-
Intro: Good Afternoon, Org Con. I'd just like to very briefly introduce James Boyle
-
professor at Duke University, and the author of Public Domain and in many ways inspirational behind a lot
-
of what Org does. So welcome to you, James, and without further ado, I'll let him present.
-
James Boyle: Thank you. It's wonderful to be here. Org Con is an organization
-
that I am quite inspired by. I had wondered, as a Brit, where, in the space of civil society,
-
Britain was going to find a series of organizations that would deal with the issues
-
of the online world: issues of privacy, issues of free speech, issues of intellectual property.
-
And that would actually say: "Now these are serious and important issues,
-
and they are getting decided in little isolated silos,
-
silos called network design, or intellectual property,
-
silos called copyright law, silos called data base directives.
-
and that there was no organization, no single organization,
-
that said: "Now we are going to take all of those issues and bring them together
-
and actually be the voice of civil society, not just the voice
-
of a particular industry stakeholders, or of a particular legal organization,
-
but actually the voice of civil society.
-
So Org Con,in my view, is enormously valuable, and
-
I was incredibly honored to be invited here to give this talk.
-
I'm going to start with a quote from another Scot - I am a Scot - Lord Kames.
-
Kames, in a case in 1773, in the case called Hinton v. Donaldson,
-
It is a case about booksellers, and wheter or not there was a perpetual copyright
-
a perpetual commonlaw copyright. That issue got decided in England,
-
by the case of Donaldson v. Beckett, a rather famous case
-
but of course the Scots got there first, a year before,
-
with Hinton v. Donladson, and this is Lord Kaimes:
-
"I have no difficulty to maintain that a perpetual monopoly of books
-
would prove more destructive to learning and even to authors
-
than a second irruption of the Goths and Vandals."
-
(audience laughs)
-
Boyle: They did write better in those days.
-
More mike, OK. Absolutely. I will stand here like a jazz night club singer
-
and become throatier
-
(audience claps)
-
Boyle: So, Lord Kames's point was one that seemed obvious
-
to most of his brethren on the bench.
-
They believed, as good believers in the Scottish enlightenment,
-
that monopolies were bad, and that occasionally - very, very, very occasionally -
-
monopolies might be necessary and there would be a rigorous process of examiniation
-
of that monopoly, to make sure that it was necessary,
-
that it was not just the Crown handing over the monopoly of playing cards
-
or sweet dessert wine to its favorite customers,
-
that it was not just some industry incumbent saying
-
"But there would be no trade with India unless we get to own trade with India.
-
unless we get to own the trade with India, without owning the trade with India, why would one ever trade with India?"
-
There was a time where people believed thinking like that.
-
Someone had to own trade with India for there to be trade with India.
-
And then, a group of thinkers, including a bunch of Scots,
-
Adam Smith among them, said: "But actually, monopolies don't work very well,
-
and they have the tendency, as Macaulay said,
-
to make things scarce, to make them expensive and to make them bad.
-
That is the tendency of monopolies.
-
So what I want to talk about today is why we have forgotten Lord Kaimes' wisdom.
-
Why we have created our own irruption - he spelt it with an i and 2 r's -
-
our own irruption of Goths and Vandals. Why we have decided,
-
in fact, that we don't need Goths and Vandals to wreak havoc
-
on our own cultural heritage, because we can do it ourselves.
-
We don't need the Goths, we don't need the Vandals, we can write laws
-
that will wreak havoc on our culture.
-
So let me start with this paradox. The paradox is this:
-
if you consider us a single generation - I'm being a little presumptuous
-
in putting myself in a generation with everyone in this room, but let's go with me for a moment -
-
if you consider us a single generation, this generation has,
-
during its life time, witnessed the greatest expansion
-
of information dissemination and retrieval tools in the history of the species by far,
-
by orders of magnitude. It is now so commonplace to us
-
that we have access to enormous numbers of digital sources of information
-
that many of you aren't even looking at me, but you are focusing on the screen,
-
because clearly that will be much more important as a source of information
-
than what I was actually saying to you directly.
-
It is sort of like, check it out on twitter and it will be printed just in 140 characters.
-
I was on a podcast - a lovely gentleman in Australia -
-
he said I'd call it the right-click universe assumption, which is, he said,
-
when I'm walking around in the open air and I look at building,
-
I wonder when it was built, and I... where is the mouse?
-
and of course now, with your iPhone, there probably is a building recognition app
-
that can actually do this for you. And we take this for granted
-
that the knowledge will be there instantaneously.
-
What was that tune, what were those lyrics. What was the treaty of Westphalia again?
-
Whatever it is, we assume that the knowledge will simply be there
-
and that we'll get it; and that if we don't have it, that we'll put out some search
-
and that it'll eventually come back to us, and that in fact people will constantly be creating
-
information retrieval tools to mash up our geo-spatial data with crime statistics,
-
with places where people live, with degrees of creativity in different neighborhoods in London,
-
and presenting this to us, and all of this would just be there, and there free for the taking.
-
It's astounding and it's hard to believe - and for many of you in the audience,
-
the younger ones of you in the audience, it's impossible to believe -
-
that there was a time, about 18 years ago, when that was simply unimaginable,
-
when it just wasn't true.
-
That's one side of the paradox. The other side of the paradox is this:
-
absent conscious choice by a creator. None of you will legally share -
-
or be able to build upon - the cultural works created by your contemporaries
-
during your life time. None of you.
-
No one, sitting in this audience, will have free and legal access
-
to build upon, to republish, to version, to translate the work of any of your contemporaries:
-
any piece of music, any photograph, any piece of text, any movie,
-
unless they have gone out and specifically tried to give you that freedom,
-
unless they say, this is under a creative commons license, or
-
I'm putting this in the public domain. Amazingly, for the first time in human history,
-
you can look around this audience - actually, you all look like a bunch of communistic sharers to me
-
so this is probably a bad audience - but you could look around the audience and say:
-
"All of the works produced by my contemporaries, the default of the law,
-
the default setting of the lawyers, they are inaccessible to me.
-
Now, this was not true for prior generations.
-
Prior generations of novelists would look at the works produced by other novelists
-
and either see them having no copyright at all or that they would soon pass into the public domain.
-
Prior generations of composers either had no copyright on their compositions
-
or were confident either that the work would pass into the public domain
-
or that law would not intrude upon the practice of composition,
-
because it was assumed that there was an area within which law wouldn't go -
-
wholesale appropriation, perhaps not, but certainly quotation, reference, parody and so forth
-
This is a theme that my colleague Jennifer Jenkins is going to be discussing this afternoon,
-
when she talks about the comic book we are writing, the history of musical borrowing.
-
The title is "Theft! A history of music".
-
So there is this paradox that on the one hand, we have the greatest practical availability
-
of information and information retrieval resources,
-
and on the other hand, that the law has, in 2 distinct ways that I am going to lay out
-
made, as a legal matter, made our collective culture, and particularly
-
our collective culture from the 20th century, made that legally inaccessible to us.
-
On the one hand, massive practical availablity.
-
On the other hand, the default being more closed than at any time in human history.
-
And I do want you to focus on that.
-
OK. So let me start with the way in which we have closed off our cultural archives.
-
For many of you, this is old-hat, I apologize for bringing it up,
-
but perhaps some of you need a review.
-
So, for much of the history of copyright, copyright terms were short.
-
They lasted, let's say 14 years, maybe a renewal of another 14 years.
-
So again, if you were looking around the audience, you could think:
-
"OK, that person writes a novel, come 2024, that's going to be in the public domain,
-
that song is going to be in the public domain, that movie is going to be freely available.
-
In the US, as late as 1978 - this seems actually almost inexplicable nowadays -
-
but as late as 1978, the copyright term was 28 years, renewable for another 28,
-
at the option of the author or copyright holder.
-
85% of authors did not renew their copyright. What that meant was
-
that 85% of the stuff went into the public domain at the end of 28 years.
-
So, as of 1978, add 28 years, 2006, you could expect all of that stuff,
-
or at least 85% of the movies, of the books, of the photos, of the albums, of the songs,
-
to be coming into the public domain.
-
The people who were still successfully extracting money
-
from their compositions, or their books or their photos, to be sure,
-
would renew their copyright, but the rest did not, because most works
-
exhaust all of their commercial viabiitiy within 5 years of their creation.
-
28 years, in fact, in many cases, is probably way too long.
-
There have been studies on the optimal copyright term,
-
including some by some excellent scholars here, which show that the optimal copyright term
-
in terms of balancing the dead weight loss to society and the need to incentivize authors
-
is somewhere arount 12 to 14 years. It turns out we had it right
-
at the beginning of the copyright system.
-
That was 1978 in the US, but now of course copyright lasts for life + 70 years -
-
95 years in the case of a corporate work for hire.
-
What does that mean? Well, the first thing is that the works that you create
-
are not going into the public domain until 70 years after you die,
-
which, given the age of the people in this audience, is a very long time indeed.
-
And that might be bad enough, but unfortunately and brilliantly, what we did was
-
we retrospectively applied those copyright terms extensions
-
to the works that have already been created.
-
And we also did a couple of other things. We abolished formalities.
-
In the old day, you actually had to write a copyright © on it to get a copyright.
-
You actually may have had to renew your copyright after some period of time.
-
We decided that that was far too onerous and instead, that all of this work
-
should automatically be copyrighted as soon as it is fixed in material form
-
and should be copyrighted for the life of the author + 70 years.
-
And we applied those rules retrospectively.
-
So imagine the British Library, an institution I'm very fond of,
-
and imagine the British Library configured as a large British flan or meringue cake,
-
or perhaps fruit cake, given what I'm going to talk about.
-
A large, delicious confectionery. And if you look at that and you say, OK
-
let us take the works that are, say, more than 28 years old, just to use that particular term.
-
Of those works that are more than 28 years old, how many are commercially available?
-
So you've got lots of stuff in the British Library, you have movies, you have songs,
-
you have books, you have - right, how many? And you'll find - it depends on the art form -
-
that the answer is between 3, 4 or 5%, depending on the art form.
-
So this stuff is just not commercially available. You can't go out and buy it.
-
Now e-bay has made that slightly better off,
-
because it means the second-hand market is better, but even that -
-
no new copies available. So the work simply cannot be bought, but it's still under copyright.
-
Now, sitting in the library, you can go and check it out, but of course there's only one copy there.
-
And in many cases, it turns out that actually, you can't check it out
-
for example, in the cases of the films, and some cases the music,
-
they say, well, we can't screen this because it might still be under copyright.
-
And that might be bad enough, because we're locking this thing up,
-
puportedly in order to incentivize creation and distribution.
-
We applied it retrospectively to a bunch of dead authors.
-
So, for those of you not well-versed in microeconomics,
-
the odds of copyright terms extension incentivizing dead authors is relatively low.
-
(audience laughs)
-
We've done experiments on this, and there were some promising -
-
Madame Blavatsky had some promising kind of spirit-level medium
-
contacts, some claim that the Ouija board might have made something,
-
but actually, relatively little activity.
-
Presumably, therefore, we just need to give them more copyright,
-
on the theory that if they didn't produce whithin 50 years being dead,
-
if we just give them 70, that might be the necessary dose.
-
So, they aren't going to produce anymore, and their works aren't commercially available,
-
which is somewhat of a shame. But now the true tragedy:
-
the majority of our collective culture are orphan works.
-
Not little Dickensian waifs sent up chimneys, but rather works whose copyright holder
-
is either unfindable, or unidentifiable, or both. Now what that means
-
is that if you go to this library and you say: "OK, I love this book, it's fabulous,
-
I'd like to do a new edition for university students, I think that they can really learn from this.
-
And I'm happy to pay: I'll pay a licensing fee or whatever. Who do I contact?"
-
"Well, we don't know." "cause I will... OK. Well there must be some way, obviously.
-
I'm a good person, I want to pay the money. There must be some way for me to do this."
-
Well no, there isn't, actually, a way to do it, because copyright is a strict liability system,
-
which probably makes those of you with BDSM tendencies
-
get all kind of tingly, a strict liability not in the sense of a disciplinarian
-
with a birch rod, but rather in the sense that being a good person and trying really hard
-
to find the person is no excuse for copyright violation. You may not reprint that work,
-
you may not show that movie, you may not translate that poem or stage that play,
-
though you want desperately to go out there and pay, and though, in all likelihood,
-
the author, if he or she could be found, doesn't care a bit, or would be delighted
-
to have the work out there. Now, this is what librarians call 20th c. black hole.
-
The nature of black holes is, you may remember, that they are very dense and that they suck things in
-
and in the end, sucking in things including light, and that nothing escapes from them.
-
Copyright with the retrospective term extension [aside: I can see a couple of people going "Well, actually I ....
-
....which is one of the delights about speaking to a geek audience, I just love it - Copyright - You know who you are"]
-
Copyright sucks in our collective culture and some people do very well about this.
-
Gershwin's heirs are still reaping in royalties from "Rhapsody in Blue".
-
That's fabulous. But the vast majority of the works (2x) are not commercially available
-
and, in fact, no copyright holder can be found.
-
This is particularly true in the case of informal culture.
-
Think of all those home movies, a fascinating source of information for documentarians, eh?
-
But do you have a clearance? Who would possibly object to be showing this grainy home movie
-
of life in the segregated South? No one is going to care, you know,
-
but "Sorry, what do we get here, this is not pre-1923, the liability could be enormous,
-
we can't let you do it." What we've done - it's really quite striking - is cut off access
-
to our collective heritage in order not to benefit ourselves.
-
To be sure, the 4 or 5% of people whose works are still valuable after 28 years,
-
or the 1% of people whose works are still valuable after 56 years
-
or the vanishingly small slice of that cake I asked you to imagine the raisinous aroma
-
that drifts out if you talk about after 100 years, they indeed are benefitting.
-
But we lose everything else, even though it doesn't make any economic sense.
-
So, unfortunately there is already a Boyle's law by one of my ancestors, I gather:
-
it's a perfect academic law, it dealt with the fact that hot hair tends to expand -
-
(audience laughs)
-
But now, here's Boyle's way of analyzing a law. You can see how truly messed up
-
a regulatory system is, a system regulating a particular area,
-
by looking at it and saying: "Show me something which clearly screws us up,
-
which clearly imposes massive dead weight cost on society,
-
without imposing commensurate benefits, where we could clearly fix it
-
so that everyone would be better off, even the people who are currently benefitting from it,
-
and yet nothing gets done". Now, if nothing gets done, then you can tell that this is an impacted,
-
data-resistent, closed little world of regulation, because it would be so easy to do better.
-
So, I actually want to suggest quite seriously that Org Con run a competition.
-
The competition is for you to come up with a incredibly stupid, like room-temperature IQ -
-
talking centigrades here - room-temperature IQ theory for how we should reform copyright
-
which is just so stupid, so stupid it makes people's jaws drop.
-
(audience laughs, someone suggests ACTA (?))
-
Wait till we get to the end, it's even better. Not bad, though, I have to agree -
-
and keep it secret? No, no, that's not part of it - a jaw-droppingly silly reform plan.
-
But the reform plan has to be demonstrably far better than our current system,
-
even for the market incumbents. So let me just give you one example.
-
Supposing right now, we went out and said: "OK, let's identify all the people
-
whose work is still commercially valuable after, let's say, 56 years, right, whatever it is,"
-
and we'll say "OK, to all of you who were born on an even numbered year,
-
we will double the royalties you are currently getting,
-
and pay it all from the public fisc. And to all of you who were born on an odd numbered year,
-
we will triple your royalties and pay it all from the public fisc,
-
and everything else goes immediately into the public domain, all the other stuff.
-
So we get all of the rest of culture, right? Isn't that amazingly stupid?
-
But it's much better than our current system. You get the idea now?
-
(audience laughs and claps)
-
So I look forward to this. I really imagine some sort of fabulous Heath Robinson (? check)'s like
-
structure that this group could create that would show us just how bad copyright is.
-
What kinds of proposals are there? I'll just mention a few.
-
Orphan works legislation which would say, if a work is an orphan and you go through
-
a series of attempts to identify the author, then you should presumptively be OK,
-
you should get a kinf of safe harbor to use it, but then, if the author actually appears,
-
you have to take it down, something like that. These kinds of proposals have been put forward,
-
they've actually been introduced in numbers of parliaments,
-
there are very anaemic versions of them in a couple of countries. Canada, for example, has a version
-
which is better than nothing, but is still so limited as to be relatively useless.
-
But every attempt to do this ends up getting blocked, and as I said, gets blocked even though
-
it is not really helping even the market incumbents: it just basically makes them look bad
-
because in order to get their - keeping slices of the monopoly rent,
-
they have to put the rest of our collective culture off-limits.
-
So, I mean, this is a just a wonderful case to illustrate how messed up we are.
-
So this is one way in which we have made our collective culture legally unavailable to us
-
right at the moment when practically, we had this amazing tool for dissmination.
-
Just think for a moment about - remember my story about 1978 - imagine a world where
-
85% of everything produced 28 years or more before went immediately into the public domain,
-
where all of that stuff is in the public domain and all of it could be digitized,
-
where instead of the tiny little slice of the stuff that is commercially available from the British Library,
-
you instead can say, "Well, at least 85% of this stuff is free to use (?),
-
I'm just going to be able to click the link in the catalogue and view the book,
-
see the movie, get to translate something, etc. Imagine that world.
-
We could have had it, it wouldn't even have cost us anything,
-
because all we had to do was not to impose a stupid retrospective monopoly to get it.
-
And we gave it up without ever thinking about it. And that is actually quite sad.
-
Second way. These themes of the length of copyright and the granularity, both themes
-
that Jennifer Jenkins is going to be taking up, and how this has affected music specifically,
-
but I'm going to talk in more general terms.
-
The second one is the granularity of copyright, the level of cultural activity that it regulates,
-
like how atomic does it get? So this is a little harder to describe, because
-
you are describing not just law, that is to say the law in the books, the law in the cases,
-
the law in the statutes, but you are also talking about a set of business practices and assumptions.
-
We live now in a very weird world where on the one hand, people think that everything
-
ought to be freely available, that there should be no barriers to it, but everyone also assumes that
-
permission is always required. This is a weird sort of bipolarism in our attitudes towards permission.
-
How does this work? Well, what happens - Larry Lessig coined the term permissions culture for this -
-
is that there is an assumption that any piece of culture that might be copyrighted,
-
that we have to go out and ask for permission for it, no matter how small.
-
So in the comic book that we did on the effects of law on the documentary film industry,
-
we went out and found that documentarians were being told, often with no legal basis whatsoever,
-
that they had to do things like, for example, pay $10'000 to clear a cell phone
-
that rang in the back of a shot that was being taken on a documentary on ballroom dancing
-
because the cell phone played the theme tune for Rocky, which is still under copyright.
-
The documentarian actually wanted to keep it in, because it was an Italian-American family,
-
she thought it really kind of brought out an aspect of their relationships,
-
and she was told $10'000, and when she talked to us, she was delighted she had managed to negotiate it
-
down to $5'000. Now, for those of you who are wondering, there is no legal basis for this claim whatsoever,
-
if you said that you need to pay a licensing fee in order to do this, clearly a fair use under
-
American copyright law, you fail your copyright exam right then, don't even go into the exam room,
-
you know, you're done, goodbye. We probably shouldn't have admitted you to law school
-
in the first place. It is utterly ridiculous but it has become the norm in the industry,
-
because the insurance agencies who function as the gate-keepers for film distribution
-
have simply decided that everything must be cleared.
-
And luckily, there are some dozen people here who are trying to educate film makers
-
- that was our comic book - or to actually get them together and come up
-
with collective statements of what they think the law should be, how fair use should be applied.
-
There's great work done by American universities there.
-
But this is just an area where no one thinks that we get more or better documentary films,
-
more or better movies because, when a camera flashes across a tapestry or a painting
-
or a cell phone plays in the background, or God forbid, and this one is even stupider,
-
a person with a Nike swoosh hat (? check) walks across the scene
-
and they were told they had to pay for this - false - because it was copyrighted - false -
-
and in fact that every logo in all movies had to be earbrushed (? check) out, also ludicrous.
-
No one thinks this gives us more or better culture. And remember, copyright is actually - hard to believe
-
- supposed to fulfill a goal, which is to incentivize the production and dissemination of culture.
-
And this is something that's applying across lots of areas.
-
Again, a lot of this is just misinformation. It's worth going and sort of talking to people who teach
-
in your high schools, and find out what they think the law is. It's really fascinating.
-
It's sort of like, you know, what you were told about sex in the playground
-
when you were - OK, in my case, 10 in your case probably 4 -
-
(audience laughs)
-
Something to do with the belly buttons rubbing together makes the baby,
-
but if you jump up and down, not so much, except on a Thursday.
-
This is exactly the kind of stuff I was told. I went to a lovely, very earnest group of teachers
-
who were training North Carolina high school teachers on how to use technology
-
and were also thus the source of information about the law.
-
And one person in the group said "Well, we know that you are not allowed
-
to link to a website without permission, because that's the internet, which is in the law.
-
And we know that under fair use, you can quote a cell from an Excel spreadsheet, but my question is,
-
what if you're not using Excel?
-
(audience laughs)
-
I've been a teacher for a long time, but I didn't think that there would be question
-
that would stun me by being so thoroughly disconnected from reality
-
that I couldn't - it's like, I remember taking drugs that made the world seem this way,
-
but it's been a long time. (audience laughs and claps)
-
Richard Feynman had a great line in response to a physics paper, it's like:
-
"This paper is so stupid it isn't even wrong." (audience laughs)
-
OK. So my point is that in these 2 weird ways, right at the moment when we have this fabulous
-
technology of accessibility and dissemination, we have made our culture inaccessible,
-
inaccessible reaching back in time, unnecessarily locking up which is commercially unavailable,
-
and which in many cases has no author. Inaccessible latitudinally, across our culture,
-
because we are being asked for permission to quote tiny, tiny fragments: 3 notes sampled in a song,
-
for example. And for those of you who are interested, the book that Jim mentioned,
-
the Public Domain, which you can download for free, of course, has an analysis of how this played out
-
in Ray Charles's music for example. But I want to skip over that,
-
because I want to leave enough time for questions.
-
So, now the question is, what is to be done? What I am describing is, I think, something that
-
doesn't make sense, really, from anyone's point of view.
-
To be sure, the people whose copyright got extended and who are still making money from them
-
like their copyright terms extension. They think that their monopoly is not the second irruption
-
of the Goths and Vandals, but rather something that they deserve, because they,
-
or their heirs, more likely, or their corporate assigns (? check) even more likely,
-
actually created something of culture. And fair enough. But all the other stuff
-
that is commercially unavailable orphan works, it just makes no sense to lock it up
-
because you just can't come up with a reason, right?
-
And as for the claims of the granularity of culture, I mean, is there anyone who seriously says:
-
"No, with all these mazes of permissions fees and this fabulous full employment guarantee
-
for the people Boyle educates, to sit there painstakingly checking off every piece
-
of created culture and saying "Yeah, yeah, oh no, look look look, there's a picture in the background
-
that needs to be cleared or erased", which is often the case. A lot of the documentaries you see
-
are fantasies, because they accidentally included something that was copyrighted,
-
and so the film maker has to wash it out and replace it with something that never happened.
-
Kind of Brave New World, this, isn't it?
-
So what is to be done?
-
One possibility, suggested by the idea of the paradox I started out with is to say:
-
"To hell with it. The law is just stupid. Let's just ignore it. Let's just use technology to do
-
whatever we want with copyrighted culture.
-
We'll share the all the files we want to, and to hell with you.
-
We'll put all the books online, we'll make our movies, we'll take fragments of your stuff
-
if we want to and you can't stop us and it'll all be up on YouTube,
-
at least until the notice and take down request comes in."
-
And that's certainly a response that we see out there.
-
I am a stodgy sort in many ways, but in this way particularly, that I don't like ideas
-
for a continuation of our culture that depend entirely on a) lawlessness
-
and b) the continued viability of particular free technologies which are constantly changing,
-
constantly being reingeneered, and constantly being subject to ever greater regulation.
-
So to me, that seems like a thin reed to put our hopes in. And, as I said, I actually think
-
that the basic ideas of copyright are good ones. I think that the basic ideas,
-
not the absurdly long versions we have, not the absurdly granular versions we have,
-
actually I think that the basic idea is rather a sound one.
-
And to be honest, I think that the people who have given it its current hypertrophied form
-
have actually really harmed themselves in one distinct way, which is
-
they have turned an entire generation of people into those who are either guilty law-breakers
-
or joyful lawbreakers, but lawbreakers nevertheless.
-
And if you think that doesn't matter, consider the last time you saw someone
-
who desperately wanted to park not in a handicapped zone, when they would have double-parked in a heartbeat.
-
Because it's wrong. Right? And when you give up the idea that breaking the law is wrong,
-
which is, i think, what an entire generation has done, then you lose a very powerful battle.
-
And I actually think that was a mistake, an enormous mistake that the cultural industries,
-
in their pursuit of ever longer copyright terms and ever more rapacious demands for licensing fees,
-
have really shot themselves in the foot.
-
And I think it's people like me who are actually the defenders of copyright.
-
So digital lawlessness or technological workaround certainly is going to be part of our world,
-
but I don't think it's a way of solving this problem.
-
It particularly isn't a solution when what you need is collaboration from large and stodgy organizations
-
full of very well-meaning people who work according to rules,
-
like libraries, for example.
-
I love librarians, I really do love librarians, I went to a conference in Argentina where I said that
-
librarians were my heroes and that I regretted only that there were no place in popular culture
-
where they were celebrated as they deserved, that there was no iconic librarian that we could turn to.
-
I thought that this was dreadful, and I was upbraided seriously after the meeting
-
by a coterie of female librarians from Brazil and Argentina,
-
who said that the story of the repressed but sexy librarian in the porno movie
-
was one dear to their hearts. And how dare I disrespect it?
-
So I apologized for that omission.
-
So what else can we do?
-
Well, there's actually quite a lot that can be done with private axe (? check) and workarounds.
-
Creative Commons is such a workaround. Creative Commons tries to deal with
-
the no work, absent conscious choice by a creator, will be available to you to build upon,
-
to say: "OK, let's make the conscious choice part really easy, really, really easy.
-
And let's also make the legal accessibility of something, something that machines can figure out,
-
something that is searchable on Google.
-
That's a private workaround. The default of the law was: lock everything up,
-
so when we founded Creative Commons, we actually went to the copyright office and said:
-
"OK, we want a way for people to make their work free. What's your prefered method for creators
-
who choose to put their work in the Public Domain?" And they said: "We don't provide that service,
-
because we are about locking stuff up, not actually allowing authors to share their materials."
-
So that's the kind of workaround.
-
Google Books is a kind of workaround. For all of the criticisms made of it, this is an attempt to say:
-
"OK, let's see if we can actually make some of this material available online."
-
And the critics of Google Books - and there was very fierce criticism
-
particularly based on some of the potential monopolistic aspect - I think
-
miss 2 fundamental points. The 1st is that it's very hard for people to imagine
-
how dumb our system is, until they get to see what they have given up because of the choices we've made.
-
And if you can suddenly say: "You mean that I can search inside books? That's amazing!"
-
True story: one of my students was working on a research paper,
-
and he comes in with this research paper. It's quite good, but he has missed this enormous
-
chunk of material about which 3 very good monographs have been written.
-
And I say: "You need to go back and look at this, because..."
-
"Well, I didn't find that, it's in a book!" And it actually took a long time for me ...
-
what does he mean, it's in a book? And then I realized that to his generation,
-
a complete flip had occurred. Since Gutenberg, we have assumed that the book
-
was the realm of accessible culture, right? You wrote stuff down, so that it wouldn't vanish forever,
-
like the oral lore. And within the space of a generation,
-
the book had become the symbol of total inaccessibility.
-
"How do you expect me to find that? It was written down in a book!
-
I can't be expected to look inside a book!"
-
I mean, this is sort of as if I had asked him to go do research in medieval English, you know,
-
sort of like "I don't run that!"
-
So, workarounds. In a way, the NIH, the National Institutes of Health's, open access mandate
-
which requires that NIH-funded research be placed under Creative Commons licenses,
-
is such a workaround. Copyright locks stuff by default, the publishers want to lock,
-
particularly the commercial ones, the NIH founders, and this has been done in the EU also,
-
say "No: if we are actually going to fund the science, it ought to be publicly accessible,
-
not just to the Mark I Eyeball, but to the forces of digital mining,
-
that could actually allow us to aggregate and rework our science in new ways."
-
That's a private workaround, in this case, a state workaround. But it's an initiative by the state
-
to flip the default set either by industry practice or legal rule. And then, there is law reform, our final possibility.
-
And this is where institutions like Org Con come in. Now, you might say, after the experience of
-
the Digital Economy Bill, now Act: "I'm not so sure how this whole law reform thing
-
is going to play out." You might say: "I see enormous resistence to any kind of
-
sensible, balanced, civil liberties' respecting proposal, particularly in anthing that has
-
an intellectual property label attached to it."
-
And you would have reason for that skepticism.
-
I however have a - I hoarded some optimisim during the Dot Com boom, there was a lot going around,
-
(audience laughs)
-
Being a Scot, I thought: "I'll put it under the mattress!"
-
I will now bring it out. It's a little dusty.
-
The optimism is this: something amazing has happened in the past 10 years.
-
It won't seem amazing to any of you who haven't studied the way that intellectual property was (? check)
-
But for the first time, we have actually started looking at data in order to figure out
-
whether not the regulations are good or bad.
-
Now, lest you get wildly enthusiastic, let me quickly say, we don't then do anything about it.
-
So there are a couple of really interesting examples. The Gowers Review,
-
the Gowers Review in the UK really did a fabulous, serious, balanced job
-
of doing an economic analysis of retrospective copyright terms.
-
Their conclusion: "Retrospective copyright terms extensions are never justified."
-
Right? It was very easy, you know, a good academic paper lead up to it: easy conclusion.
-
The European Union looked at the effects of the Database Directive.
-
"We have a Database Directive in the EU - is it helping? No!
-
Is it raising costs to consumers? Yes! Is it generating more databases than in the US? No!
-
Is their industry going faster without a Database Directive than ours with it? Yes!
-
What shall we do?"
-
(audience laughs)
-
It's on the tip of my tongue. Oh, keep it, that's right, that's what we did.
-
They actually gave 3 options, the 1st was repeal it in a very useful way,
-
the 2nd was repeal it in a milder way
-
and the 3rst was keep it, and we kept it.
-
But the point is that this has actually begun. Data has begun to enter the debates.
-
And I'm a boring guy, I'm all about the data. If the data showed
-
that extending copyright term brought fabulous new influxes of culture,
-
I'd say "OK, great!" But the data doesn't show that, of course. It shows exactly the reverse.
-
And the 2nd thing is organizations like this. Because, again, for the first time,
-
intellectual property has become something that both affects people -
-
it used to be really hard for a human being to break a copyright law,
-
you know, you needed a printing press, right? Or a movie studio.
-
And now, you know, the instruments of your legal violations sit on everybody's lap -
-
like, you are copyright actors, copyright affects you, whether you like it or not.
-
But you also are copyright re-actors and copyright anti-actors, agitators.
-
You are people who actually engage in the public debate. To be sure, it's a beginning.
-
But the fact that both human beings and actual attention to evidence
-
have begun to enter the debate is something that my carefully ordered little piece of optimism
-
finds very cheering. Thank you very much.
-
(applause)
-
You are to kind. So, questions? Is there a microphone protocol? There is always a microphone protocol.
-
I've alway longed to get one of these like (rocket sound).
-
The gentleman all the way at the very back, sorry, it's always that chap. Meet her halfway.
-
Spirit of compromise is not dead.
-
Q: Hello, I loved your point about the fundamental shift that happens
-
when we start thinking that breaking the law is OK.
-
Clearly, there is some kind of pragmatic balance with the whole notion of civil disobedience and
-
the need to acknowledge that some laws need breaking as an act of conscience.
-
How do we go about kind of moderating and constructing a dialogue around that,
-
that doesn't turn us into kind of clumsy anarchists, but actually, we form an ideology
-
that enables us, and use it as a progressive process for changing the law?
-
Boyle: That's a great question. I think - the sad answer is that very, very, very little
-
of digital law-breaking is done in what I think of as the fundamental civil disobedience tradition,
-
the first part of which is - remember that you acknowledge that you are breaking the law,
-
you are completely open about it and you say: "I believe this law is unjust, and I invite the state
-
to inflict its violence or its imprisonment on my body, because I will testify by my actions
-
that this is wrong. This lounge car should not be segregated, so I'm going to sit down.
-
And I'm not sitting down saying, 'Hey, I hope they don't notice me.' right?
-
It's like, I'm not sitting down saying - I'm not lying down in front of the train
-
because I hope they won't notice as it goes along in India, right?
-
I'm actually saying: "No, I testify by my actions this is wrong."
-
Some actions are like that - I can think of some programers, for example,
-
who have done that very consciously, I think of librarians sort of making a very conscious stand,
-
but most, unfortunately, is much more like speeding and hoping you don't get caught.
-
And so I think, as a result, the sort of civil libertarian tradition isn't there
-
and my analysis of people is that they deem this as a law which they may think it has a moral basis
-
or not, they think that this moral basis is eroding.
-
But they do think it's a law and they don't think that they are in any way noble resisters.
-
They just think, I'm getting these songs for free.
-
And I don't think that action in itself builds a movement,
-
and I don't think it's particularly admirable either.
-
Over there? Thank you.
-
Question: Related to the last speaker, there is a precedent for laws being struck down
-
so (check) the cause, as they were criminalizing huge portions of the population.
-
And I believe the ID cards during World War II were finally struck down well after the war
-
permanently, because they were criminalizing a huge proportion of the population.
-
.... (check) then, don't you think?
-
Boyle: That's a very good point. I think the answer is that I see no likelihood that
-
that is going to happen here. I see, in fact, exactly the opposite. I think the Digital Economy Bill
-
is one move to the opposite, which is, since you are all lawbreakers, we're just going to have
-
to increase the level of control. So, it's completely a different response.
-
And the 2nd thing I think that makes it inapposite, sadly, in some cases,
-
although as I said, I actually support the copyright laws, is that the current system is one
-
where there obviously is going to be a level of leakiness in copyright enforcement.
-
There has always been a level of leakiness in copyright enforcement.
-
It used to be that we thought some of the leakiness was just OK, like we just didn't imagine
-
a copyright-regulated private behavior. L. Ray Patterson has a very good article on this.
-
It just neve occurred to anybody that copyright came into the private spnere.
-
And then there was another round way, we said "you know, this is probably technically illegal
-
but no one is going to fuss about it."
-
And what we've done instead was to move to an area where we say:
-
"OK, there is a percentage of copyright violation, let's say it's whatever percentage you want to say,
-
30%, 50%, 20% of the market. And my job, as an industry rep is basically
-
to get the state to drive that down to as close to zero as possible.
-
But acknowledging that it's never going to be zero, so asymptotically moving towards greater control.
-
For those 2 reasons, sadly, I think the kind of coming to our senses - another example is the blue laws
-
in the US, which criminalized sexual activities beyond the missionary position.
-
Still on the books in Massachussets as far as I know. And, so far as I can tell, not observed
-
by all of the population. (audience laughs)
-
Long before the Supreme Court struck laws like that down as an infringement of personal liberty,
-
the government had effectively started saying "this is ridiculous, we're not going to enforce it."
-
But that's not the way we're looking at our copyright laws.
-
Largely, I would say, one addition, because we lump in things, the ludicrous enforcement of copyright
-
against the thing that is commercially unavailable and you know, you can't find the owner,
-
with the copying of .... (check) album in its entirety, and we say those two things are the same
-
when I would actually want to make a distinction between them and say,
-
one there might be an argument for saying it's illegitimate, the other not.
-
Question: can I just ask, how many people in here would say they got into this
-
by illegal file sharing or free downloading, or something like that?
-
OK - that kind of somehow - what I was trying to say is that you kind of rubbished the whole sort of notion of a
-
massive disobedience, the whole sort of argument of getting something for free,
-
it's just about getting something for free, as opposed to being ideological
-
but surely you see that people have come to it in a way like through their activity,
-
like through the Pirate Bay, those activities have lead to people actually scrutinizing the laws
-
and looking at them deeper. Do you not think that that has a value, at least initially,
-
if that's ultimately not the final solution?
-
Boyle: That's a good corrective. Let me change what I said. I do think there are people
-
who get into this. One of the things that I'd like to ask people, is like,
-
how did you come to be convinced that this was bad enough that something should be done about it?
-
And for a lot of people it's, they're doing their job, and the law is getting in their way,
-
and they go: "This cannot be right, what, what, they're telling me about the law, it's just so stupid,
-
this can't be right." Programmers, by the way, for those of you in the audience, this is you.
-
I have had so many conversations with - "Well, that's just stupid!" "Right, yes, I understand"
-
"No, but it's stupid!" "I understand the meaning of the word 'stupid', and also the word 'this'
-
and I'm pretty clear on the whole conjugation of 'to be'. But nevertheless, it is the law."
-
"But it's just stupid!" And actually, it's a powerful disproof, I guess, of solipsism,
-
because if their disbelief could have caused the law to wink out of existence -
-
(audience laughs)
-
then it would have done, so massive was that disbelief.
-
(audience claps)
-
But yes, you're right. I do think that some people get into it in that way.
-
What I was saying was that I don't think that it's the case for the majority of people.
-
I think that for the majority of people, it's like, 'what file sharing system do you use?' you know,
-
'how do you get your stuff - isn't there something about turning off the uploads
-
and then they won't sue you', and that's the extent of the legal analysis.
-
But I take your point, that's not everyone. Good corrective.
-
The gentleman right behind, and then - I'll try to keep my answers shorter
-
Question: The last time I looked, the cases, the judgments on defenses
-
against infringement, whether that's satire or fair use, they were all over the place.
-
It's pretty unpredictable,, depending which court you're in, which jurisdiction you're in,
-
what the nature of the case is. Do you have any ideas about some, as it were, revised concept
-
which could actually bring some harmonious predictability to those differences?
-
Boyle: It's a great question. It requires a significant legal disclaimer,
-
which is, the nature of fair use or fair dealing varies subtantially by legal system -
-
a point you're making. So what I could say about fair use in the United States doesn't hold
-
for fair dealing in the UK, which is much more on a sort of list-like basis,
-
in the US, it's more a set of factors. People like me love those sets of factors
-
because they have been able to adapt to very new technologies: the courts did actually very well
-
in dealing with computer software. They made a series of decisions.
-
Copyright could have screwed up computer software totally,
-
they made a series of decisions, saying for example, decompilation for purposes of re-ingeneering
-
is fair use. Very, very good decisions, and that was those factors that let them do that.
-
The down side, though, is that you look at them and ask, what does this mean?
-
And that's why we did a comic book on fair use, so that people could - it's called "Bound by Law",
-
you can download it - so that people be able to understand it.
-
Is there a real alternative? Yes. There actually is, and we have a concrete example of it.
-
Believe it or not, it comes from ICANN, Internet Committee on Assigned Names and Numbers.
-
The domain registration grievance procedure, the procedure by which you say:
-
'You can't use this domain name, because you're saying you're Bruce Springsteen
-
and you're actually not, and then you go and deal with this in front of an arbitrator,
-
you don't need a lawyer. It's quite fast, it doesn't work perfectly, but it's very low-cost
-
and it's very quick, and most of the decisions have actually been pretty good.
-
Now one could imagine, perhaps in conjunction with something like the notice and take down provisions
-
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or the equivalent procedings
-
in the European Copyright Directive, one could imagine a kind of adjunct, where you say,
-
if you're disputing, you say: "No, this isn't fair use", you get to go in front of an arbitrator,
-
make your case. Organizations like this, I'm sure, would provide fabulous guides for people.
-
I think it might be in the interest of the companies, in fact, to have a fairly, pretty good
-
working definition of what counts as fair uses or fair dealings or remixes of their songs or movies.
-
And it would be low-cost, and it would give definite answers,
-
and over time, develop a kind of common law. I think it's a really good idea and of course, that's one
-
for which there is absolutely no interest, as far as I can tell, in pursuing in any legislative body.
-
Sorry, the gentleman down here, and then that gentleman - I apologize.
-
Question: Thanks. I recently went to see Peter Jenner talk. He used to be the manager for
-
The Clash and Pink Floyd and all of that. And he said, if I can just quote from him:
-
"if we could get £1 /month from every person in this island for music it get,
-
it's very close to the current value of recorded music. We have to start thinking radically,
-
and we have to stop thinking about copyright law and how we can adjust it,
-
we have to think about how to rebuild copyright law in a digital realm where you can't stop copying,
-
get rid of exclusive rights and get into remuneration rights.
-
I do recognize that my attack on copyright is a brutal attack on property rights and on capitalism,
-
but the speed and the fundamental nature of the change is so great that it requires really radical,
-
really serious thinking." What's your view on that particular perspective?
-
Boyle: I think it's definitely something we should be pursuing.
-
Terry Fisher - William Fisher, Terry Fisher's friend, has a book called
-
"Promises to keep", which details systems exactly like this. Something based on levies,
-
maybe it would be on top of your broadband bill, maybe it would be based on number of downloads and so forth,
-
and basically, he says: "Let's get rid of this, let's just get rid of the copyright system,
-
let's just tackle on basically have an "all you can drink, all you can eat" procedure.
-
There's a lot of opposition to it, there are some real dangers.
-
One thing is, if you're trying to reward artists in proportion to downloads, then you have to know
-
who's downloading and how much. And if you don't want spoofing,
-
which of course you would get, then that gets you into quite intrusive monitoring
-
of what people are doing, ironically, to get away from the copyright system, you end up
-
doing some of the same things. So there are real dangers,
-
but I think it should definitely be on the table, and the fact it's not on the table is, I think,
-
very unfortunate. Sadly, the proposals that record companies like is:
-
"I like the bit about the revenue stream. I like that bit. That's a good bit. I didn't like the bit
-
about getting rid of the exclusive rights." So their prefered solution is
-
"Keep everything we'e got AND tack a new levy system on as well."
-
And that might be an unfortunate result of this procedure.
-
But I think it's worth pursuing.