be described in digital formats, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 made available under standard terms of use or contracts, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with infrastructure or resources to fulfill requests to qualified scientists, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and with full credit provided to the scientist who created the tools." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 #3 Data should be in the public domain. "Research data, data sets, databases, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and protocols should be in the public domain." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 meaning no copyright restrictions at all. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And 4, Open cyber-infrastructure: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Data without structure and annotation is an opportunity lost. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Research data should flow in an open, public and extensible infrastructure 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that supposrts its recombination and reconfiguration into computer models, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 its searchability by search engines, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and its use by both scientists and the taxpaying public. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This infrastructure is an essential public good." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, my view is, this the right way - you might think this is the left way - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but it's the correct way to instantiate this Open Access movement. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The values and the efficiency and the justice in this architecture 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are the right values, efficiency and justice for an Open Access movement. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So let's call it, following Stallman, the Free Access Movement. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the critical question of the Free Access movement 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is the license that governs access to the information being provided. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Does the license grant freedoms? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that, of course, was the motivation between the Public Library of Science - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 every one of their articles is published under a Creative Commons 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Attribution license, the freeest license we have. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that is increasingly the practice, surprisingly, of the largest publishers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as described by this wonderful project housed here at CERN, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which is studying Open Access publishing. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is the first of three stages of this project. When studying the large publishers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this study concludes that "Half of the large publishers use some version 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of a Creative Commons license. These seven publish 72% of the titles 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and 71% of the articles investigated. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And of these, 82% use the freeest license, cc-by, and 18% use cc-by-nc", non commercial. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that of course is an excellent report on the progress of this free access movement 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the context of the largest publishers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But what's not excellent in this story is the other publishers here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For these other publishers, only 73% you can determine copyright status (check) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 69% transfer the copyright to the publisher. Only 21 % of the articles 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 have any Creative Commons license attached at all. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, this is because these other publishers are using copyright as a means, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a means to a non-knowledge ends, to a non-copyright ends. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, for example, they are using it to support the societies 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that might happen to be associated with publishing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that particular journal, that society that might be studying 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 one particular of science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That society, of course, is valuable, but what they are doing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is using copyright to support that society. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the consequence of that strategy is to block access to all but the few. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We don't achieve the objectives of the Enlightenment, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we achieve the reality of an elite-nment, the elite-nment 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which describes the way in which we spread knowledge 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 despite the ideas of the Enlightenment. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the point I'm emphasizing here is that it's for no good copyright reason. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, the slowness inside of science to embrace this more broadly, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 especially among the smaller publishers, may surprise some, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or maybe it doesn't surprise. The whole design of science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is to be a fad-resistor, the idea is to have an infrastructure 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that avoids fads, and tradition then becomes the metric of what's right 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or of what's good in science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But I think it's time to recognize that Free Access, as in free speech, access 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is no fad. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it's time to push this non fad more broadly in the context of science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, just because I'm talking about how bad some area of science is, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I don't mean to suggest that the arts is good, right? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We have practices in the context of the arts that are just as bad, here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For example, think about a recent episode around YouTube. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know, we should not minimize the significance of YouTube 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the infrastructure of culture right now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 YouTube now has 43 different languages. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There is more uploaded in one month on Youtube 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than was broadcast by the major networks in the United States 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 over the last 60 years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Every single day, 6 new years of video gets uploaded to YouTube. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are 2 billion views of YouTube every single year. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 every single day, sorry. That's 40% increase over just the last year. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I've been famously a friend (check) of this extraordinary site 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because I celebrate the kind of read-write creativity 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that I think YouTube has encouraged. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I got this sense of what we should think of as read-write creativity 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when I was reading testimony at this place 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by this man, John Philip Souza, in 1906. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when he was - I didn't read it in 1906 but the testimony was given in 1906 - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When Souza was testifying about this technology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what he called "talking machines". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, Souza was not a fan of the talking machines. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is what he had to say about them: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of music in this country. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When I was a boy, in front of every house in the summer evenings 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you would find young people together singing the songs 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the day or the old songs. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We will not have a vocal chord left," Souza said, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as was the tail of man when he came from the ape." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now this is the picture I want you to focus on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This picture of "young people together, singing the songs of the day 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or the old songs". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is a picture of culture. We could call it, using modern computer terminology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a kind of read-write culture. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a culture where people participate in the creation and the re-creation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of their culture: in that sense, it's read-write. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the opposite of read-write creativity, then, we should call 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "read-only" culture. A culture where creativity is consumed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the consumer is not a creator. A culture, in this sense, that's top-down, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where the vocal cords of the millions of ordinary potential creators 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 has been lost, and lost, because, as Souza said, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because of these infernal machines: technology, technology like this, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or technology like this, to produce a culture like this, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a culture which enabled efficient consumption, what we call "reading", 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but inefficient amateur production, what we should call "writing". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A culture good for listening, but not a culture good for speaking, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a culture good for watching, a culture not good for creating. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, the first popular instantiation of the internet, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 long after you guys gave us the read-write web, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the first one people really paid attention to, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 around 1997 and 1998, was a read-only internet. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, Napster, which of course, built the largest music archive, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is still a music archive of music created by others 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the legal version, Music Store, was an archive of the music 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 created by others, which you could buy for 99 cents. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 These were technologies to enable access, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but access to culture created elsewhere. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But then, shortly in - after the turn of the century, I think, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the internet became fundamentally read-write. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People began taking, and remixing, and sharing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 their creativity on the internet, and YouTube was the platform for that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, my favorite example, which I first saw on YouTube, is this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [Read my lips by: Atmo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhlHUTBgAMw] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Bush: My love, there's only you in my life, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the only thing that's right. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Blair: My first love: you're every breath that I take, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you're every step I make. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bush: And I, I want to share 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bush and Blair: all my love with you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bush: No one else will do. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Blair: And your eyes 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bush: Your eyes, your eyes 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bush and Blair: they tell me how much you care for... 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 announcer: remember to(?) take dictation" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: OK. And then.more recently, I don't know if (?) many of you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 have seen this extraordinary site ThruYou. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is a site that takes content only from YouTube 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and remixes it to produce albums and videos. I mean this is his latest, you know. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Voice: This is my mother: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mother: Howdy, howdy. OK. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [pays a continuo on keyboard] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Tenesan1 [see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J8sSXO9VWk ] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Tenesan1: The song I'm going to sing, I wrote, is called "Green" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because ... (?) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm seing beauty created on the land 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 On Earth the third day, producing all the plants 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mother Nature created by the most high God 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm seeing beauty and it's green to me 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [other instruments enter] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Spotting tranquillity, peace and restoration 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Check all the water travelling from roots 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Then you will see roots digging deep, building a strong foundation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Then finally a stem shoots through 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm seeing beauty crea.. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: So this is then what I think of as a platform for read-write creativity. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But then the second stage of this, I think is ultimately 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 much more interesting. It's the way that this platform 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 has become a platform for read-write communities, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which means creativity, which then gets remixed by others 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in response to the initial read-write creators. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So here is an example. This video: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [ "Crank That" by Soulja Boy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLGLum5SyKQ + Superman:] You Soulja Boy.. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I got a new dance fo you all called the soulja boy 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You gotta punch then crank back three times from left to right 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Aaah! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: so that video inspired this video: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [video 2] You Soulja Boy ... 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: which then inspired this video 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [Video 3] Soulja Boy ... 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: Well here is another example. I'm sure many of you remember 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 these extraordinary movies by John Hughes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what we used to think of as the Brat Pack, until we knew 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that there was a Brat Pack before these guys. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So this is the first bit of cultural, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and I think here is the second. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is a music video by the band Phoenix, with their song Lisztomania: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [Lisztomania: Phoenix' clip] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig (over clip): So classic music video style 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [clip continues] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So sentimental 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: Somebody got the idea that they would take John Hughes' content 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and remix it with the music by Phoenix. They produced this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [remix] So sentimental 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 not sentimental, no 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 romantic not disgusting yet 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Darling, I'm down and lonely when with the fortunate is only 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I've been looking for something else 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Do let, do let, do let, jugulate, do let, do let, do 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let's go slowly discouraged 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Distant from other interests on your favorite weekend ending... 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: Then somebody had the idea that they would make a local version 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of this remix video. So this is the Brooklyn version: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [Brooklyn remix:] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: And then San Francisco decided they'd like to copy: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [San Francisco remix:] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: And then Boston University decided they would copy: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [Boston U remix:] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: There are others, literally scores of these on the internet, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from every place around the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (1 sentence ????) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 every other place... these people doing the same kind of remix. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The point to recognize is that this is then what Souza was romanticizing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when Souza was talking about the young people getting together 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and singing the songs of the day or the old songs. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But they are not singing the songs or the old songs 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in their backyard or on the corner, they are now singing them 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on this free digital platform that allows people to sing and respond, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and respond again all across the world, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in my view, important and valuable, in understanding 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how this kind of culture develops and spreads. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, is it legal? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, YouTube has just stepped into this battle, of whether it's legal. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They've launched this Copyright School 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So I will give you a little bit of their copyright school. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [video from http://www.youtube.com/copyright_school - original subtitled in ca 40 languages] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Everybody has really been looking forward to the new video 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from Lumpy and the Lumpettes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Even Lumpy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Russell's a huge fan. He can't wait to tell all his friends about it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Hey, Russell, you didn't create that video! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You just copied someone else's content. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: OK, this first part is pretty standard, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 talking about copying people's content and uploading, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and even copying in a live performance and uploading. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's fair, that's true, that's accurate in its statement 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of what copyright law is, and I think what copyright law should be. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But I want to focus on their talk about remix, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which might be confusing to you, and if you do, you should buy 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 multiple copies of my book, "Remix" to understand what it's about. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But here's YouTube's version of the story of remix 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [YouTube video cont.] Oh, Russell! Your reuse of the Lumpy's content is clever, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but did you get permission for it? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mashups or remixes of content may also require permission 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the original copyright owner, depending on whether or not 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the use is a fair use. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In the United States [text shown onscreen is read very fast] ... 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you should consult a qualified copyright attorney. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: OK. "Consult a qualified copyright attorney"? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 These are 15-year olds. You're trying to teach 15-year olds 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how to obey the law, and what you do is you give them 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this thing called fair use, and you read it so fast 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 nobody can understand it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You believe you've actually explained something sensible? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is crazy talk. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Of course we train lawyers to understand it, and not think it's crazy talk, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but non lawyers should recognize it's crazy talk. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's an absurd system here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And of course, a sensible system would say: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Then it should be plainly legal for Russell to make a remix, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a non commercial consumer making a remix of content 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that he sees out there, even if it's not legal for YouTube 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to distribute it without paying some sort of royalty 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the copyright owner whose work has been remixed. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now the point is, the significance of this kind of culture, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this kind of remix culture, and the opportunity 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for this remix culture is recognized by people on the left, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and on the right. Here is my favorite little bit. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a little bit bad video, but it's by one of my favorite 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 libertarians from Cato Institute, which is one of the 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 most important libertarian think-tanks in the United States, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 talking about this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Libertarian man: Copyright policy isn't just about how to incentivize 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the production of a certain kind of artistic commodity. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's about what level of control we're going to permit to be 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 exercised over our social realities, social realities that are now 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 inevitably permeated by pop culture. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think it's important that we keep these two different kinds 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of public uses (?) in mind. If we only focus on how to 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of public visions in mind. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If we only focus on how to maximize the supply of one, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think we risk suppressing this different and richer 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and, in some ways, maybe even more important one. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lessig: Bingo. That's the point. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are two kinds of cultures her. The commercial culture 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the amateur culture. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we have to have a system that tries to recognize and encourage both. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And even YouTube, now, the company most responsible 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for this revival of this remix culture, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 even YouTube, now, is criminalizing the remixers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 OK, now that's the argument. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Here is what I think we need to do here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In both these contexts, both science and culture, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we need reform. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's not to say we need the abolition of copyright. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are copyright abolitionists out there, and I'not one them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What we need is reform, both of the law and of us. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, of the law: I, last year, had the opportunity - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 surprising, from the perspective of 10 years ago - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but I was invited by WIPO to talk to WIPO, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and both my presentation and the current Director General 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 has a conception of what WIPO should do here (40:20) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and it's very similar. They should launch what we could think of 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as a Blue Skies Commission, a commission to think about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what architecture for copyright makes sense in the digital age. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The presumption is, copyright is necessary, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the presumption is also that the architecture from the 20th century 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 doesn't make sense in a digital context. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the elements of, in my view, of this architecture 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that would make sense, are 5. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 #1 Copyright has got to be simple. If it purports to regulate 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 15 year olds, 15 year olds must be able to understand it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They don't understand it now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 No one understands it now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we need to remake it, to make it simple, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if it tends to regulate as broadly as it regulates. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 #2 It needs to be efficient. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Copyright is a property system. It also happens to be 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the most inefficient property system known to man. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We can't know who owns what in this system, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because we have no system for recording ownership 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and allowing us to allocate ownership as we want. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 An the only remedy to that is to restore a kind of formality, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 at least a formality required to maintain a copyright. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And this is a position that's even supported by the RIAA 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as one of the essential reforms to copyright. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 #3 Copyright has got to be better targeted. It's got to regulate selectively. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So if you think about the distinction between copies and remix, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the distinction between the professional and the amateur, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of course, we get this matrix - lawyers deal in two dimensions, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you guys in hundred dimensions but here is my two dimensions - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What we have in the current regime of copyright 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is presumption of copyright regulates the same 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 across these four possibilities. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But that's a mistake. Obviously copyright needs to regulate 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 efficiently here, copies of professional works, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so 10'000 copies of Madonna's latest CD is a problem 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that copyright law needs to worry about, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But this area, amateurs remixing culture needs to be free 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the regulation of copyright. Not fair use, but free use. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not even triggering copyright's concern. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then these two middle cases are harder. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They need a little more freedom, but they need to assure 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 some kind of control. So if you share Madonna's latest CD 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with your 10'000 best friends, that's a problem. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There needs to be some response to that problem. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And if you take a book and turn it into a movie, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think it's still appropriate that you get permission for that, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 though of course, you need to be able to remix 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the way that we saw Soderberg remix that video 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of Bush and Endless Love. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The point here is that if you think about this, I'm talking about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 deregulating a significant space of culture, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and focusing the regulation of copyright work (?) and do some good. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 #4 It needs to be effective. And effective means 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it must actually work in getting artists paid. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The current system does not work in getting artists paid. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And #5 It needs to be realistic. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Think about the problem of peer-to-peer, quote, piracy internationally, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We've, for the last decade, been waging what is referred to 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as a war. My friend, the late Jack Valenti, former head of the 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Motion Picture Association of America used to refer to it as 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 his own, quote, "terrorist war", where apparently the terrorists in this war 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are our children. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now this war has been a total failure. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It has not achieve its objective of reducing copyrights sharing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or ilegal peer-to-peer file sharing. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I know the response of some to this totally failed war 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is to continue to wage that war forever, and ever more viciously, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but I suggest we adopt the opposite response here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We sue for peace. We sue for peace in this war, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and consider proposals that would give us the opportunity 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to achieve the objectives of copyright, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 without waging this war. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, compulsory licenses, voluntary collective licenses (44:05) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or the German Greens' suggestion of a cultural flat rate 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which would be collected and allocated to artists 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on the basis of the harm suffered because of P2P file-sharing, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 all of these are alternatives to waging a war 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to stop sharing, when sharing is of course at the core 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the architecture of the Net, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and all of them recognize that if we achieve 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that alternative, we don't need to block this system of sharing. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, the thing to think about is, if we had had one of these alternatives 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 10 years ago, what would the world look like today, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how would it be different? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now one difference is, artists would get more money, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they would have gotten more money, because 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 while we have been waging war against artists [sic: "children"?] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 artists haven't got anything, only lawyers have. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Businesses would have had more competition, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the rules would have been clear, we would have more companies 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than just Apple and Microsoft thinking out 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how they could exploit this new digital ethnologies. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But most important to me, is, we wouldn't have a generation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of criminals who have grown up being called criminals 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because they are technically pirates, according to 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this outdated copyright law. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So these 5 objectives would go into the conception of what 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this Blue Skies commission should think about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and I think it should think of this in a 5 year process 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 talking about something not to into effect for 10 years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Think of it as a kind of Map for Berne II, but Bern II being 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a system that could work to achieve the objectives of copyright 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in a digital age. That's what the law should do. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But most important right now is what we need to do. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We, both in the context of business - so in the context of business, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we need to think about how to better enable legal reuse 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of copyrighted material. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And companies like Google and Microsoft's Bing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 need to do more here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We're in the age of remix, where writing is remix, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where teachers tell students to go out to the web 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and gather as much content as you can in order to 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 write a report about whatever it is they are assigning them 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to write reports about. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That means Google and Bing need to help our kids 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 do it legally, which they don't, right now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So for example, this extraordinary service, which Google 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 gives you when you want to do an image search: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 let's say you search for an image, you do an image search on flowers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This, over here - I don't know if you play with this - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is really extraordinary: you can then narrow the search 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on the basis of many of these categories, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 including like the color of the photograph. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So you want pink flowers, there you can see all the pink flowers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 just by clicking on the link. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But why, in this extraction, don't we also have an option 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for something like this: show reusable? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Show the content that is explicitly licensed to be reusable, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because Google indexes Creative Commons licenses 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 associated with these images. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Why not make it on the surface easy to begin to filter out 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 those that you can use with the permission of the author 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from those that presumptively require a lawyer? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Same thing in the context of a site like YouTube. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Why don't we enable more easily the signaling by the creator 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that others should be able to download and reuse content, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 not so much to redefine what Fair Use is - 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I still think there is a fair use claim even if there isn't 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 permission given to re-use - but at least to encourage people 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to begin to signal that their freedom to share 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 has been authorized by the author. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then in the academy, which I think we are speaking 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 about here right now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We need to recognize in the academy, I think, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 an ethical obligation much stronger than the one Stallman spoke of 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the context of software. An ethical obligation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which is at the core of our mission. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Our mission is universal access to knowledge. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Universal access to knowledge: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 not American University access to knowledge, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but universal access to knowledge in every part of the globe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that obligation has certain entailments. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Entailment #1 is that we need to keep this work free, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where free means licensed freely. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now this needs to be part of an ethical point about what we do. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It is resisted by people who say that archiving is enough. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But that is wrong, I think. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Archiving is not enough, because what it does is 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 leave these rights out-there. And by leaving these rights our-there 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it encourages this architecture of closed access. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It encourages models of access that block access 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the non-elite around the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it discourages unplanned, unanticipated and "uncool" innovation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's the thing that publishers would have said 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of Google Books, when Google Books had the idea 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to take all books published and put them on the Web. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Right, publishers thought that was very uncool, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but that's exactly the kind of innovation we need to encourage, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we know it won't be the publishers 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that do that kind of innovation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We don't need for our work, exclusivity. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we shouldn't practice, with our work, exclusivity. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we should name those who do, wrong. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Those who do are inconsistent with the ethic of our work. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now how do we do that? I think we do that by exercising leadership, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 leadership by those who can afford to take the lead, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the senior academics, those with tenure, those who can say, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on committees granting tenure, that it doesn't matter 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that you didn't publish in the most prestigious journal 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if that journal is not Open Access. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People who can begin to help redefine what access to knowledge is, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by supporting Open Access and respecting Open Access 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and encouraging Open Access. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, I'm really honored and happy to be able to talk about this 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 here, where you of course gave us the Web, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and CERN has taken the lead in supporting Open Access 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in a crucial space of physics. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the work that you are doing right now will have a dramatic effect 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on changing the debate on science across the globe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But what we need to do is to think about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how to leverage this leadership into leadership for the globe, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to benefit this area of the globe as much as this area of the globe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Thank you very much. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (applause) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [credits for Flickr photos] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [This work licensed: CC-BY] 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 [[Subtitles: universalsubtitles.org/videos/jD5TB2eebD5d/ ]]