0:00:03.437,0:00:05.921 So, I apologize that I am going to introduce these 0:00:05.921,0:00:07.546 ideas so early in the morning, 0:00:07.546,0:00:09.497 after such a late night last night. 0:00:09.497,0:00:14.025 But I'll like you to think of an alcoholic. 0:00:14.025,0:00:15.581 And I don't mean the kind of drop-dead 0:00:15.581,0:00:16.834 drunken alcoholic, 0:00:16.834,0:00:20.921 or somebody who is even recovering from AA. 0:00:20.921,0:00:23.243 I am thinking just of the regular alcoholic 0:00:23.243,0:00:30.790 who works hard to control the addiction he has. 0:00:30.790,0:00:32.717 But this particular alcoholic, I want you to 0:00:32.717,0:00:36.107 imagine that, in addition to the addiction to alcohol, 0:00:36.107,0:00:39.545 he has a second addiction as well. 0:00:39.683,0:00:43.630 Not the debilitating addiction that keeps him 0:00:43.630,0:00:44.466 down all day. 0:00:44.466,0:00:46.417 And not a recovered drug addict. 0:00:46.417,0:00:48.089 But an addiction nonetheless 0:00:48.089,0:00:51.270 that continues to pull him in another way, 0:00:51.270,0:00:52.895 away from what he wants to do. 0:00:52.895,0:00:59.095 A person with two addictions, pulling different ways, 0:00:59.095,0:01:01.974 making him vulnerable, making him dangerous, 0:01:01.974,0:01:04.830 as he is susceptible to the temptations of each. 0:01:04.830,0:01:09.474 And the trick for this soul is to control 0:01:09.474,0:01:14.536 and to regulate these addictions, to keep them under control. 0:01:14.536,0:01:17.021 Now I give you this picture because 0:01:17.021,0:01:23.963 I think it is a good picture of modern democratic government. 0:01:23.963,0:01:26.007 Modern democratic government too, is pulled 0:01:26.007,0:01:28.120 by these two separate kinds of addictions. 0:01:28.120,0:01:31.254 Constantly pulled by craziness. 0:01:31.254,0:01:35.736 Craziness to one side for the people, or at least wrongly, 0:01:35.736,0:01:37.849 as the people push the government to do what 0:01:37.849,0:01:40.357 is not in the public interest. 0:01:40.357,0:01:41.773 Think of Peronism, 0:01:41.773,0:01:44.954 or the kind of populism that drove the 0:01:44.954,0:01:49.296 banking and housing bubble in the United States. 0:01:49.296,0:01:52.385 Or in the other hand, an addiction to special interests, 0:01:52.385,0:01:56.912 let's call them "incumbents", constantly tempting the government 0:01:56.912,0:01:59.304 to do something crazy for public policy 0:01:59.304,0:02:01.301 in the name of benefiting the incumbents. 0:02:01.301,0:02:04.180 And here, in the United States at least, you can think about 0:02:04.180,0:02:08.824 just about every major policy issue where this addiction 0:02:08.824,0:02:10.578 has had its role. 0:02:10.578,0:02:12.841 Each of these pulling constantly, 0:02:12.841,0:02:17.950 constantly tempting, always the government is vulnerable. 0:02:17.950,0:02:22.269 Always, as libertarians insist, it is dangerous 0:02:22.269,0:02:25.287 because it can always be exploited 0:02:25.287,0:02:30.372 by one of these two sources at least, 0:02:30.372,0:02:35.133 the temptations of the incumbents. 0:02:35.133,0:02:39.916 OK now, the Internet is a platform, 0:02:39.916,0:02:41.518 it is an architecture, 0:02:41.518,0:02:46.023 it is an architecture with consequences. 0:02:46.023,0:02:48.623 It is an architecture that enables innovation, 0:02:48.623,0:02:52.524 or at least enables a certain kind of innovation. 0:02:52.524,0:02:56.448 Think of the history of innovation in the Internet. 0:02:56.448,0:03:02.356 Netscape, started by a drop-out from undergraduate university. 0:03:02.439,0:03:04.436 Hotmail, started by an Indian immigrant, sold to 0:03:04.436,0:03:07.037 Microsoft for 400 million dollars. 0:03:07.037,0:03:11.820 ICQ, started by an Israeli kid and then his father, who was here, 0:03:11.820,0:03:14.212 selling it to AOL for 400 million dollars. 0:03:14.212,0:03:17.184 Google, started by two Stanford dropouts. 0:03:17.184,0:03:21.015 Napster, started by a dropout and someone who 0:03:21.015,0:03:22.966 hadn't yet been able to be a dropout, 0:03:22.966,0:03:24.916 sitting on this panel, here, today. 0:03:24.916,0:03:28.028 Youtube, started by two Stanford students. 0:03:28.028,0:03:35.992 Kazaa and Skype, started by kids from Denmark and Sweden. 0:03:35.992,0:03:38.569 And then, of course, Facebook, and Twitter, started by kids. 0:03:38.569,0:03:42.029 What unites all of these innovations? 0:03:42.029,0:03:48.438 They were all done by kids, dropouts, and non-americans. 0:03:48.438,0:03:50.388 Outsiders. 0:03:50.388,0:03:54.754 Because this is what that architecture invited. 0:03:54.754,0:03:58.701 It invited outsider innovation. 0:03:58.701,0:04:05.597 Now, outsider innovation threatens the "incumbents". 0:04:05.597,0:04:08.128 Skype threatens telephone companies. 0:04:08.128,0:04:11.054 Youtube threatens television companies. 0:04:11.054,0:04:13.423 Netflix threatens cable companies. 0:04:13.423,0:04:16.743 Twitter threatens sanity - 0:04:16.743,0:04:18.879 not that sanity was ever an incumbent. 0:04:18.879,0:04:25.009 But then the threatened respond to this threat. 0:04:25.009,0:04:30.582 By turning to the addict, modern democratic government, 0:04:30.582,0:04:34.715 and using drug of choice (which in the United States at least 0:04:34.715,0:04:37.896 is an endless amount of campaign cash), 0:04:37.896,0:04:42.564 using that drug to secure the protection 0:04:42.564,0:04:50.110 against these threats that the incumbent faces. 0:04:50.110,0:04:54.452 Now this was the point that I think president Sarkozy missed yesterday, 0:04:54.452,0:04:57.749 and the question that Jeff Jarvis raised when he suggested 0:04:57.749,0:05:00.188 that the principle that should be carried to the G8 0:05:00.188,0:05:03.856 is that the government "do no harm". 0:05:03.856,0:05:05.691 President Sarkozy said, no, but we have important 0:05:05.691,0:05:08.849 policy issues to resolve. But here is the point. 0:05:08.849,0:05:13.260 We get that there are "hard policy" issues here. 0:05:13.260,0:05:17.394 From copyright, to privacy to security to the problem of monopoly. We get it. 0:05:17.394,0:05:22.502 The point is, is we don't trust the answers the 0:05:22.502,0:05:24.360 government gives. 0:05:24.360,0:05:27.564 And for good reasons we don't trust these answers, 0:05:27.564,0:05:31.418 because on issue after issue, the answer that 0:05:31.418,0:05:35.784 modern democratic government has given here, 0:05:35.784,0:05:39.174 is an answer that happens to benefit 0:05:39.174,0:05:41.240 the incumbents. 0:05:41.240,0:05:45.536 And ignores an answer that might actually 0:05:45.536,0:05:49.066 encourage more innovation. 0:05:49.066,0:05:51.689 So think for example about the matter of copyright. 0:05:51.689,0:05:55.242 Of course we need a system of copyright 0:05:55.242,0:05:58.655 that guarantees that creators get compensated 0:05:58.655,0:06:01.419 and secures their independence to create. 0:06:01.419,0:06:05.389 No one serious denies that we have to have 0:06:05.389,0:06:08.152 that system of protection. 0:06:08.152,0:06:12.634 The question is not whether copyright should be protected. 0:06:12.634,0:06:16.279 The question is how to protect copyright 0:06:16.279,0:06:17.556 in a digital era. 0:06:17.556,0:06:19.861 Whether the architecture of copyright, 0:06:19.907,0:06:22.074 built for the XIX century, 0:06:22.182,0:06:25.010 continues to make sense in the XXI. 0:06:25.010,0:06:30.560 And what is the architecture that would make sense in the XXI? 0:06:30.560,0:06:36.620 Now, is this the question the government is asking? 0:06:36.620,0:06:38.640 I think the answer to that is no. 0:06:38.640,0:06:42.913 Instead, what the government is proposing, 0:06:42.913,0:06:45.521 around the world, specially here, 0:06:45.613,0:06:47.975 and I apologize to my colleagues from France, 0:06:47.975,0:06:49.809 but this is a technical legal term. 0:06:49.809,0:06:54.639 The proposal suggested here is a "brain-dead" 0:06:54.639,0:07:00.991 3-strikes proposal that happens to benefit incumbents. 0:07:01.114,0:07:05.514 Ignoring the potential of innovation that could come from 0:07:05.622,0:07:07.990 a new architecture for securing copyright. 0:07:07.990,0:07:11.427 And you don't have to take my view for this. 0:07:11.427,0:07:14.515 The recent report from the conservative government in Britain, 0:07:14.515,0:07:17.557 the Hargreaves report, says of copyright: 0:07:17.557,0:07:20.204 "Could it be true that laws designed more than three centuries 0:07:20.204,0:07:23.617 ago with the express purpose of creating economic 0:07:23.617,0:07:25.196 incentives for innovation, 0:07:25.196,0:07:27.866 by protecting creators' rights 0:07:27.866,0:07:31.326 are today obstructing innovation and economic growth?" 0:07:31.326,0:07:33.509 The short answer is: "yes". 0:07:33.509,0:07:37.921 "In the case of copyright policy, there is no doubt 0:07:37.921,0:07:40.266 that the persuasive powers of celebrities and 0:07:40.266,0:07:42.193 important UK creative companies 0:07:42.193,0:07:44.817 have distorted policy outcomes." 0:07:44.817,0:07:48.370 And not just, I suggest, in the UK. 0:07:48.370,0:07:50.808 Think about the question of broadband policy. 0:07:50.808,0:07:53.478 Europe, has actually been quite successful, 0:07:53.478,0:07:57.100 in pushing competition in broadband, 0:07:57.100,0:07:59.887 and therefore pushing broadband growth. 0:07:59.887,0:08:05.669 The US has been a dismal failure in this respect. 0:08:05.669,0:08:09.453 As we watch the US going from number 1 in broadband penetration, 0:08:09.453,0:08:12.170 now to, depending on the scale, 0:08:12.170,0:08:15.491 number 18, 19, or 28. 0:08:15.491,0:08:19.229 And that change is because of policies that 0:08:19.229,0:08:21.946 effectively block competition 0:08:21.946,0:08:25.406 for broadband providers. 0:08:25.406,0:08:28.563 Their answer, these broadband providers brought to 0:08:28.563,0:08:30.839 our government, and got our government to impose 0:08:30.839,0:08:36.063 actually benefited them and destroyed the incentives 0:08:36.063,0:08:38.409 for them to compete in a way that would drive 0:08:38.409,0:08:41.845 broadband penetration. 0:08:41.845,0:08:44.028 I think in light of these examples, 0:08:44.028,0:08:47.651 it is completely fair to be skeptical 0:08:47.697,0:08:50.787 of the anwer modern democratic governments give. 0:08:50.910,0:08:53.454 We should say to modern democratic government, 0:08:53.500,0:08:59.887 you need to beware of incumbents bearing policy fixes. 0:08:59.887,0:09:02.209 Because their job, the job of the incumbents, 0:09:02.209,0:09:06.667 is not the same as your job, the job of the public policy maker. 0:09:06.667,0:09:10.336 Their job is profit for them. 0:09:10.336,0:09:12.263 Your job is the public good. 0:09:12.263,0:09:15.654 And it is completely fair, for us to say, 0:09:15.654,0:09:19.508 that until this addiction is solved, we should 0:09:19.508,0:09:23.154 insist on minimalism in what government does. 0:09:23.154,0:09:26.149 The kind of minimalism Jeff Jarvis spoke off when he 0:09:26.149,0:09:28.541 spoke of "do no harm". 0:09:28.541,0:09:32.256 An internet that embraces principles of open and free 0:09:32.256,0:09:35.948 access, a neutral network to guarantee 0:09:35.948,0:09:41.195 this open access, to protect the outsider. 0:09:41.195,0:09:44.655 But here is the one think we know about this meeting, 0:09:44.655,0:09:48.835 and its relationship to the future of the internet. 0:09:48.835,0:09:50.925 The future of the internet is not Twitter, 0:09:50.925,0:09:53.781 it is not Facebook, it is not Google, 0:09:53.781,0:09:57.124 it is not even Rupert Murdoch. 0:09:57.124,0:10:01.350 The future of the internet is not here. 0:10:01.350,0:10:05.623 It wasn't invited, it does not even know how to be invited, 0:10:05.623,0:10:09.640 because it doesn't yet focus on policies and fora like this. 0:10:09.640,0:10:14.470 The least we can do is to preserve the architecture 0:10:14.470,0:10:17.688 of this network that protects this future 0:10:17.799,0:10:19.417 that is not here. 0:10:19.562,0:10:21.996 Thank you very much.