WEBVTT

00:00:00.315 --> 00:00:04.492
Lawrence Lessig: Thank you very much. It's extremely cool to be here.

00:00:06.430 --> 00:00:08.539
It's just about as cool as when I spoke at Pixar.

00:00:08.739 --> 00:00:11.922
I think of these two as being highlights of my career.

00:00:12.122 --> 00:00:15.163
So, thank you very much for having me.

00:00:16.671 --> 00:00:21.721
I have two small ideas I want to use as an introduction to an argument,

00:00:22.906 --> 00:00:26.909
about the nature of access to scientific knowledge in the context of the internet,

00:00:27.663 --> 00:00:32.709
and use that argument as a step towards a plea about what we should do.

00:00:33.432 --> 00:00:35.651
So here is the first idea.

00:00:36.313 --> 00:00:39.054
I want to call it the "White-effect".

00:00:40.408 --> 00:00:46.207
And I name that after Justice Byron White, justice of the US Supreme Court,

00:00:46.346 --> 00:00:50.170
appointed by John F. Kennedy - there he is in 1962

00:00:51.170 --> 00:00:57.211
- famous before that as 'Whizzer' White on the Yale University football team.

00:00:57.565 --> 00:01:00.387
When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he was a famous liberal,

00:01:01.741 --> 00:01:07.123
renowned liberal, the only appointee that John Kennedy had to the Supreme Court.

00:01:07.123 --> 00:01:15.434
But 'Whizzer' White grew old, and he is probably most famous for an infamous opinion,

00:01:15.588 --> 00:01:18.968
which he penned on behalf of the Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick,

00:01:19.230 --> 00:01:23.837
an opinion where the Supreme Court upheld the Criminalization of Sodomy laws,

00:01:24.144 --> 00:01:27.973
with the passage: 'Against this background, to claim that a right to engage

00:01:28.034 --> 00:01:33.701
in such conduct' - homosexual sodomy - 'is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"

00:01:33.763 --> 00:01:38.749
or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.'

00:01:40.072 --> 00:01:42.558
Now, this is what I want to think of as the "White Effect".

00:01:43.374 --> 00:01:51.169
To be a liberal or a progressive is always relative to a moment, and that moment changes,

00:01:51.277 --> 00:01:56.487
and too many are liberal or progressive no more.

00:01:58.148 --> 00:02:00.327
So, that's the "White effect". Here is the second idea.

00:02:00.466 --> 00:02:05.034
The Harvard Gazette is a kind of propaganda publication of Harvard University,

00:02:05.188 --> 00:02:07.573
it talks about all the happy things at Harvard.

00:02:07.696 --> 00:02:12.580
So here's an article that it wrote, about an extraordinary macro-economist,

00:02:12.611 --> 00:02:17.647
Gita Gopinath, who has just come to Harvard, received tenure last year

00:02:17.709 --> 00:02:21.478
and is one of the most influential macroeconomists in the United States right now.

00:02:21.755 --> 00:02:25.406
This article talks about her work and her research, and at the very end,

00:02:25.529 --> 00:02:27.337
there is this puzzling passage, where it says:

00:02:27.998 --> 00:02:33.429
'Still, the shelves in her new office are nearly bare, since, said Gopinath,

00:02:33.568 --> 00:02:37.718
"Everything I need is on the Internet now." '

00:02:40.441 --> 00:02:43.062
Right, that's the second idea. Here is the argument.

00:02:44.062 --> 00:02:51.252
So, copyright is a regulation by the State intended to change

00:02:51.344 --> 00:02:57.560
a regulation by the market. It's an exclusive right, a monopoly right,

00:02:57.699 --> 00:03:00.868
a property right granted by the State, which is necessary

00:03:00.991 --> 00:03:03.880
to solve an inevitable market failure.

00:03:05.311 --> 00:03:09.752
Now, by saying that it's necessary to solve an inevitable market failure,

00:03:10.091 --> 00:03:14.108
I'm marking myself as a pro-copyright scholar,

00:03:14.954 --> 00:03:18.884
in the sense that I believe copyright is necessary. Even in a digital age,

00:03:18.884 --> 00:03:23.854
especially in a digital age, copyright is necessary to achieve

00:03:24.623 --> 00:03:28.205
certain incentives that otherwise would be lost.

00:03:28.974 --> 00:03:33.648
But in the internet age, what we've seen as a fight about copyright,

00:03:33.864 --> 00:03:39.084
about the scope of copyright, waged most consistently in the context

00:03:39.146 --> 00:03:44.274
of the battle over artists' rights, in particular, in the context of music,

00:03:44.382 --> 00:03:50.805
where massive 'sharing' - sharing which is technically illegal - has lead to a fight

00:03:50.959 --> 00:03:56.322
fought by artists and especially by artists' representatives.

00:03:56.737 --> 00:04:02.212
And we from the Free Culture movement, have challenged the people

00:04:02.335 --> 00:04:04.527
who have been waging that fight.

00:04:04.635 --> 00:04:08.545
And they defend copyright in the context of that fight.

00:04:09.484 --> 00:04:15.908
But if we get above the din of this battle, the important thing to keep in mind

00:04:16.093 --> 00:04:21.614
is that both sides in this fight acknowledge that copyright is essential

00:04:21.691 --> 00:04:24.401
for certain creative work,

00:04:24.786 --> 00:04:30.578
and we need to respect copyright for that creative work.

00:04:30.578 --> 00:04:35.712
We, from the Free Culture movement, need to respect copyright for that work.

00:04:35.804 --> 00:04:40.935
We need to recognize that there is a place for a sensible copyright policy

00:04:41.427 --> 00:04:44.074
to protect and encourage that work.

00:04:45.659 --> 00:04:48.111
But, however - and here is the important distinction -

00:04:50.127 --> 00:04:57.736
Not only artists rely upon copyright, copyright is also relied upon by publishers,

00:04:57.859 --> 00:05:00.252
and publishers are a different animal.

00:05:02.160 --> 00:05:07.664
We don't have to be as negative as John Milton was when he wrote publishers are

00:05:07.664 --> 00:05:10.752
"Old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of books

00:05:10.875 --> 00:05:15.349
- men who do no labor in an honest profession, to [them], learning is indebted."

00:05:15.734 --> 00:05:20.279
We don't have to go quite that far to recognize why publishers are different,

00:05:20.464 --> 00:05:23.695
that the economic problem for publishers is different

00:05:24.126 --> 00:05:28.300
from the economic problems presented by creating.

00:05:29.300 --> 00:05:34.094
So who is copyright for? The publishers or the artists?

00:05:35.340 --> 00:05:38.600
Well, since the beginning of copyright in the Anglo-American tradition,

00:05:38.831 --> 00:05:43.554
the Statute of Anne of 1710, there has been this argument about whether copyright

00:05:43.554 --> 00:05:45.516
was intended for the publishers or the artists.

00:05:46.501 --> 00:05:52.727
When the Statute of Anne was originally introduced, it gave a perpetual term of copyright,

00:05:52.866 --> 00:05:56.048
which the publishers understood to be a protection for them.

00:05:56.217 --> 00:05:59.188
It was then amended to give just a limited term for copyright.

00:05:59.280 --> 00:06:03.789
Publishers were puzzled about that, because it wouldn't make sense to give a limited term

00:06:03.789 --> 00:06:05.474
if it was the publisher that was to be protected.

00:06:06.089 --> 00:06:13.149
In 1769, a court case in the context of Millar v. Taylor seemed to suggest that

00:06:13.180 --> 00:06:17.157
despite the limitations of the Statute of Anne, copyright was for ever.

00:06:17.803 --> 00:06:24.576
But in 1774, in a very famous case about this book, The Seasons, by James Thomson,

00:06:24.884 --> 00:06:30.421
the House of Lords held that copyright protected by the Status of Anne was limited,

00:06:31.282 --> 00:06:35.279
holding for the first time that works passed into a public domain.

00:06:35.479 --> 00:06:39.994
And for the first time in English history, works including Shakespeare

00:06:40.087 --> 00:06:44.232
passed into the public domain. And in this moment, we can say Free Culture was born.

00:06:45.386 --> 00:06:49.558
And it also clarified that copyright was not intended for the publisher.

00:06:49.558 --> 00:06:53.090
Even if it benefited the publishers, it was a creative right

00:06:53.090 --> 00:07:00.020
and author's right. Even if benefitting publishers, copyright was for authors.

00:07:01.850 --> 00:07:06.908
So, I remark these obvious borders about the scope of copyright,

00:07:07.046 --> 00:07:13.738
because we tend to forget them. We've been fighting a battle in the context of copyright

00:07:13.738 --> 00:07:19.118
where copyright is essential, and we are spending too little attention

00:07:19.734 --> 00:07:23.910
about a battle in a context where copyright is not essential.

00:07:24.864 --> 00:07:30.839
And I mean by that, in the context of science, in the context that Gopinath was speaking of

00:07:30.839 --> 00:07:35.226
when she talked about everything being available on the internet.

00:07:35.380 --> 00:07:39.531
And the consequence of failing to pay attention to this second context

00:07:39.531 --> 00:07:43.619
within which this battle is being waged is that there is a trouble here

00:07:43.619 --> 00:07:45.419
that too few see.

00:07:45.939 --> 00:07:48.255
So let's think about this claim that everything is on the internet now.

00:07:48.855 --> 00:07:51.139
What does that mean?

00:07:51.631 --> 00:07:55.562
Here is a particular example to evaluate what that means.

00:07:56.762 --> 00:08:00.469
Much of my work, these days, is focusing on corruption

00:08:00.484 --> 00:08:03.229
in the context of this institution, Congress.

00:08:03.722 --> 00:08:06.821
So let's say that we wanted to study, you wanted to study with me,

00:08:07.006 --> 00:08:13.298
corruption in this context. Go to Google Scholar and enter a search for campaign finance.

00:08:13.682 --> 00:08:17.065
Here are the top articles that would be listed from that search.

00:08:17.911 --> 00:08:20.338
So let's say you wanted to browse through these articles

00:08:20.338 --> 00:08:26.241
and get a sense of campaign finance and how it might be related to corruption in Congress.

00:08:26.625 --> 00:08:29.739
So here are the top 10 articles. This first one, a very famous one

00:08:29.739 --> 00:08:32.735
by my former colleague Pam Karlan and Sam Issacharof.

00:08:33.627 --> 00:08:38.376
You would find, to get access to this article, you'd have to pay $29.95.

00:08:38.684 --> 00:08:43.053
The second article, housed at JSTOR, you'd have to get through to get permission

00:08:43.053 --> 00:08:46.533
from the Columbia Law Review - not quite clear how you would do that.

00:08:46.779 --> 00:08:52.187
Third article, again, $29.95. The fourth article, protected by Questia,

00:08:52.357 --> 00:08:58.514
we learn that you can get a 1-day free trial to all of these Oxford University Press articles,

00:08:58.622 --> 00:09:01.507
you'd only have to pay when that day is over 99 dollars

00:09:01.507 --> 00:09:03.007
to continue for a year.

00:09:03.130 --> 00:09:05.641
Here is the 4th article again, protected by JSTOR.

00:09:05.641 --> 00:09:09.638
The 5th article, it's an economics article, so the price is right on the surface:

00:09:09.715 --> 00:09:12.058
10 dollars to purchase access to this article.

00:09:12.151 --> 00:09:15.167
Here's the 7th article, Columbia Law Review.

00:09:15.167 --> 00:09:19.966
8th article, Columbia Law Review, 9th article, protected again by JSTOR,

00:09:20.073 --> 00:09:28.440
10th article, $29.95. So, how accessible is this information to the general public?

00:09:29.055 --> 00:09:32.763
Well, one of these you can get access to for free, at least one time only,

00:09:33.071 --> 00:09:39.554
One of them you can pay $10 for. 3 of them, $29.95, and 5 of them, terms unknown,

00:09:39.754 --> 00:09:41.316
protected by JSTOR.

00:09:41.977 --> 00:09:45.743
So, when Gopinath says "Everything I need is on the internet",

00:09:45.789 --> 00:09:51.135
what does she mean? What she means is if - and this is a big if -

00:09:53.812 --> 00:09:58.227
you're a tenured professor at an elite university or we could say a professor,

00:09:58.365 --> 00:10:00.730
or a student or professor in an elite university, or maybe

00:10:00.730 --> 00:10:06.125
a student or professor at a US university, if you are a member of the knowledge elite,

00:10:06.417 --> 00:10:09.939
then you have effectively free access to all of this information.

00:10:10.462 --> 00:10:14.074
But if you are from the rest of the world? Not so much.

00:10:15.274 --> 00:10:17.495
Now, the thing to recognize is we built this world,

00:10:17.634 --> 00:10:24.109
we built this architecture for access, these flows from the deployment of copyright,

00:10:24.340 --> 00:10:30.513
but here, copyright to benefit publishers. Not to enable authors.

00:10:30.836 --> 00:10:34.585
Not one of these authors gets money from copyright.

00:10:34.708 --> 00:10:38.685
Not one of them wants the distribution of their articles limited.

00:10:38.901 --> 00:10:44.094
Not one of them has a business model that turns upon restricting access to their work.

00:10:44.094 --> 00:10:46.744
Not one of them should support this system.

00:10:46.913 --> 00:10:52.666
As a knowledge policy for the creators of this knowledge, this is crazy.

00:10:53.589 --> 00:10:55.458
And the craziness doesn't stop here.

00:10:56.904 --> 00:11:02.006
So, my third child, this extraordinarily beautiful girl, Samantha Tess,

00:11:04.082 --> 00:11:08.037
when she was born, the doctors were worried she had a condition

00:11:08.037 --> 00:11:12.206
that would suggest jaundice. I had jaundice as a baby, so I didn't think it was serious,

00:11:12.298 --> 00:11:18.093
and I was told very forcefully by her doctor, this is extroardinarily serious.

00:11:18.678 --> 00:11:23.373
If this condition manifest in the dangerous condition, it would produce brain damage,

00:11:23.373 --> 00:11:24.489
possibly death.

00:11:24.704 --> 00:11:28.871
So, of course, we were terrified. I went home and I did what every academic did - does:

00:11:29.102 --> 00:11:33.796
I pulled everything I could from the web to study about what jaundice was

00:11:33.873 --> 00:11:39.010
and what the conditions were. Now, because I am a Harvard professor,

00:11:39.010 --> 00:11:43.003
of course, I didn't have to pay to get access to this information, but I just kept the tally.

00:11:43.003 --> 00:11:47.543
To get access to the 20 articles that I wanted access to was $435,

00:11:47.589 --> 00:11:50.816
for the ordinary human, not a Harvard professor. OK.

00:11:51.447 --> 00:11:56.542
So I gathered these articles and set them aside, believing this problem

00:11:56.542 --> 00:11:59.171
would not manifest itself in a serious way.

00:11:59.832 --> 00:12:05.633
But on her third day, she fell into a stupor, and we called the doctor,

00:12:05.633 --> 00:12:08.835
and the doctor was panciked and he said we had to get to the hospital immediately.

00:12:09.712 --> 00:12:14.292
So, at 3 o'clock in the morning, we trundled the baby up and raced to the hospital.

00:12:14.769 --> 00:12:17.889
We were sitting in the waiting room, and I brought the articles with me,

00:12:17.951 --> 00:12:22.168
because I wanted something to do, to distract me from the terror

00:12:22.168 --> 00:12:23.960
that my child had this condition.

00:12:24.237 --> 00:12:27.685
And I picked up the first of these articles, which is actually free,

00:12:27.839 --> 00:12:31.061
published on the web for free, at the American Family Physician,

00:12:31.061 --> 00:12:33.022
and I started reading about this condition.

00:12:33.592 --> 00:12:37.126
And I got to this table, a table that was going to describe

00:12:37.203 --> 00:12:43.902
when you should worry about whether the child would have too severe of this exposure.

00:12:44.456 --> 00:12:46.263
I turned the page, and this is what I found:

00:12:47.340 --> 00:12:51.245
"The rightsholder did not grant rights to reproduce this item in electronic media.

00:12:51.337 --> 00:12:54.361
For the missing item, see the original print version of this publication."

00:12:55.561 --> 00:12:59.859
And I had this moment of liberation from fear about my child,

00:12:59.859 --> 00:13:03.611
because I turned to fear about our culture. I thought, this is outrageous!

00:13:03.765 --> 00:13:09.437
The idea that we are regulating access down to the chart in an article

00:13:09.452 --> 00:13:12.984
that was posted for free to help, not doctors, but parents

00:13:13.077 --> 00:13:15.236
understand what this condition was.

00:13:15.420 --> 00:13:18.760
We are regulating access to parts of articles.

00:13:19.960 --> 00:13:24.393
Now here and throughout our architecture for access,

00:13:24.393 --> 00:13:27.599
we are building an infrastructure for this regulation.

00:13:27.876 --> 00:13:31.520
Think about the Google Books project, which is perfecting control down to the sentence,

00:13:31.736 --> 00:13:35.424
the ability to regulate access down to the sentence.

00:13:36.363 --> 00:13:40.930
By the way, I alway forget to tell this: the kid is fine, she didn't have jaundice,

00:13:41.100 --> 00:13:43.913
it is a complete non issue.

00:13:44.298 --> 00:13:48.394
But the point is, we are architecting access here, for what purpose?

00:13:48.394 --> 00:13:53.560
To maximize revenue. And why? Revenue to the artists?

00:13:53.637 --> 00:13:57.303
Revenues necessary to produce the incentive to create?

00:13:57.303 --> 00:14:01.150
Is this a limitation that serves any of the real objectives of copyright?

00:14:02.042 --> 00:14:03.312
The answer is no.

00:14:03.789 --> 00:14:08.275
It is simply the natural result of for-profit production

00:14:08.321 --> 00:14:12.334
for any good that we, quote, must have.

00:14:13.488 --> 00:14:19.589
As Bergstrom and McAfee describe in a really fantastic little bit of work,

00:14:19.712 --> 00:14:24.193
if you compare the cost per page of for-profit publishers

00:14:24.316 --> 00:14:28.975
and the cost per page of not-for-profit publishers in these different fields of science,

00:14:29.113 --> 00:14:33.505
it's a 4 and a half times factor difference cost per page.

00:14:34.351 --> 00:14:39.735
That is a function of different, of these having different objectives.

00:14:39.735 --> 00:14:43.063
One objective is to spread knowledge: that's the not-for-profit publishers,

00:14:43.217 --> 00:14:47.794
and one objective, to maximize profit: that's the for-profit publishers.

00:14:49.348 --> 00:14:54.780
Now, this architecture for access is beginning to build resistance.

00:14:55.949 --> 00:14:57.819
So, think about the story of JSTOR.

00:14:59.034 --> 00:15:02.391
JSTOR was launched in 1995, with an extraordinary amount of funding

00:15:02.391 --> 00:15:08.378
from the Mellon Foundation. That funding produced a huge archive

00:15:08.378 --> 00:15:13.519
of journal articles. So that there are now more than 1200 journals, 20 collections,

00:15:13.519 --> 00:15:19.993
53 disciplines, 303'000 issues, about 38 million pages in JSTOR archive.

00:15:21.516 --> 00:15:24.053
When this archive was launched, everybody thought it was brilliant.

00:15:24.945 --> 00:15:27.520
Everybody thought the access here was extraordinary.

00:15:28.013 --> 00:15:32.628
But today? There is increasingly criticism growing out there

00:15:32.628 --> 00:15:35.685
about how JSTOR makes its information accessible.

00:15:35.870 --> 00:15:39.207
We could think of it as a kind of "White effect".

00:15:39.468 --> 00:15:44.496
It was liberal when it was launched, but what has it become as it has grown old?

00:15:44.927 --> 00:15:47.767
So, for example, here is an article published in the

00:15:47.767 --> 00:15:51.706
California Historical Society Quarterly. It's 6 pages long.

00:15:51.860 --> 00:15:56.914
To get it, you have to pay $20 to JSTOR, this non-profit organization,

00:15:57.068 --> 00:16:01.419
leading Carl Malamud, who of course is famous for his Public Resources site,

00:16:01.557 --> 00:16:04.406
to tweet in the following way: "JSTOR is morally offensive.

00:16:04.514 --> 00:16:08.843
$20 for a 6-page article, unless you happen to work at a fancy school."

00:16:09.459 --> 00:16:12.955
Now, you might say, "This is a really important academic archive",

00:16:13.078 --> 00:16:16.925
but the question is whether this really important academic archive

00:16:16.925 --> 00:16:20.339
is going to become a kind of RIAA for the academy.

00:16:20.447 --> 00:16:24.193
Begging the question that the "White effect" always begs,

00:16:24.193 --> 00:16:28.430
whether we could do this better under a different set of assumptions.

00:16:28.599 --> 00:16:34.405
Now, of course the Open Access movement is the movement that was launched

00:16:34.405 --> 00:16:37.274
to try and do this better under different circumstances.

00:16:37.274 --> 00:16:42.258
Now, it has a long history, but its real push was inspired by

00:16:42.305 --> 00:16:46.466
a dramatic increase in the cost of journals.

00:16:46.604 --> 00:16:52.338
So, if this is a study between 1986 and 2004 by the American Research Libraries,

00:16:52.446 --> 00:16:57.964
this is the increase in inflation, this is the increase in the cost of serials,

00:16:57.964 --> 00:17:02.467
it's obvious that the market power of these publishers is being exploited,

00:17:02.574 --> 00:17:08.526
because the purchasers of these serials have no choice but to buy them.

00:17:08.680 --> 00:17:15.435
It's in part motivated by this cost concern, it's also motivated by a sense of unfairness.

00:17:15.604 --> 00:17:17.900
We do all the work, they get all the money, here.

00:17:18.730 --> 00:17:22.904
So the response to these two kinds of concerns has been two:

00:17:23.058 --> 00:17:28.230
#1 an open access self-archiving movement, where the push has been

00:17:28.230 --> 00:17:31.113
"Let's get as many things out there archived on the Web as we can,

00:17:31.205 --> 00:17:34.442
pre-prints and whatever we can get up, and make sure

00:17:34.442 --> 00:17:38.550
the Web can make them accessible" - and an Open Access publishing movement.

00:17:39.058 --> 00:17:41.412
Now, what's the difference between these two movements?

00:17:41.412 --> 00:17:48.212
The difference is licensing. Some "open" is "free", in the sense that Richard Stallman

00:17:48.212 --> 00:17:52.721
made famous by his quote: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price.

00:17:52.890 --> 00:17:56.897
To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech,

00:17:56.897 --> 00:17:58.997
not as in free beer."

00:18:00.151 --> 00:18:05.605
So, some aspect of the Open Access publishing is free as in free speech,

00:18:05.929 --> 00:18:11.258
some "open" is not. Some is just free as in: "You can download it freely,

00:18:11.396 --> 00:18:15.785
but the rights that you get from the download are just as broad

00:18:15.785 --> 00:18:18.932
as narrowly granted by some implicit copyright rule.

00:18:19.193 --> 00:18:26.616
Now, "free", as in licensed freely, has been the objective that the Science Commons project,

00:18:26.616 --> 00:18:29.006
which is a project that Creative Commons has been pushing,

00:18:29.052 --> 00:18:34.696
and pushing as part of a broader strategy for producing

00:18:34.696 --> 00:18:38.225
the information architecture that science needs, as they announce

00:18:38.225 --> 00:18:41.043
in their "Principles for open science". There are four principles here.

00:18:41.043 --> 00:18:46.292
The first is, there should be open access to literature, by which Science Commons says:

00:18:46.369 --> 00:18:49.282
you should be on the internet, literature "should be on the internet

00:18:49.375 --> 00:18:52.665
in digital form, with permission granted in advance

00:18:52.757 --> 00:18:56.987
to users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link

00:18:57.080 --> 00:19:02.629
to the full texts of articles, crawl them indexing, pass them as data to software,

00:19:02.706 --> 00:19:04.844
or use them for any other lawful purpose,

00:19:04.890 --> 00:19:09.623
without financial, legal or technical barriers other than those inseparable

00:19:09.623 --> 00:19:11.874
from gaining access to the internet itself."

00:19:12.305 --> 00:19:14.526
That's what "free", here, means.

00:19:15.003 --> 00:19:18.337
Second, access to research tools: there should be "materials necessary

00:19:18.337 --> 00:19:22.202
to replicate funded research - cell lines, model animals, DNA tools,

00:19:22.386 --> 00:19:26.152
reagents, and more - should be described in digital formats,

00:19:26.199 --> 00:19:29.330
made available under standard terms of use or contracts,

00:19:29.330 --> 00:19:34.717
with infrastructure or resources to fulfill requests to qualified scientists,

00:19:34.717 --> 00:19:37.506
and with full credit provided to the scientist who created the tools."

00:19:37.676 --> 00:19:42.513
#3 Data should be in the public domain. "Research data, data sets, databases,

00:19:42.513 --> 00:19:44.367
and protocols should be in the public domain."

00:19:44.367 --> 00:19:46.436
meaning no copyright restrictions at all.

00:19:46.513 --> 00:19:49.078
And 4, Open cyber-infrastructure:

00:19:49.155 --> 00:19:52.607
"Data without structure and annotation is an opportunity lost.

00:19:52.699 --> 00:19:56.970
Research data should flow in an open, public and extensible infrastructure

00:19:57.016 --> 00:20:01.957
that supports its recombination and reconfiguration into computer models,

00:20:02.050 --> 00:20:03.965
its searchability by search engines,

00:20:03.996 --> 00:20:08.166
and its use by both scientists and the taxpaying public.

00:20:08.258 --> 00:20:11.217
This infrastructure is an essential public good."

00:20:12.125 --> 00:20:15.945
Now, my view is, this the right way - you might think this is the left way -

00:20:15.945 --> 00:20:22.031
but it's the correct way to instantiate this Open Access movement.

00:20:22.231 --> 00:20:25.982
The values and the efficiency and the justice in this architecture

00:20:26.089 --> 00:20:29.880
are the right values, efficiency and justice for an Open Access movement.

00:20:29.880 --> 00:20:34.325
So let's call it, following Stallman, the Free Access Movement.

00:20:34.479 --> 00:20:36.781
And the critical question of the Free Access movement

00:20:36.874 --> 00:20:41.455
is the license that governs access to the information being provided.

00:20:41.455 --> 00:20:43.752
Does the license grant freedoms?

00:20:44.260 --> 00:20:47.556
And that, of course, was the motivation between the Public Library of Science -

00:20:47.664 --> 00:20:50.692
every one of their articles is published under a Creative Commons

00:20:50.754 --> 00:20:53.203
Attribution license, the freest license we have.

00:20:54.126 --> 00:20:59.767
And that is increasingly the practice, surprisingly, of the largest publishers,

00:20:59.767 --> 00:21:02.910
as described by this wonderful project housed here at CERN,

00:21:03.064 --> 00:21:05.577
which is studying Open Access publishing.

00:21:06.654 --> 00:21:12.068
This is the first of three stages to this project. When studying the large publishers,

00:21:12.191 --> 00:21:16.290
this study concludes that "Half of the large publishers use some version

00:21:16.290 --> 00:21:21.364
of a Creative Commons license. These seven publish 72% of the titles

00:21:21.364 --> 00:21:23.879
and 71% of the articles investigated.

00:21:23.956 --> 00:21:31.461
And of these, 82% use the freest license, cc-by, and 18% use cc-by-nc", non commercial.

00:21:31.676 --> 00:21:38.550
And that of course is an excellent report on the progress of this free access movement

00:21:38.550 --> 00:21:40.497
in the context of the largest publishers.

00:21:40.497 --> 00:21:45.635
But what's not excellent in this story is the other publishers here.

00:21:46.219 --> 00:21:52.081
For these other publishers, only 73% you can determine copyright status

00:21:52.081 --> 00:21:58.375
69% transfer the copyright to the publisher. Only 21 % of the articles

00:21:58.421 --> 00:22:01.300
have any Creative Commons license attached at all.

00:22:02.300 --> 00:22:08.111
Now, this is because these other publishers are using copyright as a means,

00:22:09.157 --> 00:22:15.020
a means to a non-knowledge ends, to a non-copyright ends.

00:22:15.250 --> 00:22:18.328
So, for example, they are using it to support the societies

00:22:18.328 --> 00:22:20.762
that might happen to be associated with publishing

00:22:20.762 --> 00:22:23.892
that particular journal, that society that might study

00:22:23.985 --> 00:22:25.208
one particular of science.

00:22:25.392 --> 00:22:28.336
That society, of course, is valuable, but what they are doing

00:22:28.336 --> 00:22:31.357
is using copyright to support that society.

00:22:31.357 --> 00:22:36.775
And the consequence of that strategy is to block access to all but the few.

00:22:37.221 --> 00:22:40.078
We don't achieve the objectives of the Enlightenment,

00:22:40.155 --> 00:22:44.389
we achieve the reality of an elite-nment, the elite-nment

00:22:44.389 --> 00:22:47.624
which describes the way in which we spread knowledge

00:22:47.624 --> 00:22:50.659
despite the ideals of the Enlightenment.

00:22:50.706 --> 00:22:55.791
And the point I'm emphasizing here is that it's for no good copyright reason.

00:22:56.714 --> 00:23:01.533
Now, the slowness inside of science to embrace this more broadly,

00:23:01.640 --> 00:23:05.121
especially among the smaller publishers, may surprise some,

00:23:05.198 --> 00:23:08.976
or maybe it doesn't surprise. The whole design of science

00:23:09.068 --> 00:23:13.496
is to be a fad-resistor, the idea is to have an infrastructure

00:23:13.573 --> 00:23:17.490
that avoids fads, and tradition then becomes the metric of what's right

00:23:17.521 --> 00:23:18.805
or of what's good in science.

00:23:18.882 --> 00:23:25.181
But I think it's time to recognize that Free Access, as in free, as in speech access

00:23:25.181 --> 00:23:26.866
is no fad.

00:23:26.866 --> 00:23:32.977
And it's time to push this non fad more broadly in the context of science.

00:23:33.561 --> 00:23:38.623
Now, just because I'm talking about how bad some area of science is,

00:23:38.762 --> 00:23:43.011
I don't mean to suggest that the arts is good, right?

00:23:43.011 --> 00:23:45.984
We have practices in the context of the arts that are just as bad, here.

00:23:46.138 --> 00:23:51.408
For example, think about a recent episode around YouTube.

00:23:51.531 --> 00:23:54.586
You know, we should not minimize the significance of YouTube

00:23:54.647 --> 00:23:56.926
in the infrastructure of culture right now.

00:23:57.003 --> 00:23:59.611
YouTube now has 43 different languages.

00:23:59.672 --> 00:24:03.466
There is more uploaded in one month on Youtube

00:24:03.512 --> 00:24:08.311
than was broadcast by the major networks in the United States

00:24:08.327 --> 00:24:10.557
over the last 60 years.

00:24:11.342 --> 00:24:16.012
Every single day, 6 new years of video gets uploaded to YouTube.

00:24:16.135 --> 00:24:19.289
There are 2 billion views of YouTube every single year.

00:24:19.381 --> 00:24:24.376
every single day, sorry. That's 40% increase over just the last year.

00:24:24.484 --> 00:24:28.232
And I've been famously a fan of this extraordinary site

00:24:28.340 --> 00:24:31.679
because I celebrate the kind of read-write creativity

00:24:31.756 --> 00:24:34.322
that I think YouTube has encouraged.

00:24:34.322 --> 00:24:38.675
And I got this sense of what we should think of as read-write creativity

00:24:38.675 --> 00:24:40.927
when I was reading testimony at this place

00:24:40.927 --> 00:24:44.345
by this man, John Philip Souza, in 1906.

00:24:44.391 --> 00:24:48.914
when he was - I didn't read it in 1906 but the testimony was given in 1906 -

00:24:49.145 --> 00:24:52.419
when Souza was testifying about this technology,

00:24:52.419 --> 00:24:56.090
what he called "talking machines".

00:24:56.660 --> 00:25:00.461
Now, Souza was not a fan of the talking machines.

00:25:00.861 --> 00:25:02.454
This is what he had to say about them:

00:25:02.561 --> 00:25:06.436
"These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development

00:25:06.513 --> 00:25:08.013
of music in this country.

00:25:08.244 --> 00:25:11.100
When I was a boy, in front of every house in the summer evenings

00:25:11.300 --> 00:25:13.898
you would find young people together singing the songs

00:25:13.898 --> 00:25:15.875
of the day or the old songs.

00:25:15.875 --> 00:25:20.783
Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day.

00:25:21.660 --> 00:25:24.693
We will not have a vocal chord left," Souza said,

00:25:24.693 --> 00:25:27.790
"The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution,

00:25:27.898 --> 00:25:32.362
as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."

00:25:34.716 --> 00:25:36.401
Now this is the picture I want you to focus on.

00:25:36.539 --> 00:25:40.008
This picture of "young people together, singing the songs of the day

00:25:40.008 --> 00:25:41.231
or the old songs".

00:25:41.231 --> 00:25:46.671
This is a picture of culture. We could call it, using modern computer terminology,

00:25:46.671 --> 00:25:48.941
a kind of read-write culture.

00:25:49.417 --> 00:25:52.780
It's a culture where people participate in the creation and the re-creation

00:25:52.780 --> 00:25:55.107
of their culture: in that sense, it's read-write.

00:25:56.061 --> 00:25:59.451
And the opposite of read-write creativity, then, we should call

00:25:59.451 --> 00:26:03.933
"read-only" culture. A culture where creativity is consumed

00:26:03.933 --> 00:26:09.522
but the consumer is not a creator. A culture, in this sense, that's top-down,

00:26:09.691 --> 00:26:12.807
where the vocal cords of the millions of ordinary potential creators

00:26:12.930 --> 00:26:16.644
has been lost, and lost, because, as Souza said,

00:26:16.736 --> 00:26:22.668
because of these infernal machines: technology, technology like this,

00:26:22.791 --> 00:26:25.833
or technology like this, to produce a culture like this,

00:26:26.602 --> 00:26:31.210
a culture which enabled efficient consumption, what we call "reading",

00:26:32.056 --> 00:26:36.736
but inefficient amateur production, what we should call "writing".

00:26:37.321 --> 00:26:41.017
A culture good for listening, but not a culture good for speaking,

00:26:41.079 --> 00:26:44.908
a culture good for watching, a culture not good for creating.

00:26:46.246 --> 00:26:49.434
Now, the first popular instantiation of the internet,

00:26:49.434 --> 00:26:51.446
long after you guys gave us the World Wide Web,

00:26:51.446 --> 00:26:54.460
but the first one people really paid attention to,

00:26:54.876 --> 00:26:59.841
around 1997 and 1998, was a read-only internet.

00:27:00.041 --> 00:27:04.990
So, Napster, which of course, built the largest music archive,

00:27:04.990 --> 00:27:09.212
is still a music archive of music created by others

00:27:09.212 --> 00:27:13.361
and the legal version, the iTunes Music Store, was an archive of the music

00:27:13.361 --> 00:27:16.861
created by others, that you could buy for 99 cents.

00:27:17.014 --> 00:27:19.153
These were technologies to enable access,

00:27:19.153 --> 00:27:21.380
but access to culture created elsewhere.

00:27:22.318 --> 00:27:25.654
But then, shortly in - after the turn of the century, I think,

00:27:25.731 --> 00:27:28.082
the internet became fundamentally read-write.

00:27:28.698 --> 00:27:31.554
People began taking, and remixing, and sharing

00:27:31.554 --> 00:27:36.441
their creativity on the internet, and YouTube was the platform for that.

00:27:36.488 --> 00:27:40.650
So, my favorite example, which I first saw on YouTube, is this:

00:27:40.712 --> 00:27:46.310
[Read my lips by: Atmo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhlHUTBgAMw]

00:27:51.218 --> 00:27:59.498
"Bush: My love, there's only you in my life,

00:27:59.852 --> 00:28:03.576
the only thing that's right.

00:28:06.668 --> 00:28:14.847
Blair: My first love: you're every breath that I take,

00:28:14.970 --> 00:28:19.992
you're every step I make.

00:28:21.377 --> 00:28:28.539
Bush: And I, I want to share

00:28:28.631 --> 00:28:34.699
Bush and Blair: all my love with you

00:28:35.330 --> 00:28:39.429
Bush: No one else will do.

00:28:41.922 --> 00:28:44.206
Blair: And your eyes

00:28:44.206 --> 00:28:46.199
Bush: Your eyes, your eyes

00:28:46.199 --> 00:28:52.820
Bush and Blair: they tell me how much you care for...

00:28:52.820 --> 00:28:55.707
announcer: remember to(?) take dictation"

00:28:55.707 --> 00:28:59.608
Lessig: OK. And then.more recently, I don't know if (?) many of you

00:28:59.608 --> 00:29:01.662
have seen this extraordinary site ThruYou.

00:29:01.755 --> 00:29:05.194
This is a site that takes content only from YouTube

00:29:05.286 --> 00:29:09.999
and remixes it to produce albums and videos. And this is his latest, you know.

00:29:10.091 --> 00:29:12.114
Voice: This is my mother:

00:29:12.206 --> 00:29:15.727
Mother: Howdy, howdy. OK.

00:29:15.727 --> 00:29:20.232
[plays a continuo on keyboard]

00:29:20.401 --> 00:29:22.086
Tenesan1 [see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J8sSXO9VWk ]

00:29:22.086 --> 00:29:24.878
Tenesan1: The song I'm going to sing, I wrote, is called "Green"

00:29:24.924 --> 00:29:28.889
because ... (?)

00:29:29.904 --> 00:29:35.706
I'm seing beauty created on the land

00:29:37.537 --> 00:29:44.724
On Earth the third day, producing all the plants

00:29:45.077 --> 00:29:52.603
Mother Nature created by the most high God

00:29:52.819 --> 00:29:58.488
I'm seeing beauty and it's green to me

00:29:58.488 --> 00:30:04.198
[other instruments enter]

00:30:04.198 --> 00:30:09.163
Spotting tranquillity, peace and restoration

00:30:11.116 --> 00:30:19.137
Check all the water travelling from roots

00:30:19.275 --> 00:30:26.261
Then you will see roots digging deep, building a strong foundation

00:30:26.369 --> 00:30:33.326
Then finally a stem shoots through

00:30:33.326 --> 00:30:38.063
I'm seeing beauty, it's green..

00:30:38.063 --> 00:30:42.011
Lessig: So this is then what I think of as a platform for read-write creativity.

00:30:42.134 --> 00:30:44.544
But then the second stage of this, I think is ultimately

00:30:44.544 --> 00:30:46.905
much more interesting. It's the way that this platform

00:30:46.905 --> 00:30:49.253
has become a platform for read-write communities,

00:30:49.330 --> 00:30:53.930
which means creativity, which then gets remixed by others

00:30:54.022 --> 00:30:56.802
in response to the initial read-write creativity.

00:30:56.802 --> 00:30:58.364
So here is an example. This video:

00:30:58.364 --> 00:31:02.903
[ "Crank That" by Soulja Boy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLGLum5SyKQ + Superman:] You Soulja Boy..

00:31:02.995 --> 00:31:07.178
I got a new dance fo you all called the soulja boy

00:31:07.178 --> 00:31:10.212
You gotta punch then crank back three times from left to right

00:31:10.212 --> 00:31:16.180
Aaah!

00:31:16.288 --> 00:31:18.142
Lessig: so that video inspired this video:

00:31:18.249 --> 00:31:33.231
[video 2] You Soulja Boy ...

00:31:33.277 --> 00:31:35.794
Lessig: which then inspired this video

00:31:35.794 --> 00:31:51.964
[Video 3] Soulja Boy ...

00:31:51.964 --> 00:31:54.506
Lessig: Well here is another example. I'm sure many of you remember

00:31:54.506 --> 00:31:56.390
these extraordinary movies by John Hughes,

00:31:56.467 --> 00:31:59.036
what we used to think of as the Brat Pack, until we knew

00:31:59.036 --> 00:32:00.828
that there was a Brat Pack before these guys.

00:32:00.936 --> 00:32:03.923
So this is the first bit of cultural,

00:32:04.046 --> 00:32:05.577
and I think here is the second.

00:32:05.607 --> 00:32:10.462
This is a music video by the band Phoenix, with their song Lisztomania:

00:32:10.523 --> 00:32:17.071
[Lisztomania: Phoenix' clip]

00:32:17.086 --> 00:32:19.253
Lessig (over clip): So classic music video style

00:32:19.376 --> 00:32:23.339
[clip continues]

00:32:23.339 --> 00:32:25.270
So sentimental

00:32:25.270 --> 00:32:28.953
Lessig: Somebody got the idea that they would take John Hughes' content

00:32:28.953 --> 00:32:32.713
and remix it with the music by Phoenix. They produced this:

00:32:34.005 --> 00:32:50.594
[remix]

00:32:50.594 --> 00:32:52.010
So sentimental

00:32:53.086 --> 00:32:54.571
not sentimental, no

00:32:54.648 --> 00:32:57.244
romantic not disgusting yet

00:32:57.337 --> 00:33:02.457
Darling, I'm down and lonely when with the fortunate is only

00:33:03.580 --> 00:33:05.034
I've been looking for something else

00:33:05.034 --> 00:33:09.254
Do let, do let, do let, jugulate, do let, do let, do

00:33:09.331 --> 00:33:11.905
Let's go slowly discouraged

00:33:12.043 --> 00:33:19.130
Distant from other interests on your favorite weekend ending...

00:33:19.130 --> 00:33:22.721
Lessig: Then somebody had the idea that they would make a local version

00:33:22.844 --> 00:33:25.955
of this remix video. So this is the Brooklyn version:

00:33:26.109 --> 00:33:57.892
[Brooklyn remix:]

00:33:57.984 --> 00:34:01.311
Lessig: And then San Francisco decided they'd like to copy:

00:34:01.434 --> 00:34:28.737
[San Francisco remix:]

00:34:28.737 --> 00:34:31.528
Lessig: And then Boston University decided they would copy:

00:34:31.681 --> 00:34:58.596
[Boston U remix:]

00:34:58.596 --> 00:35:01.198
Lessig: There are others, literally scores of these on the internet,

00:35:01.198 --> 00:35:02.652
from every place around the world.

00:35:02.683 --> 00:35:04.629
(1 sentence ????)

00:35:04.629 --> 00:35:09.583
every other place... these people doing the same kind of remix.

00:35:09.676 --> 00:35:15.171
The point to recognize is that this is then what Souza was romanticizing

00:35:15.263 --> 00:35:18.598
when Souza was talking about the young people getting together

00:35:18.598 --> 00:35:20.436
and singing the songs of the day or the old songs.

00:35:20.529 --> 00:35:22.967
But they are not singing the songs or the old songs

00:35:22.967 --> 00:35:26.513
in their backyard or on the corner, they are now singing them

00:35:26.513 --> 00:35:30.173
on this free digital platform that allows people to sing and respond,

00:35:30.250 --> 00:35:32.899
and respond again all across the world,

00:35:32.976 --> 00:35:37.132
in my view, important and valuable, in understanding

00:35:37.132 --> 00:35:39.913
how this kind of culture develops and spreads.

00:35:39.913 --> 00:35:41.059
Now, is it legal?

00:35:42.798 --> 00:35:46.605
Well, YouTube has just stepped into this battle, of whether it's legal.

00:35:46.697 --> 00:35:49.540
They've launched this Copyright School

00:35:49.602 --> 00:35:51.713
So I will give you a little bit of their copyright school.

00:35:51.744 --> 00:36:11.206
[video from http://www.youtube.com/copyright_school - original subtitled in ca 40 languages]

00:36:11.206 --> 00:36:13.773
"Everybody has really been looking forward to the new video

00:36:13.773 --> 00:36:15.058
"from Lumpy and the Lumpettes.

00:36:16.242 --> 00:36:18.135
"Even Lumpy.

00:36:23.173 --> 00:36:28.167
"Russell's a huge fan. He can't wait to tell all his friends about it.

00:36:29.382 --> 00:36:33.022
"'Hey, Russell, you didn't create that video!

00:36:33.145 --> 00:36:35.525
"'You just copied someone else's content.'"

00:36:35.648 --> 00:36:38.646
Lessig: OK, this first part is pretty standard,

00:36:38.738 --> 00:36:40.849
talking about copying people's content, uploading it,

00:36:41.003 --> 00:36:43.082
and even copying a live performance and uploading it.

00:36:43.205 --> 00:36:46.468
And that's fair, that's true, that's accurate in its statement

00:36:46.468 --> 00:36:49.524
of what copyright law is, and what I think copyright law should be.

00:36:49.524 --> 00:36:51.671
But I want to focus on their talk about remix,

00:36:51.747 --> 00:36:54.557
which might be confusing to you, and if you do, you should buy

00:36:54.557 --> 00:36:57.370
multiple copies of my book, "Remix" to understand what it's about.

00:36:57.478 --> 00:37:00.119
But here's YouTube's version of the story of remix

00:37:00.166 --> 00:37:04.554
[YouTube video cont.] 
"'Oh, Russell! Your reuse of the Lumpy's content is clever,

00:37:04.554 --> 00:37:06.774
"'but did you get permission for it?

00:37:06.774 --> 00:37:09.822
"'Mashups or remixes of content may also require permission

00:37:09.822 --> 00:37:12.392
"'from the original copyright owner, depending on whether or not

00:37:12.392 --> 00:37:14.369
"'the use is a fair use.

00:37:14.462 --> 00:37:34.495
"'In the United States [text shown onscreen is read very fast] ...

00:37:34.510 --> 00:37:36.472
"'...you should consult a qualified copyright attorney.'"

00:37:37.503 --> 00:37:41.380
Lessig: OK. "Consult a qualified copyright attorney"?

00:37:41.472 --> 00:37:46.065
These are 15-year olds. You're trying to teach 15-year olds

00:37:46.065 --> 00:37:48.247
how to obey the law, and what you do is you give them

00:37:48.247 --> 00:37:50.377
this thing called fair use, and you read it so fast

00:37:50.377 --> 00:37:51.862
nobody can understand it.

00:37:51.877 --> 00:37:53.900
You believe you've actually explained something sensible?

00:37:53.946 --> 00:37:55.139
This is crazy talk.

00:37:55.262 --> 00:37:58.698
Of course we train lawyers to understand it, and not think it's crazy talk,

00:37:58.805 --> 00:38:01.957
but non lawyers should recognize it's crazy talk.

00:38:01.957 --> 00:38:04.185
It's an absurd system here.

00:38:04.231 --> 00:38:06.894
And of course, a sensible system would say:

00:38:06.971 --> 00:38:12.049
"Then it should be plainly legal for Russell to make a remix,

00:38:12.049 --> 00:38:15.435
"a non commercial consumer making a remix of content

00:38:15.450 --> 00:38:19.367
"that he sees out there, even if it's not legal for YouTube

00:38:19.367 --> 00:38:22.776
"to distribute it without paying some sort of royalty

00:38:22.776 --> 00:38:26.338
"to copyright owners whose work has been remixed."

00:38:26.338 --> 00:38:29.664
Now the point is, the significance of this kind of culture,

00:38:29.664 --> 00:38:31.940
this kind of remix culture, and the opportunity

00:38:31.940 --> 00:38:35.391
for this remix culture to flourish is recognized by people on the left,

00:38:35.498 --> 00:38:39.233
and the right. Here is my favorite little bit.

00:38:39.248 --> 00:38:42.342
It's a little bit bad video, but it's by one of my favorite

00:38:42.342 --> 00:38:44.657
libertarians from Cato Institute, which is one of the

00:38:44.657 --> 00:38:47.367
most important libertarian think-tanks in the United States,

00:38:47.367 --> 00:38:48.598
talking about this:

00:38:48.598 --> 00:38:51.733
Libertarian man: Copyright policy isn't just about how to incentivize

00:38:51.810 --> 00:38:54.007
the production of a certain kind of artistic commodity.

00:38:54.007 --> 00:38:57.191
It's about what level of control we're going to permit to be

00:38:57.191 --> 00:39:01.534
exercised over our social realities, social realities that are now

00:39:01.580 --> 00:39:04.518
inevitably permeated by pop culture.

00:39:04.625 --> 00:39:08.411
I think it's important that we keep these two different kinds

00:39:08.411 --> 00:39:12.047
of public uses in mind. If we only focus on how to

00:39:12.109 --> 00:39:14.583
maximize the supply of one,

00:39:14.706 --> 00:39:18.859
I think we risk suppressing this different and richer

00:39:18.859 --> 00:39:21.837
and, in some ways, maybe even more important one.

00:39:21.914 --> 00:39:24.604
Lessig: Bingo. That's the point.

00:39:24.696 --> 00:39:28.370
There are two kinds of cultures here, two kinds of culture:

00:39:28.447 --> 00:39:30.901
the commercial culture and the amateur culture.

00:39:30.947 --> 00:39:34.613
And we have to have a system that tries to recognize and encourage both.

00:39:34.613 --> 00:39:39.362
And even YouTube, now, the company most responsible

00:39:39.362 --> 00:39:41.675
for this revival of this remix culture,

00:39:41.675 --> 00:39:45.650
even YouTube, now, is criminalizing the remixer.

00:39:45.696 --> 00:39:46.935
OK, now that's the argument.

00:39:46.935 --> 00:39:48.235
Here is what I think we need to do here.

00:39:48.235 --> 00:39:51.886
In both these contexts, both science and culture,

00:39:51.979 --> 00:39:53.463
we need reform.

00:39:53.463 --> 00:39:55.909
That's not to say we need the abolition of copyright.

00:39:55.986 --> 00:39:59.479
There are copyright abolitionists out there, and I'm not one them.

00:39:59.479 --> 00:40:03.167
What we need is reform, both of the law and of us.

00:40:03.229 --> 00:40:08.070
So, of the law: I, last year, had the opportunity -

00:40:08.070 --> 00:40:10.729
surprising, from the perspective of 10 years ago -

00:40:10.729 --> 00:40:13.878
but I was invited by WIPO to talk to WIPO,

00:40:13.878 --> 00:40:16.552
and both my presentation and the current Director General

00:40:16.629 --> 00:40:20.274
has a conception of what WIPO should do here

00:40:20.274 --> 00:40:22.613
and it's very similar. They should launch what we could think of

00:40:22.613 --> 00:40:26.146
as a Blue Skies Commission, a commission to think about

00:40:26.146 --> 00:40:29.326
what architecture for copyright makes sense in the digital age.

00:40:29.388 --> 00:40:32.168
The presumption is, copyright is necessary,

00:40:32.168 --> 00:40:35.325
but the presumption is also that the architecture from the 20th century

00:40:35.325 --> 00:40:37.786
doesn't make sense in a digital context.

00:40:37.879 --> 00:40:41.228
And the elements of, in my view, of this architecture

00:40:41.228 --> 00:40:42.805
that would make sense, are 5.

00:40:42.820 --> 00:40:46.551
#1 Copyright has got to be simple. If it purports to regulate

00:40:46.567 --> 00:40:49.667
15 year olds, 15 year olds must be able to understand it.

00:40:49.759 --> 00:40:52.491
They don't understand it now.

00:40:52.491 --> 00:40:53.945
No one understands it now.

00:40:54.037 --> 00:40:56.255
And we need to remake it, to make it simple,

00:40:56.302 --> 00:40:59.800
if it tends to regulate as broadly as it regulates.

00:40:59.800 --> 00:41:01.777
#2 It needs to be efficient.

00:41:02.239 --> 00:41:05.024
Copyright is a property system. It also happens to be

00:41:05.024 --> 00:41:08.168
the most inefficient property system known to man.

00:41:09.137 --> 00:41:12.626
We can't know who owns what under this system,

00:41:12.733 --> 00:41:15.632
because we have no system for recording ownership

00:41:15.663 --> 00:41:18.070
and allowing us to allocate ownership as we want.

00:41:18.070 --> 00:41:23.155
And the only remedy to that is to restore a kind of formality,

00:41:23.155 --> 00:41:25.952
at least a formality required to maintain a copyright.

00:41:26.029 --> 00:41:29.956
And this is a position that's even supported by the RIAA

00:41:30.048 --> 00:41:32.079
as one of the essential reforms to copyright.

00:41:32.079 --> 00:41:37.102
#3 Copyright has got to be better targeted. It's got to regulate selectively.

00:41:37.194 --> 00:41:39.519
So if you think about the distinction between copies and remix,

00:41:39.581 --> 00:41:42.607
and the distinction between the professional and the amateur,

00:41:42.684 --> 00:41:46.049
of course, we get this matrix - lawyers deal in two dimensions,

00:41:46.111 --> 00:41:48.644
you guys in hundred dimensions but here is my two dimensions -

00:41:48.690 --> 00:41:51.682
What we have in the current regime of copyright

00:41:51.729 --> 00:41:55.006
is presumption of copyright regulates the same

00:41:55.006 --> 00:41:57.158
across these four possibilities.

00:41:57.219 --> 00:42:00.435
But that's a mistake. Obviously copyright needs to regulate

00:42:00.435 --> 00:42:04.028
efficiently here, copies of professional works,

00:42:04.044 --> 00:42:08.304
so 10'000 copies of Madonna's latest CD is a problem

00:42:08.304 --> 00:42:09.958
that copyright law needs to worry about,

00:42:10.035 --> 00:42:13.964
But this area, amateurs remixing culture needs to be free

00:42:13.964 --> 00:42:17.211
of the regulation of copyright. Not fair use, but free use.

00:42:17.211 --> 00:42:20.011
Not even triggering copyright's concern.

00:42:20.057 --> 00:42:22.431
And then these two middle cases are harder.

00:42:22.477 --> 00:42:25.208
They need a little more freedom, but they need to assure

00:42:25.208 --> 00:42:28.332
some kind of control. So if you share Madonna's latest CD

00:42:28.332 --> 00:42:31.255
with your 10'000 best friends, that's a problem.

00:42:31.301 --> 00:42:33.432
There needs to be some response to that problem.

00:42:33.432 --> 00:42:36.646
And if you take a book and turn it into a movie,

00:42:36.738 --> 00:42:39.276
I think it's still appropriate that you get permission for that,

00:42:39.276 --> 00:42:40.822
though of course, you need to be able to remix

00:42:40.822 --> 00:42:43.619
in the way that we saw Soderberg remixed that video

00:42:43.635 --> 00:42:46.709
of Bush and Endless Love.

00:42:46.847 --> 00:42:49.324
The point here is that if you think about this, I'm talking about

00:42:49.324 --> 00:42:52.315
deregulating a significant space of culture,

00:42:52.361 --> 00:42:55.223
and focusing the regulation of copyright work and do some good.

00:42:55.223 --> 00:42:58.103
#4 It needs to be effective. And effective means

00:42:58.103 --> 00:43:00.972
it must actually work in getting artists paid.

00:43:01.033 --> 00:43:04.891
The current system does not work in getting artists paid.

00:43:04.891 --> 00:43:06.899
And #5 It needs to be realistic.

00:43:06.899 --> 00:43:12.485
Think about the problem of peer-to-peer, quote, "piracy" internationally,

00:43:12.978 --> 00:43:16.085
We've, for the last decade, been waging what is referred to

00:43:16.085 --> 00:43:19.878
as a war. My friend, the late Jack Valenti, former head of the

00:43:19.955 --> 00:43:22.627
Motion Picture Association of America used to refer to it as

00:43:22.627 --> 00:43:27.832
his own, quote, "terrorist war", where apparently the terrorists in this war

00:43:27.832 --> 00:43:30.288
are our children.

00:43:30.335 --> 00:43:33.574
Now this war has been a total failure.

00:43:33.574 --> 00:43:38.923
It has not achieved its objective of reducing copyrights sharing

00:43:38.923 --> 00:43:40.869
or illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.

00:43:40.930 --> 00:43:44.734
And I know the response of some to totally failed wars

00:43:44.734 --> 00:43:48.206
is to continue to wage that war forever, and ever more viciously,

00:43:48.237 --> 00:43:51.209
but I suggest we adopt the opposite response here.

00:43:51.209 --> 00:43:54.663
We sue for peace. We sue for peace in this war,

00:43:54.663 --> 00:43:57.477
and consider proposals that would give us the opportunity

00:43:57.477 --> 00:44:00.020
to achieve the objectives of copyright,

00:44:00.020 --> 00:44:01.336
without waging this war.

00:44:01.336 --> 00:44:05.008
So, compulsory licenses, voluntary collective licenses

00:44:05.008 --> 00:44:07.675
or the German Greens' suggestion of a cultural flat rate

00:44:07.675 --> 00:44:10.369
which would be collected and allocated to artists

00:44:10.369 --> 00:44:13.516
on the basis of the harm suffered because of P2P file-sharing,

00:44:13.516 --> 00:44:16.060
all of these are alternatives to waging a war

00:44:16.060 --> 00:44:20.197
to stop sharing, when sharing is of course at the core

00:44:20.197 --> 00:44:21.435
of the architecture of the Net,

00:44:21.435 --> 00:44:24.853
and all of them recognize that if we achieve

00:44:24.853 --> 00:44:29.852
that alternative, we don't need to block this system of sharing.

00:44:29.899 --> 00:44:33.962
Now, the thing to think about is, if we had had one of these alternatives

00:44:33.962 --> 00:44:37.797
10 years ago, what would the world look like today,

00:44:37.797 --> 00:44:38.835
how would it be different?

00:44:38.897 --> 00:44:41.220
Now one difference is, artists would get more money,

00:44:41.220 --> 00:44:42.705
they would have gotten more money, because

00:44:42.705 --> 00:44:44.829
while we have been waging war against artists [sic: "children", "pirates"?]

00:44:44.829 --> 00:44:47.688
artists haven't got anything, only lawyers have.

00:44:47.688 --> 00:44:49.435
Businesses would have had more competition,

00:44:49.435 --> 00:44:52.352
the rules would have been clear, we would have more companies

00:44:52.352 --> 00:44:54.298
than just Apple and Microsoft thinking out

00:44:54.298 --> 00:44:56.567
how they could exploit this new digital technologies.

00:44:56.628 --> 00:44:59.133
But most important to me, is, we wouldn't have a generation

00:44:59.133 --> 00:45:01.733
of criminals who have grown up being called criminals

00:45:01.733 --> 00:45:04.145
because they are technically pirates, according to

00:45:04.253 --> 00:45:06.230
this outdated copyright law.

00:45:06.522 --> 00:45:09.243
So these 5 objectives would go into the conception of what

00:45:09.243 --> 00:45:11.317
this Blue Skies commission should think about

00:45:11.317 --> 00:45:13.881
and I think it should think of this in a 5 year process

00:45:13.881 --> 00:45:17.184
talking about something not to into effect for 10 years.

00:45:17.184 --> 00:45:21.655
Think of it as a kind of Map for Berne II, but Bern II being

00:45:21.655 --> 00:45:25.354
a system that could work to achieve the objectives of copyright

00:45:25.400 --> 00:45:27.547
in a digital age. That's what the law should do.

00:45:27.639 --> 00:45:30.492
But most important right now is what we need to do.

00:45:30.492 --> 00:45:34.791
We, both in the context of business - so in the context of business,

00:45:34.791 --> 00:45:37.956
we need to think about how to better enable legal reuse

00:45:37.956 --> 00:45:39.225
of copyrighted material.

00:45:39.225 --> 00:45:42.933
And companies like Google and Microsoft's Bing

00:45:42.994 --> 00:45:44.356
need to do more here.

00:45:44.356 --> 00:45:46.959
We're in the age of remix, where writing is remix,

00:45:46.959 --> 00:45:49.942
where teachers tell students to go out to the web

00:45:49.942 --> 00:45:51.950
and gather as much content as you can in order to

00:45:51.950 --> 00:45:55.289
write a report about whatever it is they are assigning them

00:45:55.289 --> 00:45:56.358
to write reports about.

00:45:56.358 --> 00:45:59.570
That means Google and Bing need to help our kids

00:45:59.570 --> 00:46:02.508
do it legally, which they don't, right now.

00:46:02.508 --> 00:46:05.037
So for example, this extraordinary service, which Google

00:46:05.037 --> 00:46:07.121
gives you when you want to do an image search:

00:46:07.152 --> 00:46:10.124
let's say you search for an image, you do an image search on flowers,

00:46:10.124 --> 00:46:13.700
This, over here - I don't know if you play with this -

00:46:13.700 --> 00:46:16.158
is really extraordinary: you can then narrow the search

00:46:16.158 --> 00:46:17.750
on the basis of many of these categories,

00:46:17.750 --> 00:46:19.834
including like the color of the photographs.

00:46:19.880 --> 00:46:22.608
So you want pink flowers, there you can see all the pink flowers,

00:46:22.608 --> 00:46:23.816
just by clicking on the link.

00:46:23.862 --> 00:46:28.378
But why, in this extraction, don't we also have an option

00:46:28.378 --> 00:46:30.534
for something like this: show reusable?

00:46:30.596 --> 00:46:34.907
Show the content that is explicitly licensed to be reusable,

00:46:34.907 --> 00:46:37.439
because Google indexes Creative Commons licenses

00:46:37.439 --> 00:46:38.723
associated with these images.

00:46:38.723 --> 00:46:42.561
Why not make it on the surface easy to begin to filter out

00:46:42.608 --> 00:46:44.900
those that you can use with the permission of the author

00:46:44.946 --> 00:46:47.214
from those that presumptively require a lawyer?

00:46:47.214 --> 00:46:49.668
Same thing in the context of a site like YouTube.

00:46:49.668 --> 00:46:53.479
Why don't we enable more easily the signaling by the creator

00:46:53.479 --> 00:46:56.008
that others should be able to download and reuse content,

00:46:56.008 --> 00:46:59.786
not so much to redefine what Fair Use is -

00:46:59.786 --> 00:47:02.214
I still think there is a fair use claim even if there isn't

00:47:02.214 --> 00:47:05.625
permission given to re-use - but at least to encourage people

00:47:05.625 --> 00:47:08.105
to begin to signal that their freedom to share

00:47:08.151 --> 00:47:10.251
has been authorized by the author.

00:47:10.251 --> 00:47:14.749
And then in the academy, which I think we are speaking

00:47:14.749 --> 00:47:16.849
about here right now.

00:47:16.849 --> 00:47:19.282
We need to recognize in the academy, I think,

00:47:19.282 --> 00:47:24.077
an ethical obligation, much stronger than the ones Stallman spoke of

00:47:24.077 --> 00:47:26.572
in the context of software. An ethical obligation

00:47:26.572 --> 00:47:28.564
which is at the core of our mission.

00:47:28.595 --> 00:47:31.196
Our mission is universal access to knowledge.

00:47:31.196 --> 00:47:33.507
Universal access to knowledge:

00:47:33.538 --> 00:47:36.278
not American University access to knowledge,

00:47:36.340 --> 00:47:40.106
but universal access to knowledge in every part of the globe.

00:47:40.106 --> 00:47:43.106
And that obligation has certain entailments.

00:47:43.106 --> 00:47:48.614
Entailment #1 is that we need to keep this work free,

00:47:48.614 --> 00:47:50.767
where free means licensed freely.

00:47:50.767 --> 00:47:54.838
Now this needs to be part of an ethical point about what we do.

00:47:54.838 --> 00:47:58.942
It is resisted by people who say that archiving is enough.

00:47:58.973 --> 00:48:02.246
But that is wrong, I think.

00:48:02.246 --> 00:48:05.838
Archiving is not enough, because what it does is

00:48:05.838 --> 00:48:09.523
leave these rights out-there. And by leaving these rights our-there

00:48:09.523 --> 00:48:12.155
it encourages this architecture of closed access.

00:48:12.155 --> 00:48:16.175
It encourages models of access that block access

00:48:16.175 --> 00:48:17.613
to the non-elite around the world.

00:48:17.613 --> 00:48:23.536
And it discourages unplanned, unanticipated and "uncool" innovation.

00:48:23.536 --> 00:48:25.860
That's the thing that publishers would have said

00:48:25.891 --> 00:48:28.020
of Google Books, when Google Books had the idea

00:48:28.020 --> 00:48:30.679
to take all books published and put them on the Web.

00:48:30.725 --> 00:48:32.952
Right, publishers thought that was very uncool,

00:48:32.952 --> 00:48:35.468
but that's exactly the kind of innovation we need to encourage,

00:48:35.514 --> 00:48:37.537
and we know it won't be the publishers

00:48:37.537 --> 00:48:39.453
that do that kind of innovation.

00:48:39.499 --> 00:48:43.607
We don't need for our work, exclusivity.

00:48:43.607 --> 00:48:46.877
And we shouldn't practice, with our work, exclusivity.

00:48:46.877 --> 00:48:51.049
And we should name those who do, wrong.

00:48:51.049 --> 00:48:56.965
Those who do are inconsistent with the ethic of our work.

00:48:56.965 --> 00:49:00.342
Now how do we do that? I think we do that by exercising leadership,

00:49:00.403 --> 00:49:04.679
leadership by those who can afford to take the lead,

00:49:04.679 --> 00:49:08.727
the senior academics, those with tenure, those who can say,

00:49:08.742 --> 00:49:11.819
on committees granting tenure, that it doesn't matter

00:49:11.819 --> 00:49:14.458
that you didn't publish in the most prestigious journal

00:49:14.458 --> 00:49:17.970
if that journal is not Open Access.

00:49:17.970 --> 00:49:21.716
People who can begin to help redefine what access to knowledge is,

00:49:21.716 --> 00:49:24.752
by supporting Open Access and respecting Open Access

00:49:24.752 --> 00:49:27.760
and encouraging Open Access.

00:49:27.760 --> 00:49:30.222
Now, I'm really honored and happy to be able to talk about this

00:49:30.222 --> 00:49:34.426
here, where you of course gave us the Web,

00:49:34.426 --> 00:49:38.686
and CERN has taken the lead in supporting Open Access

00:49:38.686 --> 00:49:41.621
in a crucial space of physics.

00:49:41.621 --> 00:49:45.822
And the work that you are doing right now will have a dramatic effect

00:49:45.822 --> 00:49:49.662
on changing the debate on science across the globe.

00:49:49.662 --> 00:49:51.788
But what we need to do is to think about

00:49:51.788 --> 00:49:55.935
how to leverage this leadership into leadership for the globe,

00:49:55.935 --> 00:50:02.442
to benefit this area of the globe as much as this area of the globe.

00:50:02.442 --> 00:50:04.219
Thank you very much.

00:50:04.219 --> 00:50:06.664
(applause)

00:50:06.664 --> 00:50:08.241
[credits for Flickr photos]

00:50:08.241 --> 00:50:15.403
[This work licensed: CC-BY]

00:50:15.464 --> 00:50:19.000
Subtitles: universalsubtitles.org/videos/jD5TB2eebD5d/