Code V. 2.0 - A Code to Freedom?
Lawrence Lessig on how regulation, or code, will provide architecture to protect our fundamental values on the Internet - freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and intellectual property rights. Initially perceived as an anarchic Wild West immune to regulation by the state, cyberspace, especially today, is anything but. Initially, non-commercial interests possessed control of this architecture, but it has since moved into the exceedingly powerful grasp of commercial entities (p. 7). Now, as Lessig sees it, government must (and will, as I am confident time will tell) step in regulate as a counterbalance to commercial interests. The questions remain: what checks and balances will be put in place to ensure that no single regulatory entity amasses too much power? Can free culture still thrive, free speech still be preserved, and access still be granted while maintaining a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Clearly, The Exploit's (2007) Galloway and Thacker and Information Feudalism's (2003) Drahos and Braithwaite read Lessig's Code before writing their respective books. The first version of Code came out in 1999, plenty early to allow all those authors time to assimilate Lessig's thoughts and then reply to his book, so to speak, with updates on the state of the code and reports on whether the values he holds dear have been upheld or further imperiled. While D&B illustrated stark examples of how the government has lavishly dispensed IP protections to commercial entities at the detriment of the public good, developing a system that all but rigs copyright and patent benefits entirely in companies' favor, G&T adhere to the paradigm of the code, or protocols, that function across numerous boundaries (e.g., biological, technological, political) and advocate turning those protocols against themselves (exploits) as a means to uphold and exercise individuals' freedom.
I would have to say that in all my years working at the campus library, Ch. 10 "intellectual property" accutely resonated with me. When Lessig recounts Stefik's notion of trusted systems as a method that employs a manipulation of structure (technology) to assure authorized access to copyright materials, I had to struggle to keep the bile from rising in my throat. As the library, licenses with hundreds of vendors to online materials (primarily e-books, e-journals, video and audio, and databases) demand that we provide access only to authorized users, the university community (staff, faculty and students, and not the public). Implementation of this "trusted system" is costly and frustrating, both for the library and our constituents. Nothing is easy about accessing the library's electronic resources from off campus (although from my past experience with a different system, it has been worse). Problems arise in a number of scenarios, all more or less due to the trusted system: users fail to get what is their right to access to materials because of issues that can be rectified right on the spot (e.g., browser incompatibility issues or media plug-ins that need to be loaded), or that persist for days (e.g., the "system" does not recognize him/her as a real student; this necessitates visits to numerous offices on campus, all during business hours in most cases, and all at the student's expense of wasted time).
In short, the trusted systems at place in, well, virtually every university and college library demonstrate how the actions in the name of protecting property - intellectual property, no less (which, as Lessig argues, does not deprive the owner of value when shared, not like a house or car does [p.181]) - can be excessive and prohibitive to those who have every right as authorized users to access it. The "promot[ion] ... of science and the useful arts" suffers as a result of IP rights that extend for far too long in my humble opinion. I am aware of Fair Use, the Free Software movement, and Creative Commons as quasi-antidotes to excessive IP protections and the shrinking size and growing exclusivity of trusted systems. However, little has been done to reign in the annually increasing cost of access to these protected materials (we spend millions each year) for a return on investment, if I may use an economics term here, that it appears to dwarf in comparison.
I understand and recognize that copyrighted content cannot be given away for free (Lessig and G&T both argue the negative consequences that would do). At the same time, the monetizing of this material seems to have formed a virulent philosophy in sectors of the media culture who feel that they too should develop exclusive trusted systems for all their property (e.g., NYT wanting to charge for access to not just some but ALL the articles published on their site). I sincerely hope the Internet does not turn into a place that nickels and dimes its users to access virtually all the information and services it provides as this monetizing ethos spreads. May commercial entities see the error of trusted systems gone extreme; may they recognize the cultural value in sharing, not locking away, at least some of their IP. After all, what good is a book, a music recording, or a picture if no one is allowed to enjoy it?
