[Ecommerce] FT: James Boyle: Cultural environmentalism?

[Michelle Childs]

James Boyle: Cultural environmentalism?
>By James Boyle
>Published: February 20 2006 19:01 | Last updated: February 20 2006 19:01
Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cc8e24ce-a242-11da-9096-0000779e2340,s01=3D1.html


Ten years ago, I tried to get an article about intellectual property
published in a major US newspaper. It was a hard sell. I mentioned the
words =93internet=94 and =93free speech=94 and =93access to information.=94=
 =93Ah,=94 said
the editor, =93so you want to write about porn and censorship.=94

Not exactly. I wanted to write about software patents and the rules of
digital copyright, about proposals that would have made internet service
providers strictly liable for whatever their customers did online, about
persistent retrospective extensions of copyright term that locked up most
of 20th century culture, even if it was commercially unavailable, just at
the moment when we could dream of making it digitally available to the
world.

=93But where is the free speech issue?=94 the editor asked. =93Are these ru=
les
part of some covert effort to regulate indecency?=94 Free speech, it seemed=
,
meant unfettered access to breasts =96 or at least digital images of them.
Intellectual property was dry stuff of interest only to industry hacks. We
were writing the ground rules of the information age, rules that had
dramatic effects on speech, innovation, science and culture, and no one =96
except the affected industries =96 was paying attention.

My analogy was to the environmental movement which had quite brilliantly
made visible the effects of social decisions on ecology, bringing
democratic and scholarly scrutiny to a set of issues that until then had
been handled by a few insiders with little oversight or evidence. We
needed an environmentalism of the mind, a politics of the information age.

How are we doing? Well, some would see a decisive victory for the old
style of industry-captured policy making without evidence to back it up.
We have extended copyright term limits, increased European intellectual
property rights over facts, broadened the boundaries of trademark law,
made patent law come tremblingly close to cover basic ideas and algorithms
=96 and in all those cases there was little or no evidence that the new
protection was either necessary or desirable.

The title of an article I published here, =93Deconstructing Stupidity,=94
pretty much summarises my views of that process. The United States=92
ludicrous proposal for a =93Webcasting Right=94 shows how much life there i=
s
in the old style of politics without evidence or democratic debate.

But I see grounds for optimism. The existence of forums like this one
shows a recognition that these are issues which deserve a public airing,
and about which reasonable people can disagree. There are now a host of
civil society, scientific, and civil rights groups that deal with these
issues =96 not just the trade associations who have long held sway. We have
our equivalents of Greenpeace, but also the National Trust, or the
Conservation Societies.

Industry groups have, slowly, come to understand that their interests on
these issues are not monolithic; think of the differences between IBM and
Microsoft, or the hardware companies and the record companies. Scientists
and scholars are now more actively involved in shaping the rules that
regulate their activities. And as intellectual property is reaching out to
touch everyone who is a participant in digital culture creation, citizens
are asking for more of a say. If the debate is not yet balanced or fair,
it is at least now a debate, not a one-sided lecture from the content
industry.

Three concrete events in the last year make me think that the shift will
continue. The first is a matter of private action. Google=92s plans to make
books as searchable as the world wide web present a classic case in which
the conflicts will be highlighted for society.

Can Google do this without paying permission fees to every publisher,
something that would doom the project? As I explain elsewhere, I think the
answer is =93yes=94 but either way, the ideas at stake will be made concret=
e
in a way that should transform the public debate for the better.

Second, the European Commission released a report on the Database
Directive, a report I featured in a previous column. For the first time I
can remember, a governmental body assessed intellectual property policy on
the basis of empirical evidence, rather than faith and anecdote. In any
other field =96 drugs, the environment, traffic safety =96 this would be
unremarkable. In intellectual property, it is both shocking and
heartening.

Finally, the US Register of Copyrights released a report on Orphan Works =
=96
copyrighted material whose owners cannot be identified or found and which
is thus extremely hard to use legally. Orphan works constitute the
majority of 20th century culture and the Copyright Office made an
extremely balanced set of recommendations that we need to amend copyright
law to make using those works easier and less risky.

These initiatives may seem banal. Arguing that making works searchable
would be good, that policy should be balanced and based on evidence, that
copyright should not stand in the way of the dissemination it is supposed
to promote =96 it hardly sounds like a radical agenda. It isn=92t. But from
where we have been in the last 10 years, banality looks great.

So, is there a cultural environmentalist movement, and if so, is it
succeeding? In March, I am delighted to say, Stanford University is having
a conference on the subject. I=92ll let you know how it comes out.

James Boyle is William Neal Reynolds professor of law at Duke Law School.
His new co-authored work, Bound By Law, a =93graphic novel=94 (a.k.a. comic
book) dealing with the effects of intellectual property on documentary
film, will be published in March.









--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727