Problem connecting to Twitter. Please try again.
Problem connecting to Twitter. Please try again.
Problem connecting to Twitter. Please try again.
Problem connecting to Twitter. Please try again.
Problem connecting to Twitter. Please try again.
Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge
-
0:00 - 0:04Lawrence Lessig: Thank you very much. It's extremely cool to be here.
-
0:06 - 0:09It's just about as cool as when I spoke at Pixar.
-
0:09 - 0:12I think of these two as being highlights of my career.
-
0:12 - 0:15So, thank you very much for having me.
-
0:17 - 0:22I have two small ideas I want to use as an introduction to an argument,
-
0:23 - 0:27about the nature of access to scientific knowledge in the context of the internet,
-
0:28 - 0:33and use that argument as a step towards a plea about what we should do.
-
0:33 - 0:36So here is the first idea.
-
0:36 - 0:39I want to call it the "White-effect".
-
0:40 - 0:46And I name that after Justice Byron White, justice of the US Supreme Court,
-
0:46 - 0:50appointed by John F. Kennedy - there he is in 1962
-
0:51 - 0:57- famous before that as 'Whizzer' White on the Yale University football team.
-
0:58 - 1:00When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he was a famous liberal,
-
1:02 - 1:07renowned liberal, the only appointee that John Kennedy had to the Supreme Court.
-
1:07 - 1:15But 'Whizzer' White grew old, and he is probably most famous for an infamous opinion,
-
1:16 - 1:19which he penned on behalf of the Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick,
-
1:19 - 1:24an opinion where the Supreme Court upheld the Criminalization of Sodomy laws,
-
1:24 - 1:28with the passage: 'Against this background, to claim that a right to engage
-
1:28 - 1:34in such conduct' - homosexual sodomy - 'is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"
-
1:34 - 1:39or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.'
-
1:40 - 1:43Now, this is what I want to think of as the "White Effect".
-
1:43 - 1:51To be a liberal or a progressive is always relative to a moment, and that moment changes,
-
1:51 - 1:56and too many are liberal or progressive no more.
-
1:58 - 2:00So, that's the "White effect". Here is the second idea.
-
2:00 - 2:05The Harvard Gazette is a kind of propaganda publication of Harvard University,
-
2:05 - 2:08it talks about all the happy things at Harvard.
-
2:08 - 2:13So here's an article that it wrote, about an extraordinary macro-economist,
-
2:13 - 2:18Gita Gopinath, who has just come to Harvard, received tenure last year
-
2:18 - 2:21and is one of the most influential macroeconomists in the United States right now.
-
2:22 - 2:25This article talks about her work and her research, and at the very end,
-
2:26 - 2:27there is this puzzling passage, where it says:
-
2:28 - 2:33'Still, the shelves in her new office are nearly bare, since, said Gopinath,
-
2:34 - 2:38"Everything I need is on the Internet now." '
-
2:40 - 2:43Right, that's the second idea. Here is the argument.
-
2:44 - 2:51So, copyright is a regulation by the State intended to change
-
2:51 - 2:58a regulation by the market. It's an exclusive right, a monopoly right,
-
2:58 - 3:01a property right granted by the State, which is necessary
-
3:01 - 3:04to solve an inevitable market failure.
-
3:05 - 3:10Now, by saying that it's necessary to solve an inevitable market failure,
-
3:10 - 3:14I'm marking myself as a pro-copyright scholar,
-
3:15 - 3:19in the sense that I believe copyright is necessary. Even in a digital age,
-
3:19 - 3:24especially in a digital age, copyright is necessary to achieve
-
3:25 - 3:28certain incentives that otherwise would be lost.
-
3:29 - 3:34But in the internet age, what we've seen as a fight about copyright,
-
3:34 - 3:39about the scope of copyright, waged most consistently in the context
-
3:39 - 3:44of the battle over artists' rights, in particular, in the context of music,
-
3:44 - 3:51where massive 'sharing' - sharing which is technically illegal - has lead to a fight
-
3:51 - 3:56fought by artists and especially by artists' representatives.
-
3:57 - 4:02And we from the Free Culture movement, have challenged the people
-
4:02 - 4:05who have been waging that fight.
-
4:05 - 4:09And they defend copyright in the context of that fight.
-
4:09 - 4:16But if we get above the din of this battle, the important thing to keep in mind
-
4:16 - 4:22is that both sides in this fight acknowledge that copyright is essential
-
4:22 - 4:24for certain creative work,
-
4:25 - 4:31and we need to respect copyright for that creative work.
-
4:31 - 4:36We, from the Free Culture movement, need to respect copyright for that work.
-
4:36 - 4:41We need to recognize that there is a place for a sensible copyright policy
-
4:41 - 4:44to protect and encourage that work.
-
4:46 - 4:48But, however - and here is the important distinction -
-
4:50 - 4:58Not only artists rely upon copyright, copyright is also relied upon by publishers,
-
4:58 - 5:00and publishers are a different animal.
-
5:02 - 5:08We don't have to be as negative as John Milton was when he wrote publishers are
-
5:08 - 5:11"Old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of books
-
5:11 - 5:15- men who do no labor in an honest profession, to [them], learning is indebted."
-
5:16 - 5:20We don't have to go quite that far to recognize why publishers are different,
-
5:20 - 5:24that the economic problem for publishers is different
-
5:24 - 5:28from the economic problems presented by creating.
-
5:29 - 5:34So who is copyright for? The publishers or the artists?
-
5:35 - 5:39Well, since the beginning of copyright in the Anglo-American tradition,
-
5:39 - 5:44the Statute of Anne of 1710, there has been this argument about whether copyright
-
5:44 - 5:46was intended for the publishers or the artists.
-
5:47 - 5:53When the Statute of Anne was originally introduced, it gave a perpetual term of copyright,
-
5:53 - 5:56which the publishers understood to be a protection for them.
-
5:56 - 5:59It was then amended to give just a limited term for copyright.
-
5:59 - 6:04Publishers were puzzled about that, because it wouldn't make sense to give a limited term
-
6:04 - 6:05if it was the publisher that was to be protected.
-
6:06 - 6:13In 1769, a court case in the context of Millar v. Taylor seemed to suggest that
-
6:13 - 6:17despite the limitations of the Statute of Anne, copyright was for ever.
-
6:18 - 6:25But in 1774, in a very famous case about this book, The Seasons, by James Thomson,
-
6:25 - 6:30the House of Lords held that copyright protected by the Status of Anne was limited,
-
6:31 - 6:35holding for the first time that works passed into a public domain.
-
6:35 - 6:40And for the first time in English history, works including Shakespeare
-
6:40 - 6:44passed into the public domain. And in this moment, we can say Free Culture was born.
-
6:45 - 6:50And it also clarified that copyright was not intended for the publisher.
-
6:50 - 6:53Even if it benefited the publishers, it was a creative right
-
6:53 - 7:00and author's right. Even if benefitting publishers, copyright was for authors.
-
7:02 - 7:07So, I remark these obvious borders about the scope of copyright,
-
7:07 - 7:14because we tend to forget them. We've been fighting a battle in the context of copyright
-
7:14 - 7:19where copyright is essential, and we are spending too little attention
-
7:20 - 7:24about a battle in a context where copyright is not essential.
-
7:25 - 7:31And I mean by that, in the context of science, in the context that Gopinath was speaking of
-
7:31 - 7:35when she talked about everything being available on the internet.
-
7:35 - 7:40And the consequence of failing to pay attention to this second context
-
7:40 - 7:44within which this battle is being waged is that there is a trouble here
-
7:44 - 7:45that too few see.
-
7:46 - 7:48So let's think about this claim that everything is on the internet now.
-
7:49 - 7:51What does that mean?
-
7:52 - 7:56Here is a particular example to evaluate what that means.
-
7:57 - 8:00Much of my work, these days, is focusing on corruption
-
8:00 - 8:03in the context of this institution, Congress.
-
8:04 - 8:07So let's say that we wanted to study, you wanted to study with me,
-
8:07 - 8:13corruption in this context. Go to Google Scholar and enter a search for campaign finance.
-
8:14 - 8:17Here are the top articles that would be listed from that search.
-
8:18 - 8:20So let's say you wanted to browse through these articles
-
8:20 - 8:26and get a sense of campaign finance and how it might be related to corruption in Congress.
-
8:27 - 8:30So here are the top 10 articles. This first one, a very famous one
-
8:30 - 8:33by my former colleague Pam Karlan and Sam Issacharof.
-
8:34 - 8:38You would find, to get access to this article, you'd have to pay $29.95.
-
8:39 - 8:43The second article, housed at JSTOR, you'd have to get through to get permission
-
8:43 - 8:47from the Columbia Law Review - not quite clear how you would do that.
-
8:47 - 8:52Third article, again, $29.95. The fourth article, protected by Questia,
-
8:52 - 8:59we learn that you can get a 1-day free trial to all of these Oxford University Press articles,
-
8:59 - 9:02you'd only have to pay when that day is over 99 dollars
-
9:02 - 9:03to continue for a year.
-
9:03 - 9:06Here is the 4th article again, protected by JSTOR.
-
9:06 - 9:10The 5th article, it's an economics article, so the price is right on the surface:
-
9:10 - 9:1210 dollars to purchase access to this article.
-
9:12 - 9:15Here's the 7th article, Columbia Law Review.
-
9:15 - 9:208th article, Columbia Law Review, 9th article, protected again by JSTOR,
-
9:20 - 9:2810th article, $29.95. So, how accessible is this information to the general public?
-
9:29 - 9:33Well, one of these you can get access to for free, at least one time only,
-
9:33 - 9:40One of them you can pay $10 for. 3 of them, $29.95, and 5 of them, terms unknown,
-
9:40 - 9:41protected by JSTOR.
-
9:42 - 9:46So, when Gopinath says "Everything I need is on the internet",
-
9:46 - 9:51what does she mean? What she means is if - and this is a big if -
-
9:54 - 9:58you're a tenured professor at an elite university or we could say a professor,
-
9:58 - 10:01or a student or professor in an elite university, or maybe
-
10:01 - 10:06a student or professor at a US university, if you are a member of the knowledge elite,
-
10:06 - 10:10then you have effectively free access to all of this information.
-
10:10 - 10:14But if you are from the rest of the world? Not so much.
-
10:15 - 10:17Now, the thing to recognize is we built this world,
-
10:18 - 10:24we built this architecture for access, these flows from the deployment of copyright,
-
10:24 - 10:31but here, copyright to benefit publishers. Not to enable authors.
-
10:31 - 10:35Not one of these authors gets money from copyright.
-
10:35 - 10:39Not one of them wants the distribution of their articles limited.
-
10:39 - 10:44Not one of them has a business model that turns upon restricting access to their work.
-
10:44 - 10:47Not one of them should support this system.
-
10:47 - 10:53As a knowledge policy for the creators of this knowledge, this is crazy.
-
10:54 - 10:55And the craziness doesn't stop here.
-
10:57 - 11:02So, my third child, this extraordinarily beautiful girl, Samantha Tess,
-
11:04 - 11:08when she was born, the doctors were worried she had a condition
-
11:08 - 11:12that would suggest jaundice. I had jaundice as a baby, so I didn't think it was serious,
-
11:12 - 11:18and I was told very forcefully by her doctor, this is extroardinarily serious.
-
11:19 - 11:23If this condition manifest in the dangerous condition, it would produce brain damage,
-
11:23 - 11:24possibly death.
-
11:25 - 11:29So, of course, we were terrified. I went home and I did what every academic did - does:
-
11:29 - 11:34I pulled everything I could from the web to study about what jaundice was
-
11:34 - 11:39and what the conditions were. Now, because I am a Harvard professor,
-
11:39 - 11:43of course, I didn't have to pay to get access to this information, but I just kept the tally.
-
11:43 - 11:48To get access to the 20 articles that I wanted access to was $435,
-
11:48 - 11:51for the ordinary human, not a Harvard professor. OK.
-
11:51 - 11:57So I gathered these articles and set them aside, believing this problem
-
11:57 - 11:59would not manifest itself in a serious way.
-
12:00 - 12:06But on her third day, she fell into a stupor, and we called the doctor,
-
12:06 - 12:09and the doctor was panciked and he said we had to get to the hospital immediately.
-
12:10 - 12:14So, at 3 o'clock in the morning, we trundled the baby up and raced to the hospital.
-
12:15 - 12:18We were sitting in the waiting room, and I brought the articles with me,
-
12:18 - 12:22because I wanted something to do, to distract me from the terror
-
12:22 - 12:24that my child had this condition.
-
12:24 - 12:28And I picked up the first of these articles, which is actually free,
-
12:28 - 12:31published on the web for free, at the American Family Physician,
-
12:31 - 12:33and I started reading about this condition.
-
12:34 - 12:37And I got to this table, a table that was going to describe
-
12:37 - 12:44when you should worry about whether the child would have too severe of this exposure.
-
12:44 - 12:46I turned the page, and this is what I found:
-
12:47 - 12:51"The rightsholder did not grant rights to reproduce this item in electronic media.
-
12:51 - 12:54For the missing item, see the original print version of this publication."
-
12:56 - 13:00And I had this moment of liberation from fear about my child,
-
13:00 - 13:04because I turned to fear about our culture. I thought, this is outrageous!
-
13:04 - 13:09The idea that we are regulating access down to the chart in an article
-
13:09 - 13:13that was posted for free to help, not doctors, but parents
-
13:13 - 13:15understand what this condition was.
-
13:15 - 13:19We are regulating access to parts of articles.
-
13:20 - 13:24Now here and throughout our architecture for access,
-
13:24 - 13:28we are building an infrastructure for this regulation.
-
13:28 - 13:32Think about the Google Books project, which is perfecting control down to the sentence,
-
13:32 - 13:35the ability to regulate access down to the sentence.
-
13:36 - 13:41By the way, I alway forget to tell this: the kid is fine, she didn't have jaundice,
-
13:41 - 13:44it is a complete non issue.
-
13:44 - 13:48But the point is, we are architecting access here, for what purpose?
-
13:48 - 13:54To maximize revenue. And why? Revenue to the artists?
-
13:54 - 13:57Revenues necessary to produce the incentive to create?
-
13:57 - 14:01Is this a limitation that serves any of the real objectives of copyright?
-
14:02 - 14:03The answer is no.
-
14:04 - 14:08It is simply the natural result of for-profit production
-
14:08 - 14:12for any good that we, quote, must have.
-
14:13 - 14:20As Bergstrom and McAfee describe in a really fantastic little bit of work,
-
14:20 - 14:24if you compare the cost per page of for-profit publishers
-
14:24 - 14:29and the cost per page of not-for-profit publishers in these different fields of science,
-
14:29 - 14:34it's a 4 and a half times factor difference cost per page.
-
14:34 - 14:40That is a function of different, of these having different objectives.
-
14:40 - 14:43One objective is to spread knowledge: that's the not-for-profit publishers,
-
14:43 - 14:48and one objective, to maximize profit: that's the for-profit publishers.
-
14:49 - 14:55Now, this architecture for access is beginning to build resistance.
-
14:56 - 14:58So, think about the story of JSTOR.
-
14:59 - 15:02JSTOR was launched in 1995, with an extraordinary amount of funding
-
15:02 - 15:08from the Mellon Foundation. That funding produced a huge archive
-
15:08 - 15:14of journal articles. So that there are now more than 1200 journals, 20 collections,
-
15:14 - 15:2053 disciplines, 303'000 issues, about 38 million pages in JSTOR archive.
-
15:22 - 15:24When this archive was launched, everybody thought it was brilliant.
-
15:25 - 15:28Everybody thought the access here was extraordinary.
-
15:28 - 15:33But today? There is increasingly criticism growing out there
-
15:33 - 15:36about how JSTOR makes its information accessible.
-
15:36 - 15:39We could think of it as a kind of "White effect".
-
15:39 - 15:44It was liberal when it was launched, but what has it become as it has grown old?
-
15:45 - 15:48So, for example, here is an article published in the
-
15:48 - 15:52California Historical Society Quarterly. It's 6 pages long.
-
15:52 - 15:57To get it, you have to pay $20 to JSTOR, this non-profit organization,
-
15:57 - 16:01leading Carl Malamud, who of course is famous for his Public Resources site,
-
16:02 - 16:04to tweet in the following way: "JSTOR is morally offensive.
-
16:05 - 16:09$20 for a 6-page article, unless you happen to work at a fancy school."
-
16:09 - 16:13Now, you might say, "This is a really important academic archive",
-
16:13 - 16:17but the question is whether this really important academic archive
-
16:17 - 16:20is going to become a kind of RIAA for the academy.
-
16:20 - 16:24Begging the question that the "White effect" always begs,
-
16:24 - 16:28whether we could do this better under a different set of assumptions.
-
16:29 - 16:34Now, of course the Open Access movement is the movement that was launched
-
16:34 - 16:37to try and do this better under different circumstances.
-
16:37 - 16:42Now, it has a long history, but its real push was inspired by
-
16:42 - 16:46a dramatic increase in the cost of journals.
-
16:47 - 16:52So, if this is a study between 1986 and 2004 by the American Research Libraries,
-
16:52 - 16:58this is the increase in inflation, this is the increase in the cost of serials,
-
16:58 - 17:02it's obvious that the market power of these publishers is being exploited,
-
17:03 - 17:09because the purchasers of these serials have no choice but to buy them.
-
17:09 - 17:15It's in part motivated by this cost concern, it's also motivated by a sense of unfairness.
-
17:16 - 17:18We do all the work, they get all the money, here.
-
17:19 - 17:23So the response to these two kinds of concerns has been two:
-
17:23 - 17:28#1 an open access self-archiving movement, where the push has been
-
17:28 - 17:31"Let's get as many things out there archived on the Web as we can,
-
17:31 - 17:34pre-prints and whatever we can get up, and make sure
-
17:34 - 17:39the Web can make them accessible" - and an Open Access publishing movement.
-
17:39 - 17:41Now, what's the difference between these two movements?
-
17:41 - 17:48The difference is licensing. Some "open" is "free", in the sense that Richard Stallman
-
17:48 - 17:53made famous by his quote: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price.
-
17:53 - 17:57To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech,
-
17:57 - 17:59not as in free beer."
-
18:00 - 18:06So, some aspect of the Open Access publishing is free as in free speech,
-
18:06 - 18:11some "open" is not. Some is just free as in: "You can download it freely,
-
18:11 - 18:16but the rights that you get from the download are just as broad
-
18:16 - 18:19as narrowly granted by some implicit copyright rule.
-
18:19 - 18:27Now, "free", as in licensed freely, has been the objective that the Science Commons project,
-
18:27 - 18:29which is a project that Creative Commons has been pushing,
-
18:29 - 18:35and pushing as part of a broader strategy for producing
-
18:35 - 18:38the information architecture that science needs, as they announce
-
18:38 - 18:41in their "Principles for open science". There are four principles here.
-
18:41 - 18:46The first is, there should be open access to literature, by which Science Commons says:
-
18:46 - 18:49you should be on the internet, literature "should be on the internet
-
18:49 - 18:53in digital form, with permission granted in advance
-
18:53 - 18:57to users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link
-
18:57 - 19:03to the full texts of articles, crawl them indexing, pass them as data to software,
-
19:03 - 19:05or use them for any other lawful purpose,
-
19:05 - 19:10without financial, legal or technical barriers other than those inseparable
-
19:10 - 19:12from gaining access to the internet itself."
-
19:12 - 19:15That's what "free", here, means.
-
19:15 - 19:18Second, access to research tools: there should be "materials necessary
-
19:18 - 19:22to replicate funded research - cell lines, model animals, DNA tools,
-
19:22 - 19:26reagents, and more - should be described in digital formats,
-
19:26 - 19:29made available under standard terms of use or contracts,
-
19:29 - 19:35with infrastructure or resources to fulfill requests to qualified scientists,
-
19:35 - 19:38and with full credit provided to the scientist who created the tools."
-
19:38 - 19:43#3 Data should be in the public domain. "Research data, data sets, databases,
-
19:43 - 19:44and protocols should be in the public domain."
-
19:44 - 19:46meaning no copyright restrictions at all.
-
19:47 - 19:49And 4, Open cyber-infrastructure:
-
19:49 - 19:53"Data without structure and annotation is an opportunity lost.
-
19:53 - 19:57Research data should flow in an open, public and extensible infrastructure
-
19:57 - 20:02that supports its recombination and reconfiguration into computer models,
-
20:02 - 20:04its searchability by search engines,
-
20:04 - 20:08and its use by both scientists and the taxpaying public.
-
20:08 - 20:11This infrastructure is an essential public good."
-
20:12 - 20:16Now, my view is, this the right way - you might think this is the left way -
-
20:16 - 20:22but it's the correct way to instantiate this Open Access movement.
-
20:22 - 20:26The values and the efficiency and the justice in this architecture
-
20:26 - 20:30are the right values, efficiency and justice for an Open Access movement.
-
20:30 - 20:34So let's call it, following Stallman, the Free Access Movement.
-
20:34 - 20:37And the critical question of the Free Access movement
-
20:37 - 20:41is the license that governs access to the information being provided.
-
20:41 - 20:44Does the license grant freedoms?
-
20:44 - 20:48And that, of course, was the motivation between the Public Library of Science -
-
20:48 - 20:51every one of their articles is published under a Creative Commons
-
20:51 - 20:53Attribution license, the freest license we have.
-
20:54 - 21:00And that is increasingly the practice, surprisingly, of the largest publishers,
-
21:00 - 21:03as described by this wonderful project housed here at CERN,
-
21:03 - 21:06which is studying Open Access publishing.
-
21:07 - 21:12This is the first of three stages to this project. When studying the large publishers,
-
21:12 - 21:16this study concludes that "Half of the large publishers use some version
-
21:16 - 21:21of a Creative Commons license. These seven publish 72% of the titles
-
21:21 - 21:24and 71% of the articles investigated.
-
21:24 - 21:31And of these, 82% use the freest license, cc-by, and 18% use cc-by-nc", non commercial.
-
21:32 - 21:39And that of course is an excellent report on the progress of this free access movement
-
21:39 - 21:40in the context of the largest publishers.
-
21:40 - 21:46But what's not excellent in this story is the other publishers here.
-
21:46 - 21:52For these other publishers, only 73% you can determine copyright status
-
21:52 - 21:5869% transfer the copyright to the publisher. Only 21 % of the articles
-
21:58 - 22:01have any Creative Commons license attached at all.
-
22:02 - 22:08Now, this is because these other publishers are using copyright as a means,
-
22:09 - 22:15a means to a non-knowledge ends, to a non-copyright ends.
-
22:15 - 22:18So, for example, they are using it to support the societies
-
22:18 - 22:21that might happen to be associated with publishing
-
22:21 - 22:24that particular journal, that society that might study
-
22:24 - 22:25one particular of science.
-
22:25 - 22:28That society, of course, is valuable, but what they are doing
-
22:28 - 22:31is using copyright to support that society.
-
22:31 - 22:37And the consequence of that strategy is to block access to all but the few.
-
22:37 - 22:40We don't achieve the objectives of the Enlightenment,
-
22:40 - 22:44we achieve the reality of an elite-nment, the elite-nment
-
22:44 - 22:48which describes the way in which we spread knowledge
-
22:48 - 22:51despite the ideals of the Enlightenment.
-
22:51 - 22:56And the point I'm emphasizing here is that it's for no good copyright reason.
-
22:57 - 23:02Now, the slowness inside of science to embrace this more broadly,
-
23:02 - 23:05especially among the smaller publishers, may surprise some,
-
23:05 - 23:09or maybe it doesn't surprise. The whole design of science
-
23:09 - 23:13is to be a fad-resistor, the idea is to have an infrastructure
-
23:14 - 23:17that avoids fads, and tradition then becomes the metric of what's right
-
23:18 - 23:19or of what's good in science.
-
23:19 - 23:25But I think it's time to recognize that Free Access, as in free, as in speech access
-
23:25 - 23:27is no fad.
-
23:27 - 23:33And it's time to push this non fad more broadly in the context of science.
-
23:34 - 23:39Now, just because I'm talking about how bad some area of science is,
-
23:39 - 23:43I don't mean to suggest that the arts is good, right?
-
23:43 - 23:46We have practices in the context of the arts that are just as bad, here.
-
23:46 - 23:51For example, think about a recent episode around YouTube.
-
23:52 - 23:55You know, we should not minimize the significance of YouTube
-
23:55 - 23:57in the infrastructure of culture right now.
-
23:57 - 24:00YouTube now has 43 different languages.
-
24:00 - 24:03There is more uploaded in one month on Youtube
-
24:04 - 24:08than was broadcast by the major networks in the United States
-
24:08 - 24:11over the last 60 years.
-
24:11 - 24:16Every single day, 6 new years of video gets uploaded to YouTube.
-
24:16 - 24:19There are 2 billion views of YouTube every single year.
-
24:19 - 24:24every single day, sorry. That's 40% increase over just the last year.
-
24:24 - 24:28And I've been famously a fan of this extraordinary site
-
24:28 - 24:32because I celebrate the kind of read-write creativity
-
24:32 - 24:34that I think YouTube has encouraged.
-
24:34 - 24:39And I got this sense of what we should think of as read-write creativity
-
24:39 - 24:41when I was reading testimony at this place
-
24:41 - 24:44by this man, John Philip Souza, in 1906.
-
24:44 - 24:49when he was - I didn't read it in 1906 but the testimony was given in 1906 -
-
24:49 - 24:52when Souza was testifying about this technology,
-
24:52 - 24:56what he called "talking machines".
-
24:57 - 25:00Now, Souza was not a fan of the talking machines.
-
25:01 - 25:02This is what he had to say about them:
-
25:03 - 25:06"These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development
-
25:07 - 25:08of music in this country.
-
25:08 - 25:11When I was a boy, in front of every house in the summer evenings
-
25:11 - 25:14you would find young people together singing the songs
-
25:14 - 25:16of the day or the old songs.
-
25:16 - 25:21Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day.
-
25:22 - 25:25We will not have a vocal chord left," Souza said,
-
25:25 - 25:28"The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution,
-
25:28 - 25:32as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."
-
25:35 - 25:36Now this is the picture I want you to focus on.
-
25:37 - 25:40This picture of "young people together, singing the songs of the day
-
25:40 - 25:41or the old songs".
-
25:41 - 25:47This is a picture of culture. We could call it, using modern computer terminology,
-
25:47 - 25:49a kind of read-write culture.
-
25:49 - 25:53It's a culture where people participate in the creation and the re-creation
-
25:53 - 25:55of their culture: in that sense, it's read-write.
-
25:56 - 25:59And the opposite of read-write creativity, then, we should call
-
25:59 - 26:04"read-only" culture. A culture where creativity is consumed
-
26:04 - 26:10but the consumer is not a creator. A culture, in this sense, that's top-down,
-
26:10 - 26:13where the vocal cords of the millions of ordinary potential creators
-
26:13 - 26:17has been lost, and lost, because, as Souza said,
-
26:17 - 26:23because of these infernal machines: technology, technology like this,
-
26:23 - 26:26or technology like this, to produce a culture like this,
-
26:27 - 26:31a culture which enabled efficient consumption, what we call "reading",
-
26:32 - 26:37but inefficient amateur production, what we should call "writing".
-
26:37 - 26:41A culture good for listening, but not a culture good for speaking,
-
26:41 - 26:45a culture good for watching, a culture not good for creating.
-
26:46 - 26:49Now, the first popular instantiation of the internet,
-
26:49 - 26:51long after you guys gave us the World Wide Web,
-
26:51 - 26:54but the first one people really paid attention to,
-
26:55 - 27:00around 1997 and 1998, was a read-only internet.
-
27:00 - 27:05So, Napster, which of course, built the largest music archive,
-
27:05 - 27:09is still a music archive of music created by others
-
27:09 - 27:13and the legal version, the iTunes Music Store, was an archive of the music
-
27:13 - 27:17created by others, that you could buy for 99 cents.
-
27:17 - 27:19These were technologies to enable access,
-
27:19 - 27:21but access to culture created elsewhere.
-
27:22 - 27:26But then, shortly in - after the turn of the century, I think,
-
27:26 - 27:28the internet became fundamentally read-write.
-
27:29 - 27:32People began taking, and remixing, and sharing
-
27:32 - 27:36their creativity on the internet, and YouTube was the platform for that.
-
27:36 - 27:41So, my favorite example, which I first saw on YouTube, is this:
-
27:41 - 27:46[Read my lips by: Atmo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhlHUTBgAMw]
-
27:51 - 27:59"Bush: My love, there's only you in my life,
-
28:00 - 28:04the only thing that's right.
-
28:07 - 28:15Blair: My first love: you're every breath that I take,
-
28:15 - 28:20you're every step I make.
-
28:21 - 28:29Bush: And I, I want to share
-
28:29 - 28:35Bush and Blair: all my love with you
-
28:35 - 28:39Bush: No one else will do.
-
28:42 - 28:44Blair: And your eyes
-
28:44 - 28:46Bush: Your eyes, your eyes
-
28:46 - 28:53Bush and Blair: they tell me how much you care for...
-
28:53 - 28:56announcer: remember to(?) take dictation"
-
28:56 - 29:00Lessig: OK. And then.more recently, I don't know if (?) many of you
-
29:00 - 29:02have seen this extraordinary site ThruYou.
-
29:02 - 29:05This is a site that takes content only from YouTube
-
29:05 - 29:10and remixes it to produce albums and videos. And this is his latest, you know.
-
29:10 - 29:12Voice: This is my mother:
-
29:12 - 29:16Mother: Howdy, howdy. OK.
-
29:16 - 29:20[plays a continuo on keyboard]
-
29:20 - 29:22Tenesan1 [see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J8sSXO9VWk ]
-
29:22 - 29:25Tenesan1: The song I'm going to sing, I wrote, is called "Green"
-
29:25 - 29:29because ... (?)
-
29:30 - 29:36I'm seing beauty created on the land
-
29:38 - 29:45On Earth the third day, producing all the plants
-
29:45 - 29:53Mother Nature created by the most high God
-
29:53 - 29:58I'm seeing beauty and it's green to me
-
29:58 - 30:04[other instruments enter]
-
30:04 - 30:09Spotting tranquillity, peace and restoration
-
30:11 - 30:19Check all the water travelling from roots
-
30:19 - 30:26Then you will see roots digging deep, building a strong foundation
-
30:26 - 30:33Then finally a stem shoots through
-
30:33 - 30:38I'm seeing beauty, it's green..
-
30:38 - 30:42Lessig: So this is then what I think of as a platform for read-write creativity.
-
30:42 - 30:45But then the second stage of this, I think is ultimately
-
30:45 - 30:47much more interesting. It's the way that this platform
-
30:47 - 30:49has become a platform for read-write communities,
-
30:49 - 30:54which means creativity, which then gets remixed by others
-
30:54 - 30:57in response to the initial read-write creativity.
-
30:57 - 30:58So here is an example. This video:
-
30:58 - 31:03[ "Crank That" by Soulja Boy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLGLum5SyKQ + Superman:] You Soulja Boy..
-
31:03 - 31:07I got a new dance fo you all called the soulja boy
-
31:07 - 31:10You gotta punch then crank back three times from left to right
-
31:10 - 31:16Aaah!
-
31:16 - 31:18Lessig: so that video inspired this video:
-
31:18 - 31:33[video 2] You Soulja Boy ...
-
31:33 - 31:36Lessig: which then inspired this video
-
31:36 - 31:52[Video 3] Soulja Boy ...
-
31:52 - 31:55Lessig: Well here is another example. I'm sure many of you remember
-
31:55 - 31:56these extraordinary movies by John Hughes,
-
31:56 - 31:59what we used to think of as the Brat Pack, until we knew
-
31:59 - 32:01that there was a Brat Pack before these guys.
-
32:01 - 32:04So this is the first bit of cultural,
-
32:04 - 32:06and I think here is the second.
-
32:06 - 32:10This is a music video by the band Phoenix, with their song Lisztomania:
-
32:11 - 32:17[Lisztomania: Phoenix' clip]
-
32:17 - 32:19Lessig (over clip): So classic music video style
-
32:19 - 32:23[clip continues]
-
32:23 - 32:25So sentimental
-
32:25 - 32:29Lessig: Somebody got the idea that they would take John Hughes' content
-
32:29 - 32:33and remix it with the music by Phoenix. They produced this:
-
32:34 - 32:51[remix]
-
32:51 - 32:52So sentimental
-
32:53 - 32:55not sentimental, no
-
32:55 - 32:57romantic not disgusting yet
-
32:57 - 33:02Darling, I'm down and lonely when with the fortunate is only
-
33:04 - 33:05I've been looking for something else
-
33:05 - 33:09Do let, do let, do let, jugulate, do let, do let, do
-
33:09 - 33:12Let's go slowly discouraged
-
33:12 - 33:19Distant from other interests on your favorite weekend ending...
-
33:19 - 33:23Lessig: Then somebody had the idea that they would make a local version
-
33:23 - 33:26of this remix video. So this is the Brooklyn version:
-
33:26 - 33:58[Brooklyn remix:]
-
33:58 - 34:01Lessig: And then San Francisco decided they'd like to copy:
-
34:01 - 34:29[San Francisco remix:]
-
34:29 - 34:32Lessig: And then Boston University decided they would copy:
-
34:32 - 34:59[Boston U remix:]
-
34:59 - 35:01Lessig: There are others, literally scores of these on the internet,
-
35:01 - 35:03from every place around the world.
-
35:03 - 35:05(1 sentence ????)
-
35:05 - 35:10every other place... these people doing the same kind of remix.
-
35:10 - 35:15The point to recognize is that this is then what Souza was romanticizing
-
35:15 - 35:19when Souza was talking about the young people getting together
-
35:19 - 35:20and singing the songs of the day or the old songs.
-
35:21 - 35:23But they are not singing the songs or the old songs
-
35:23 - 35:27in their backyard or on the corner, they are now singing them
-
35:27 - 35:30on this free digital platform that allows people to sing and respond,
-
35:30 - 35:33and respond again all across the world,
-
35:33 - 35:37in my view, important and valuable, in understanding
-
35:37 - 35:40how this kind of culture develops and spreads.
-
35:40 - 35:41Now, is it legal?
-
35:43 - 35:47Well, YouTube has just stepped into this battle, of whether it's legal.
-
35:47 - 35:50They've launched this Copyright School
-
35:50 - 35:52So I will give you a little bit of their copyright school.
-
35:52 - 36:11[video from http://www.youtube.com/copyright_school - original subtitled in ca 40 languages]
-
36:11 - 36:14"Everybody has really been looking forward to the new video
-
36:14 - 36:15"from Lumpy and the Lumpettes.
-
36:16 - 36:18"Even Lumpy.
-
36:23 - 36:28"Russell's a huge fan. He can't wait to tell all his friends about it.
-
36:29 - 36:33"'Hey, Russell, you didn't create that video!
-
36:33 - 36:36"'You just copied someone else's content.'"
-
36:36 - 36:39Lessig: OK, this first part is pretty standard,
-
36:39 - 36:41talking about copying people's content, uploading it,
-
36:41 - 36:43and even copying a live performance and uploading it.
-
36:43 - 36:46And that's fair, that's true, that's accurate in its statement
-
36:46 - 36:50of what copyright law is, and what I think copyright law should be.
-
36:50 - 36:52But I want to focus on their talk about remix,
-
36:52 - 36:55which might be confusing to you, and if you do, you should buy
-
36:55 - 36:57multiple copies of my book, "Remix" to understand what it's about.
-
36:57 - 37:00But here's YouTube's version of the story of remix
-
37:00 - 37:05[YouTube video cont.]
"'Oh, Russell! Your reuse of the Lumpy's content is clever, -
37:05 - 37:07"'but did you get permission for it?
-
37:07 - 37:10"'Mashups or remixes of content may also require permission
-
37:10 - 37:12"'from the original copyright owner, depending on whether or not
-
37:12 - 37:14"'the use is a fair use.
-
37:14 - 37:34"'In the United States [text shown onscreen is read very fast] ...
-
37:35 - 37:36"'...you should consult a qualified copyright attorney.'"
-
37:38 - 37:41Lessig: OK. "Consult a qualified copyright attorney"?
-
37:41 - 37:46These are 15-year olds. You're trying to teach 15-year olds
-
37:46 - 37:48how to obey the law, and what you do is you give them
-
37:48 - 37:50this thing called fair use, and you read it so fast
-
37:50 - 37:52nobody can understand it.
-
37:52 - 37:54You believe you've actually explained something sensible?
-
37:54 - 37:55This is crazy talk.
-
37:55 - 37:59Of course we train lawyers to understand it, and not think it's crazy talk,
-
37:59 - 38:02but non lawyers should recognize it's crazy talk.
-
38:02 - 38:04It's an absurd system here.
-
38:04 - 38:07And of course, a sensible system would say:
-
38:07 - 38:12"Then it should be plainly legal for Russell to make a remix,
-
38:12 - 38:15"a non commercial consumer making a remix of content
-
38:15 - 38:19"that he sees out there, even if it's not legal for YouTube
-
38:19 - 38:23"to distribute it without paying some sort of royalty
-
38:23 - 38:26"to copyright owners whose work has been remixed."
-
38:26 - 38:30Now the point is, the significance of this kind of culture,
-
38:30 - 38:32this kind of remix culture, and the opportunity
-
38:32 - 38:35for this remix culture to flourish is recognized by people on the left,
-
38:35 - 38:39and the right. Here is my favorite little bit.
-
38:39 - 38:42It's a little bit bad video, but it's by one of my favorite
-
38:42 - 38:45libertarians from Cato Institute, which is one of the
-
38:45 - 38:47most important libertarian think-tanks in the United States,
-
38:47 - 38:49talking about this:
-
38:49 - 38:52Libertarian man: Copyright policy isn't just about how to incentivize
-
38:52 - 38:54the production of a certain kind of artistic commodity.
-
38:54 - 38:57It's about what level of control we're going to permit to be
-
38:57 - 39:02exercised over our social realities, social realities that are now
-
39:02 - 39:05inevitably permeated by pop culture.
-
39:05 - 39:08I think it's important that we keep these two different kinds
-
39:08 - 39:12of public uses in mind. If we only focus on how to
-
39:12 - 39:15maximize the supply of one,
-
39:15 - 39:19I think we risk suppressing this different and richer
-
39:19 - 39:22and, in some ways, maybe even more important one.
-
39:22 - 39:25Lessig: Bingo. That's the point.
-
39:25 - 39:28There are two kinds of cultures here, two kinds of culture:
-
39:28 - 39:31the commercial culture and the amateur culture.
-
39:31 - 39:35And we have to have a system that tries to recognize and encourage both.
-
39:35 - 39:39And even YouTube, now, the company most responsible
-
39:39 - 39:42for this revival of this remix culture,
-
39:42 - 39:46even YouTube, now, is criminalizing the remixer.
-
39:46 - 39:47OK, now that's the argument.
-
39:47 - 39:48Here is what I think we need to do here.
-
39:48 - 39:52In both these contexts, both science and culture,
-
39:52 - 39:53we need reform.
-
39:53 - 39:56That's not to say we need the abolition of copyright.
-
39:56 - 39:59There are copyright abolitionists out there, and I'm not one them.
-
39:59 - 40:03What we need is reform, both of the law and of us.
-
40:03 - 40:08So, of the law: I, last year, had the opportunity -
-
40:08 - 40:11surprising, from the perspective of 10 years ago -
-
40:11 - 40:14but I was invited by WIPO to talk to WIPO,
-
40:14 - 40:17and both my presentation and the current Director General
-
40:17 - 40:20has a conception of what WIPO should do here
-
40:20 - 40:23and it's very similar. They should launch what we could think of
-
40:23 - 40:26as a Blue Skies Commission, a commission to think about
-
40:26 - 40:29what architecture for copyright makes sense in the digital age.
-
40:29 - 40:32The presumption is, copyright is necessary,
-
40:32 - 40:35but the presumption is also that the architecture from the 20th century
-
40:35 - 40:38doesn't make sense in a digital context.
-
40:38 - 40:41And the elements of, in my view, of this architecture
-
40:41 - 40:43that would make sense, are 5.
-
40:43 - 40:47#1 Copyright has got to be simple. If it purports to regulate
-
40:47 - 40:5015 year olds, 15 year olds must be able to understand it.
-
40:50 - 40:52They don't understand it now.
-
40:52 - 40:54No one understands it now.
-
40:54 - 40:56And we need to remake it, to make it simple,
-
40:56 - 41:00if it tends to regulate as broadly as it regulates.
-
41:00 - 41:02#2 It needs to be efficient.
-
41:02 - 41:05Copyright is a property system. It also happens to be
-
41:05 - 41:08the most inefficient property system known to man.
-
41:09 - 41:13We can't know who owns what under this system,
-
41:13 - 41:16because we have no system for recording ownership
-
41:16 - 41:18and allowing us to allocate ownership as we want.
-
41:18 - 41:23And the only remedy to that is to restore a kind of formality,
-
41:23 - 41:26at least a formality required to maintain a copyright.
-
41:26 - 41:30And this is a position that's even supported by the RIAA
-
41:30 - 41:32as one of the essential reforms to copyright.
-
41:32 - 41:37#3 Copyright has got to be better targeted. It's got to regulate selectively.
-
41:37 - 41:40So if you think about the distinction between copies and remix,
-
41:40 - 41:43and the distinction between the professional and the amateur,
-
41:43 - 41:46of course, we get this matrix - lawyers deal in two dimensions,
-
41:46 - 41:49you guys in hundred dimensions but here is my two dimensions -
-
41:49 - 41:52What we have in the current regime of copyright
-
41:52 - 41:55is presumption of copyright regulates the same
-
41:55 - 41:57across these four possibilities.
-
41:57 - 42:00But that's a mistake. Obviously copyright needs to regulate
-
42:00 - 42:04efficiently here, copies of professional works,
-
42:04 - 42:08so 10'000 copies of Madonna's latest CD is a problem
-
42:08 - 42:10that copyright law needs to worry about,
-
42:10 - 42:14But this area, amateurs remixing culture needs to be free
-
42:14 - 42:17of the regulation of copyright. Not fair use, but free use.
-
42:17 - 42:20Not even triggering copyright's concern.
-
42:20 - 42:22And then these two middle cases are harder.
-
42:22 - 42:25They need a little more freedom, but they need to assure
-
42:25 - 42:28some kind of control. So if you share Madonna's latest CD
-
42:28 - 42:31with your 10'000 best friends, that's a problem.
-
42:31 - 42:33There needs to be some response to that problem.
-
42:33 - 42:37And if you take a book and turn it into a movie,
-
42:37 - 42:39I think it's still appropriate that you get permission for that,
-
42:39 - 42:41though of course, you need to be able to remix
-
42:41 - 42:44in the way that we saw Soderberg remixed that video
-
42:44 - 42:47of Bush and Endless Love.
-
42:47 - 42:49The point here is that if you think about this, I'm talking about
-
42:49 - 42:52deregulating a significant space of culture,
-
42:52 - 42:55and focusing the regulation of copyright work and do some good.
-
42:55 - 42:58#4 It needs to be effective. And effective means
-
42:58 - 43:01it must actually work in getting artists paid.
-
43:01 - 43:05The current system does not work in getting artists paid.
-
43:05 - 43:07And #5 It needs to be realistic.
-
43:07 - 43:12Think about the problem of peer-to-peer, quote, "piracy" internationally,
-
43:13 - 43:16We've, for the last decade, been waging what is referred to
-
43:16 - 43:20as a war. My friend, the late Jack Valenti, former head of the
-
43:20 - 43:23Motion Picture Association of America used to refer to it as
-
43:23 - 43:28his own, quote, "terrorist war", where apparently the terrorists in this war
-
43:28 - 43:30are our children.
-
43:30 - 43:34Now this war has been a total failure.
-
43:34 - 43:39It has not achieved its objective of reducing copyrights sharing
-
43:39 - 43:41or illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.
-
43:41 - 43:45And I know the response of some to totally failed wars
-
43:45 - 43:48is to continue to wage that war forever, and ever more viciously,
-
43:48 - 43:51but I suggest we adopt the opposite response here.
-
43:51 - 43:55We sue for peace. We sue for peace in this war,
-
43:55 - 43:57and consider proposals that would give us the opportunity
-
43:57 - 44:00to achieve the objectives of copyright,
-
44:00 - 44:01without waging this war.
-
44:01 - 44:05So, compulsory licenses, voluntary collective licenses
-
44:05 - 44:08or the German Greens' suggestion of a cultural flat rate
-
44:08 - 44:10which would be collected and allocated to artists
-
44:10 - 44:14on the basis of the harm suffered because of P2P file-sharing,
-
44:14 - 44:16all of these are alternatives to waging a war
-
44:16 - 44:20to stop sharing, when sharing is of course at the core
-
44:20 - 44:21of the architecture of the Net,
-
44:21 - 44:25and all of them recognize that if we achieve
-
44:25 - 44:30that alternative, we don't need to block this system of sharing.
-
44:30 - 44:34Now, the thing to think about is, if we had had one of these alternatives
-
44:34 - 44:3810 years ago, what would the world look like today,
-
44:38 - 44:39how would it be different?
-
44:39 - 44:41Now one difference is, artists would get more money,
-
44:41 - 44:43they would have gotten more money, because
-
44:43 - 44:45while we have been waging war against artists [sic: "children", "pirates"?]
-
44:45 - 44:48artists haven't got anything, only lawyers have.
-
44:48 - 44:49Businesses would have had more competition,
-
44:49 - 44:52the rules would have been clear, we would have more companies
-
44:52 - 44:54than just Apple and Microsoft thinking out
-
44:54 - 44:57how they could exploit this new digital technologies.
-
44:57 - 44:59But most important to me, is, we wouldn't have a generation
-
44:59 - 45:02of criminals who have grown up being called criminals
-
45:02 - 45:04because they are technically pirates, according to
-
45:04 - 45:06this outdated copyright law.
-
45:07 - 45:09So these 5 objectives would go into the conception of what
-
45:09 - 45:11this Blue Skies commission should think about
-
45:11 - 45:14and I think it should think of this in a 5 year process
-
45:14 - 45:17talking about something not to into effect for 10 years.
-
45:17 - 45:22Think of it as a kind of Map for Berne II, but Bern II being
-
45:22 - 45:25a system that could work to achieve the objectives of copyright
-
45:25 - 45:28in a digital age. That's what the law should do.
-
45:28 - 45:30But most important right now is what we need to do.
-
45:30 - 45:35We, both in the context of business - so in the context of business,
-
45:35 - 45:38we need to think about how to better enable legal reuse
-
45:38 - 45:39of copyrighted material.
-
45:39 - 45:43And companies like Google and Microsoft's Bing
-
45:43 - 45:44need to do more here.
-
45:44 - 45:47We're in the age of remix, where writing is remix,
-
45:47 - 45:50where teachers tell students to go out to the web
-
45:50 - 45:52and gather as much content as you can in order to
-
45:52 - 45:55write a report about whatever it is they are assigning them
-
45:55 - 45:56to write reports about.
-
45:56 - 46:00That means Google and Bing need to help our kids
-
46:00 - 46:03do it legally, which they don't, right now.
-
46:03 - 46:05So for example, this extraordinary service, which Google
-
46:05 - 46:07gives you when you want to do an image search:
-
46:07 - 46:10let's say you search for an image, you do an image search on flowers,
-
46:10 - 46:14This, over here - I don't know if you play with this -
-
46:14 - 46:16is really extraordinary: you can then narrow the search
-
46:16 - 46:18on the basis of many of these categories,
-
46:18 - 46:20including like the color of the photographs.
-
46:20 - 46:23So you want pink flowers, there you can see all the pink flowers,
-
46:23 - 46:24just by clicking on the link.
-
46:24 - 46:28But why, in this extraction, don't we also have an option
-
46:28 - 46:31for something like this: show reusable?
-
46:31 - 46:35Show the content that is explicitly licensed to be reusable,
-
46:35 - 46:37because Google indexes Creative Commons licenses
-
46:37 - 46:39associated with these images.
-
46:39 - 46:43Why not make it on the surface easy to begin to filter out
-
46:43 - 46:45those that you can use with the permission of the author
-
46:45 - 46:47from those that presumptively require a lawyer?
-
46:47 - 46:50Same thing in the context of a site like YouTube.
-
46:50 - 46:53Why don't we enable more easily the signaling by the creator
-
46:53 - 46:56that others should be able to download and reuse content,
-
46:56 - 47:00not so much to redefine what Fair Use is -
-
47:00 - 47:02I still think there is a fair use claim even if there isn't
-
47:02 - 47:06permission given to re-use - but at least to encourage people
-
47:06 - 47:08to begin to signal that their freedom to share
-
47:08 - 47:10has been authorized by the author.
-
47:10 - 47:15And then in the academy, which I think we are speaking
-
47:15 - 47:17about here right now.
-
47:17 - 47:19We need to recognize in the academy, I think,
-
47:19 - 47:24an ethical obligation, much stronger than the ones Stallman spoke of
-
47:24 - 47:27in the context of software. An ethical obligation
-
47:27 - 47:29which is at the core of our mission.
-
47:29 - 47:31Our mission is universal access to knowledge.
-
47:31 - 47:34Universal access to knowledge:
-
47:34 - 47:36not American University access to knowledge,
-
47:36 - 47:40but universal access to knowledge in every part of the globe.
-
47:40 - 47:43And that obligation has certain entailments.
-
47:43 - 47:49Entailment #1 is that we need to keep this work free,
-
47:49 - 47:51where free means licensed freely.
-
47:51 - 47:55Now this needs to be part of an ethical point about what we do.
-
47:55 - 47:59It is resisted by people who say that archiving is enough.
-
47:59 - 48:02But that is wrong, I think.
-
48:02 - 48:06Archiving is not enough, because what it does is
-
48:06 - 48:10leave these rights out-there. And by leaving these rights our-there
-
48:10 - 48:12it encourages this architecture of closed access.
-
48:12 - 48:16It encourages models of access that block access
-
48:16 - 48:18to the non-elite around the world.
-
48:18 - 48:24And it discourages unplanned, unanticipated and "uncool" innovation.
-
48:24 - 48:26That's the thing that publishers would have said
-
48:26 - 48:28of Google Books, when Google Books had the idea
-
48:28 - 48:31to take all books published and put them on the Web.
-
48:31 - 48:33Right, publishers thought that was very uncool,
-
48:33 - 48:35but that's exactly the kind of innovation we need to encourage,
-
48:36 - 48:38and we know it won't be the publishers
-
48:38 - 48:39that do that kind of innovation.
-
48:39 - 48:44We don't need for our work, exclusivity.
-
48:44 - 48:47And we shouldn't practice, with our work, exclusivity.
-
48:47 - 48:51And we should name those who do, wrong.
-
48:51 - 48:57Those who do are inconsistent with the ethic of our work.
-
48:57 - 49:00Now how do we do that? I think we do that by exercising leadership,
-
49:00 - 49:05leadership by those who can afford to take the lead,
-
49:05 - 49:09the senior academics, those with tenure, those who can say,
-
49:09 - 49:12on committees granting tenure, that it doesn't matter
-
49:12 - 49:14that you didn't publish in the most prestigious journal
-
49:14 - 49:18if that journal is not Open Access.
-
49:18 - 49:22People who can begin to help redefine what access to knowledge is,
-
49:22 - 49:25by supporting Open Access and respecting Open Access
-
49:25 - 49:28and encouraging Open Access.
-
49:28 - 49:30Now, I'm really honored and happy to be able to talk about this
-
49:30 - 49:34here, where you of course gave us the Web,
-
49:34 - 49:39and CERN has taken the lead in supporting Open Access
-
49:39 - 49:42in a crucial space of physics.
-
49:42 - 49:46And the work that you are doing right now will have a dramatic effect
-
49:46 - 49:50on changing the debate on science across the globe.
-
49:50 - 49:52But what we need to do is to think about
-
49:52 - 49:56how to leverage this leadership into leadership for the globe,
-
49:56 - 50:02to benefit this area of the globe as much as this area of the globe.
-
50:02 - 50:04Thank you very much.
-
50:04 - 50:07(applause)
-
50:07 - 50:08[credits for Flickr photos]
-
50:08 - 50:15[This work licensed: CC-BY]
-
50:15 - 50:19Subtitles: universalsubtitles.org/videos/jD5TB2eebD5d/
- Title:
- Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge
- Description:
-
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- Captions Requested
- Duration:
- 50:19
Maggie S (Amara staff) edited English subtitles for Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge | ||
Claude Almansi edited English subtitles for Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge | ||
Claude Almansi edited English subtitles for Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge | ||
Claude Almansi edited English subtitles for Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge | ||
Claude Almansi edited English subtitles for Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge | ||
Claude Almansi edited English subtitles for Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge | ||
Claude Almansi edited English subtitles for Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge | ||
Claude Almansi edited English subtitles for Lawrence Lessig: The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge |
English subtitles
Revisions Compare revisions
-
Revision 15 UploadedMaggie S (Amara staff)
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi
-
Claude Almansi