9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Lawrence Lessig: Thank you very much. It's extremely cool to be here. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's just about as cool as when I spoke at Pixar. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I think of these two as being highlights of my career (check). 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, thank you very much for having me. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I have two small ideas I want to use as an introduction to an argument, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 about the nature of access to scientific knowledge in the context of the internet, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and use that argument as a step towards a plea about what we should do. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So here is the first idea. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I want to call it the "White-effect". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I name that after Justice Byron White, justice of the US Supreme Court, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 appointed by John F. Kennedy - here he is in 1962 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - famous before that as 'Whizzer' White on the Yale University football team 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he was a famous liberal, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 renowned liberal, the only appointee that John Kennedy had to the Supreme Court. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But 'Whizzer' White grew old, and he is probably most famous for an infamous opinion, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which he penned on behalf of the Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 an opinion where the Supreme Court upheld the Criminalization of Sodomy law. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Here is the passage: 'Against this background, to claim that a right to engage 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in such conduct' - homosexual sodomy - 'is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.' 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, this is what I want to think of as the "White Effect". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To be a liberal or a progressive is always relative to a moment, and that moment changes, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and too many are liberal or progressive no more. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, that's the "White effect". Here is the second idea. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The Harvard Gazette is a kind of propaganda publication of Harvard University, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it talks about all the happy things at Harvard. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So here's an article that it wrote, about an extraordinary macro-economist, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Gita Gopinath, who has just come to Harvard, received tenure last year 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and is one of the most influential macroeconomists in the United States right now. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This article talks about her work and her research, and at the very end, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 there is this puzzling passage, where it says: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 'Still, the shelves in her new office are nearly bare, since, said Gopinath, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Everything I need is on the Internet now." ' 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Right, that's the second idea. Here is the argument. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, copyright is a regulation by the State intended to change 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a regulation by the market. It's an exclusive right, a monopoly right, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a property right granted by the State, which is necessary 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to solve an inevitable market failure. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, by saying that it's necessary to solve an inevitable market failure, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I'm marking myself as a pro-copyright scholar, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in the sense that I believe copyright is necessary, even in a digital age. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Especially in a digital age, copyright is necessary to achieve 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 certain incentives that otherwise would be lost. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But in the internet age, what we've seen as a fight about copyright, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 about the scope of copyright, waged most consistently in the context 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of the battle over artists' rights, in particular, in the context of music, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 where massive 'sharing' - sharing which is technically illegal - has lead to a fight 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 fought by artists and especially by artists' representatives. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And we from the Free Culture movement, have challenged the people 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 who have been waging that fight. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And they defend copyright in the context of that fight. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But if we get above the din of this battle, the important thing to keep in mind 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is that both sides in this fight acknowledge that copyright is essential 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 for certain creative work, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and we need to respect copyright for that creative work. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We, from the Free Culture movement, need to respect copyright for that work, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we need to recognize that there is a place for sensible copyright policy 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to protect and encourage that work. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But, however - and here is the important distinction - 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Not only artists rely upon copyright, copyright is also relied upon by publishers, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and publishers are a different animal. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We don't have to be as negative as John Milton was when he wrote publishers are 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of books 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - men who do no labor in an honest profession, to [them], learning is indebted." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We don't have to go quite that far to recognize why publishers are different, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that the economic problem for publishers is different 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 from the economic problems presented by creating. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So who is copyright for? The publishers or the artists? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Well, since the beginning of copyright in the Anglo-American tradition, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the Statute of Anne of 1710, there has been this argument about whether copyright 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 was intended for the publishers or the artists. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When the Statute of Anne was originally introduced, it gave a perpetual term of copyright, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which the publishers understood to be a protection for them. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It was then amended to give just a limited term for copyright. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Publishers were puzzled about that, because it wouldn't make sense to give a limited term 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 if it was the publisher that was to be protected. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 In 1769, a court case in the context of Millar v. Taylor seemd to suggest that 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 despite the limitation of the Statute of Anne, copyright was for ever. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But in 1774, in a very famous case about this book, The Seasons, by James Thomson, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the House of Lords have held that copyright protected by the Status of Anne was limited, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 holding for the first time that works passed into the public domain. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And for the first time in English history, works including Shakespeare 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 passed into the public domain. And in this moment, we can say Free Culture was born. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And it also clarified that copyright was not intended for the publisher. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Even if it benefited the publishers, it was a creative right 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and author's right. Even if benefitting publishers, copyright was for authors. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, I remark these obvious borders about the scope of copyright, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because we tend to forget them. We've been fighting a battle in the context of copyright 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 where copyright is essential, and we are spending too little attention 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 about a battle in a context where copyright is not essential. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I mean by that, in the context of science, in the context that Gopinath was speaking of 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 when she talked about everything being available on the internet. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And the consequence of failing to pay attention to this second context 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 within which this battle is being waged is that there is a trouble here 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that too few see. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So let's think about this claim that everything is on the internet now. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 What does that mean? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Here is a particular example to evaluate what that means. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Much of my work, these days, is focusing on corruption 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in the context of this institution, Congress. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So let's say that we wanted to study, you wanted to study with me, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 corruption in this context. Go to Google Scholar and enter a search for campaign finance. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Here are the top articles that would be listed from that search. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So let's say you wanted to browse through these articles 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and get a sense of campaign finance and how it might be related to corruption in Congress. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So here are the top 10 articles. This first one, a very famous one 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 by my former colleagues Pam Karlan and Sam Issacharof. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 You would find, to get access to this article, you'd have to pay $29.95. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The second article, housed at JSTOR, you'd have to get through to get permission 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 from the Columbia Law Review - not quite clear how you would do that. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Third article, again, $29.95. The fourth article, protected by Questia, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we learn that you can get a 1-day free trial to all these Oxford University Press articles, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you'd only have to pay when that day is over 99 dollars 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to continue for a year. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Here is the 4th article again, protected by JSTOR. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The 5th article, it's an economics article, so the price is right on the surface: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 10 dollars to purchase access to this article. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Here's the 7th article, Columbia Law Review. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 8th article, Columbia Law Review, 9th article, protected again by JSTOR, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 10th article, $29.95. So, how accessible is this information to the general public? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Well, one of these you can get access to for free, at least one time only, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 One of them you can pay $10 for. 3 of them, $29.95, and 5 of them, terms unknown, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 protected by JSTOR. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, when Gopinath says "Everything I need is on the internet", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 what does she mean? What she means is if - and this is a big if - 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you're a tenured professor in an elite university or we could say a professor, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or a student or professor in an elite university, or maybe 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a student or professor at a US university, if you are a member of the knowledge elite, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 then you have effectively free access to all of this information. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But if you are from the rest of the world? Not so much. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, the thing to recognize is we built this world, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we built this architecture for access that flows from the deployment of copyright, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but here, copyright to benefit publishers. Not to enable authors. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Not one of these authors gets money from copyright. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Not one of them wants the distribution of their articles limited. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Not one of them has a business model that turns upon restricting access to their work. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Not one of them should support this system. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 As a knowledge policy for the creators of this knowledge, this is crazy. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And the craziness doesn't stop here. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, my third child is this extraordinarily beautiful girl, Samantha Tess. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When she was born, the doctors were worried she had a condition 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that would suggest jaundice. I had jaundice as a baby, so I didn't think it was serious, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and I was told very forcefully by her doctor, this is extroardinarily serious. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 If this condition manifest in the dangerous condition, it would produce brain damage, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 possibly death. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, of course, we were terrified. I went home and I did what every academic did, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I pulled everything I could from the web to study about what jaundice was 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and what the conditions were. Now, because I am a Harvard professor, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of course, I didn't have to pay to get access to this information, but I just kept the total. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To get access to these 20 articles that I wanted access to was $435, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 for the ordinary human, not a Harvard professor. OK. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So I gathered these articles and set them aside, believing this problem 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 would not manifest itself in such a serious way. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But on her third day, she fell into a stupor, and we called the doctor, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and the doctor was panciked and he said we had to get to the hospital immediately. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, at 3 o'clock in the morning, we trundled the baby up and raced to the hospital. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We were sitting in the waiting room, and I brought the articles with me, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because I wanted something to do, to distract me from the terror 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that my child had this condition. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I picked up the first of these articles, which is actually free, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 published on the web for free, at the American Family Physician, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and I started reading about this condition. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I got to this table, a table that was going to describe 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 when you should worry about whether the child would have too severe of this exposure. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I turned the page, and this is what I found: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "The rightsholder did not grant rights to reproduce this item in electronic media. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 For the missing item, see the original print version of this publication." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I had this moment of liberation from fear about my child, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because I turned to fear about our culture. I thought, this is outrageous! 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The idea that we are regulating access down to the chart in an article 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that was published for free to help, not doctors, but parents 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 understand what this condition was. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We are regulating access to parts of articles. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now here and throughout our architecture for access, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we are building an infrastructure for this regulation. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Think of the Google Books project, which is perfecting control down to the sentence, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the ability to regulate access down to the sentence. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 By the way, I alway forget to tell this: the kid is fine, she didn't have jaundice, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it is a complete non issue. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But the point is, we are archintecting access here, for what purpose? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To maximize revenue. And why? Revenue to the authors? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Revenues necessary to produce the incentive to create? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Is this a limitation that serves any of the real objectives of copyright? (14:00) 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The answer is no. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It is simply the natural result of for-profit production 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 for any good that we, quote, must have. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 As Bergstrom and McAfee describe in a really fantastic little bit of work, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 if you compare the cost per page of for-profit publishers 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and the cost per page of not-for-profit publishers in these different fields of science, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it's a 4 and a half times factor difference cost per page. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That is a function of different, of these having different objectives. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 One objective is to spread knowledge: that's the not-for-profit publishers, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and one objective, to maximize profit: that's the for-profit publishers. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, this architecture for access is beginning to build resistance. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, think about story of JSTOR. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 JSTOR was launched in 1995, with an extraordinary amount of funding 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 from the Mellon Foundation. That funding produced a huge archive 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of journal articles. So that there are now more than 1200 journals, 20 collections, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 53 disciplines, 303'000 issues, about 28 million pages in JSTOR archive. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When this archive was launched, everybody thought it was brilliant. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Everybody thought the access here was extraordinary. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But today? There is increasingly criticism growing out there 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 about how JSTOR makes its information accessible. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We could think of it as a kind of "White effect". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It was liberal when it was launched, but what has it become as it has grown old? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, for example, here is an article published in the 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 California Historical Society Quarterly. It's 6 pages long. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To get it, you have to pay $20 to JSTOR, this non-profit organization, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 leading Carl Malamud, who of course is famous for his Public Resources site, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to tweet in the following way: "JSTOR is morally offensive. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 $20 for a 6-page article, unless you happen to work at a fancy school." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, you might say, "This is a really important academic archive", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but the question is whether this really important academic archive 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is going to become a kind of RIAA for the academy. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Begging the question that the "White effect" always begs, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 whether we could do this better under a different set of assumptions. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, of course the Open Access movement is the movement that was launched 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to try and do this better under different circumstances. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, it has a long history, but its real push was inspired by 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a dramatic increase in the cost of journals. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, if this is a study between 1986 and 2004 by the American Research Libraries, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 this is the increase in inflation, this is the increase in the cost of serials, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it's obvious that the market power of these publishers is being exploited, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because the purchasers of these serials have no choice but to buy them. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's in part motivated by this cost concern, it's also motivated by a sense of unfairness. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We do all the work, they get all the money, here. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So the response to these two kinds of concerns has been two: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 #1 an open access self-archiving movement, where the push has been 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Let's get as many things out there archived on the Web as we can, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 pre-prints and whatever we can get up, and make sure 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the Web can make them accessible" - and an Open Access publishing movement. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, what's the difference between these two movements? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The difference is licensing. Some "open" is "free", in the sense that Richard Stallman 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 made famous by his quote: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 not as in free beer." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, some aspect of the Open Access publishing is free as in free speech, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 some "open" is not. Some is just free as in: "You can download it freely, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but the rights that you get from the download are just as broad 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as narrowly granted by some implicit copyright rule. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, "free", as in licensed freely, has been the objective that the Science Commons project, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which is a project that Creative Commons has been pushing, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and pushing as part of a broader strategy for producing 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the information architecture that science needs, as they announce 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in their "Principles for open science". There are four principles here. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The first is, there should be open access to literature, by which Science Commons says: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you should be on the internet, literature "should be on the internet 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in digital form, with permission granted in advance 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to the full texts of articles, crawl them indexing, pass them data to software, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or use them for any other lawful purpose, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 without financial, legal or technical barriers other than those inseparable 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 from gaining access to the internet itself." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That's what "free", here, means. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Second, access to research tools: there should be "materials necessary 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to replicate funded research - cell lines, model animals, DNA tools, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 reagents, and more - should be described in digital formats, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 made available under standard terms of use or contracts, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 with infrastructure or resources to fulfill requests to qualified scientists, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and with full credit provided to the scientist who created the tools." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 #3 Data should be in the public domain. "Research data, data sets, databases, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and protocols should be in the public domain." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 meaning no copyright restrictions at all. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And 4, Open cyber-infrastructure: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Data without structure and annotation is an opportunity lost. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Research data should flow in an open, public and extensible infrastructure 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that supposrts its recombination and reconfiguration into computer models, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 its searchability by search engines, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and its use by both scientists and the taxpaying public. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This infrastructure is an essential public good." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, my view is, this the right way - you might think this is the left way - 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but it's the correct way to instantiate this Open Access movement. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The values and the efficiency and the justice in this architecture 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 are the right values, efficiency and justice for an Open Access movement. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So let's call it, following Stallman, the Free Access Movement. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And the critical question of the Free Access movement 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is the license that governs access to the information being provided. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Does the license grant freedoms? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And that, of course, was the motivation between the Public Library of Science - 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 every one of their articles is published under a Creative Commons 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Attribution license, the freeest license we have. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And that is increasingly the practice, surprisingly, of the largest publishers, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as described by this wonderful project housed here at CERN, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which is studying Open Access publishing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This is the first of three stages of this project. When studying the large publishers, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 this study concludes that "Half of the large publishers use some version 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of a Creative Commons license. These seven publish 72% of the titles 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and 71% of the articles investigated. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And of these, 82% use the freeest license, cc-by, and 18% use cc-by-nc", non commercial. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And that of course is an excellent report on the progress of this free access movement 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in the context of the largest publishers. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But what's not excellent in this story is the other publishers here. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 For these other publishers, only 73% you can determine copyright status (check) 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 69% transfer the copyright to the publisher. Only 21 % of the articles 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 have any Creative Commons license attached at all. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, this is because these other publishers are using copyright as a means, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a means to a non-knowledge ends, to a non-copyright ends. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, for example, they are using it to support the societies 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that might happen to be associated with publishing 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that particular journal, that society that might be studying 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 one particular of science. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That society, of course, is valuable, but what they are doing 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is using copyright to support that society. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And the consequence of that strategy is to block access to all but the few. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We don't achieve the objectives of the Enlightenment, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we achieve the reality of an elite-nment, the elite-nment 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which describes the way in which we spread knowledge 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 despite the ideas of the Enlightenment. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And the point I'm emphasizing here is that it's for no good copyright reason. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, the slowness inside of science to embrace this more broadly, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 especially among the smaller publishers, may surprise some, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or maybe it doesn't surprise. The whole design of science 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is to be a fad-resistor, the idea is to have an infrastructure 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that avoids fads, and tradition then becomes the metric of what's right 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or of what's good in science. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But I think it's time to recognize that Free Access, as in free speech, access 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is no fad. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And it's time to push this non fad more broadly in the context of science. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, just because I'm talking about how bad some area of science is, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I don't mean to suggest that the arts is good, right? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We have practices in the context of the arts that are just as bad, here. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 For example, think about a recent episode around YouTube. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 You know, we should not minimize the significance of YouTube 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in the infrastructure of culture right now. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 YouTube now has 43 different languages. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There is more uploaded in one month on Youtube 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 than was broadcast by the major networks in the United States 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 over the last 60 years. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Every single day, 6 new years of video gets uploaded to YouTube. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There are 2 billion views of YouTube every single year. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 every single day, sorry. That's 40% increase over just the last year. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I've been famously a friend (check) of this extraordinary site 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because I celebrate the kind of read-write creativity 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that I think YouTube has encouraged. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I got this sense of what we should think of as read-write creativity 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 when I was reading testimony at this place 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 by this man, John Philip Souza, in 1906. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 when he was - I didn't read it in 1906 but the testimony was given in 1906 - 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When Souza was testifying about this technology, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 what he called "talking machines". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, Souza was not a fan of the talking machines. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This is what he had to say about them: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of music in this country. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When I was a boy, in front of every house in the summer evenings 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you would find young people together singing the songs 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of the day or the old songs. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We will not have a vocal chord left," Souza said, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as was the tail of man when he came from the ape." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now this is the picture I want you to focus on. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This picture of "young people together, singing the songs of the day 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or the old songs". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This is a picture of culture. We could call it, using modern computer terminology, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a kind of read-write culture. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's a culture where people participage in the creation and the re-creation 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of their culture: in that sense, it's read-write. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And the opposite of read-write creativity, then, we should call 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "read-only" culture. A culture where creativity is consumed 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but the consumer is not a creator. A culture, in this sense, that's top-down, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 where the vocal cords of the millions of ordinary potential creators 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 has been lost, and lost, because, as Souza said, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because of these infernal machines: technology, technology like this, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or technology like this, to produce a culture like this, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a culture which enabled efficient consumption, what we call "reading", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but inefficient amateur production, what we should call "writing". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 A culture good for listening, but not a culture good for speaking, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a culture good for watching, a culture not good for creating. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, the first popular instantiation of the internet, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 long after you guys gave us the read-write web, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but the first one people really paid attention to, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 around 1997 and 1998, was a read-only internet. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, Napster, which of course, built the largest music archive, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is still a music archive of music created by others 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and the legal version, Music Store, was an archive of the music 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 created by others, which you could buy for 99 cents. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 These were technologies to enable access, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but access to culture created elsewhere. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But then, shortly in - after the turn of the century, I think, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the internet became fundamentally read-write. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 People began taking, and remixing, and sharing 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 their creativity on the internet, and YouTube was the platform for that. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, my favorite example, which I first saw on YouTube, is this: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [Read my lips by: Atmo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhlHUTBgAMw] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Bush: My love, there's only you in my life, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the only thing that's right. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Blair: My first love: you're every breath that I take, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you're every step I make. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Bush: And I, I want to share 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Bush and Blair: all my love with you 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Bush: No one else will do. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Blair: And your eyes 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Bush: Your eyes, your eyes 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Bush and Blair: they tell me how much you care for... 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 announcer: remember to(?) take dictation" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Lessig: OK. And then.more recently, I don't know if (?) many of you 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 have seen this extraordinary site ThruYou. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This is a site that takes content only from YouTube 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and remixes it to produce albums and videos. I mean this is his latest, you know. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Voice: This is my mother: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Mother: Howdy, howdy. OK. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [pays a continuo on keyboard] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Tenesan1 [see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J8sSXO9VWk ] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Tenesan1: The song I'm going to sing, I wrote, is called "Green" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because ... (?) 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [Tenesan1 sings "Green" on the keyboard continuo] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [Horn enters] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [Other instruments enter] (30:38)