[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] Cory Doctorow that talks about the cross between copyright laws and Creative Industries around the world. This is about an hour and a half. [applause] thank you all very much. Thank you are coming tonight and thank you for hosting me. My father worked in our radical bookstore when i was a young person, sort of four, five six years old e4 he went to become a teacher. I grew up going around on the floor of stories like this it is always wonderful to come back especially two stores like red and those who are thriving so visibly. The last time i spoke their i spoke their bread and as it was much more modest digs. Its amazing to see the Community Supporting the story. Thank you for being patrons. You are blessed to have had. Not all places do. I spent a lot of time going around to bookstores and this is an extraordinary one. Thank you. So like many of you iron my living for the arts over the internet. Even if you are not earning your living on the internet today theres a reasonable chance that how you that tomorrow will take place on the internet because everything we do today about the internet and everything we do tomorrow will require it. There is a wonderful thing about earning your living in the arts which is it is very much a personalized, individual eyesight tv. When you look closely at the incomes of people who work in the arts you see that each one is doing something different. Usually profoundly different, even though at 10000 feet of might look like a painter as the painter of the novelist as a novelist. You find everyone is doing something really unique to the way they use their media. The very first things to see if theres not one easy way to kind of get into the arts. Almost everyone whos ever set up to earn a living in the arts has lost money in the business end of those who actually made some money and the art, most of them made a very small mountain of those surveyed thoughts of money, most of them didnt continue to earn money. Most of them crashed in earned and their career sunday. That is the brutal longterm reality. Its independent of your media that youre airing on the economics of the arts effectively always worked. Short of minimum guaranteed income, its hard to think as even a significant plurality of people who would like to earn a living for the arts. Earning a living in the arts is a six sigma event. Something very rare. If you imagine a firing line, maybe the 49th parallel with people lined all upon it in there about tossing coins all day long and most of those coins will come not either heads or tails. If enough people toss enough points, some of them will land on the edge. Obviously you can get better at making your coin land on the edge and you can practice and the more you flip your coin, the greater your chances, but the one thing we can tell at a distance about everyone whos coins land on the edge that the thing they have in common is more than perseverance, more than scale as luck. So we invent physics and the coinop collaborated to get the coins to land on the edge. Now with the winners of the people in this context to get your coin to land on edge if those winners were feted as great culture heroes and put on the covers of magazines and on peoples code than they done Something Wonderful come you can imagine lots of people lining up to be professional coin toss theres end not only could you imagine people would be feted for doing this are celebrated for doing this imagine tossing a coin was something intrinsically satisfying to the human condition. Which is what we talk about when we talk about art. Davies in a car. We give people who are mentally scarred we give them a art therapy as a critical means of recovery for the equal of go around. It seems to come with the human condition. This is welcome in the arts looks like. Its this incredibly lucky thing that some of us get and that many people try to participate in because not only is it intrinsically satisfying, but the people who went are thought of as having done Something Wonderful and extraordinary. Artists in particular dont like to be reminded of the luck element because artists as a class tend to suffer from impostor syndrome and so reminding people who succeeded in the arts in the rcc of their success has much to the configure perseverance and talent is something incredibly horrifying. It is like the skull on the desk of a big touring poet as a reminder that this too shall pass in any day you might end up like your colleagues are you start up with as a young writer working for any work as hard as you did but never seem to make it the way you did. Its a great way to get people angry at you is to remind them that they owe their success has much to look as they do any other intrinsic value. Bsr Foundation Laid on nonwork activity from enactment perspective, anyone who gets the arts is not doing something economically rational. The economic rational return nonartistic investment is negative. We make art anyway. So when we talk about the art and technology we bring to a something economists call survivor bias. We examine people who succeeded in the arts and we say how can we make sure those arent the people who are successful artist, the kind of artists who are succeeding and make the work that we love. I think this is an entirely backwards way of thinking about technology and its relationship to the arts. If you think that did it dawn of recorded music, before recorded music and before radio it was literally inconceivable to imagine a musician who was a great musician, whose performances with real millions, but he didnt like either in front of crowds. Like this was as weird as a swimmer who could be an olympic gold analysts, but didnt like water. The advent of radio and records made it possible to be a kind of artist that was literally inconceivable before that and although the artists who had made their career on the stage before he and were awfully anxious about this future that John Philip Sousa went to the American Congress in 1809 instead 09 instead of the inferno talking machines are about to go on, we will lose their voice boxes for sure is we lost or tails of it came down out of the trees. Many points to being an early advocate in the theory of natural selection. He sure miss the big picture they are. What we say what went on to preserve his Business Models instead of what we want to preserve his bid artist as a class, we end up on the one hand strangling attentional artists who might die in the new technical reality. More like, we go to war against whatever technological and social factors have given rise to a new art and artistic practice. The major impact of radio is not a new kind of artists. They remade the world in every single way we can think of. When you go to war against radio, you dont go to war you dont cite as a party send for Live Performance as the poster reported performance. Besides for the whole way up the bat is precluded if radio is not a part of the way we build out our world. So i am someone who is lucky enough to win the arts lottery and the last round of technology that is rapidly changing and being replaced by new kinds of technology. For me personally, what Business Model will be the best Business Model is one extremely important. Taking off my kind of partisan for me hat and putting on my partisan for artist as a class act, the thing im most interested in is not which Business Model succeeds, but how do we ensure the rules reformulate for the art errancy whenever money is generated for artistic crack this headache is preferentially to the people that make art secondarily to the people who invest in art and finally the people who present the art to the public, platforms and retailers to make the art available. So to that end, he formulated what i grandiosely characterized as three laws of the arts of the 21st century. Originally it was just one lot. I live in the United Kingdom when i come to north america to give a talk oftentimes the first day im here, whenever i talk i gave her hallucinogenic because they are influenced by amami jet lag session, which had been delivered by slavery writing the speech that i wisely ravana was well rested back in 19. I was in new york to give a talk of a publishing conference and at two in the morning i came up with this thing i call dr. Of laws and it went over well and i went out to lunch with my writer on trade agent. So i went for lunch with my agent and the agent easterbrook dissent arthur c. Clarke and now he represents the carcass day. I said i came up with a law and i presented it today at this conference and it went over really well. He said if theres one thing you learned from representing arthur c. Clarke is you cant have one law. You have to have three. I have three laws of that is how this talk is structured. Its how the new book is structured. Its around these three laws. The kind of fairytale thing. Lot number one the light came up at 2 00 in the morning and a New York Hotel room is anytime puts a lock on some didnt and wont you be the key, you can be assured it is up there for your benefit. So if youve ever made something creative and sellers on the internet using one of the platforms like amazon or hov or the apple app store, the google apps store, when you make that available, you are often given a kit rocks they said would you like to protect your work from piracy or would you like to protect your work forged derek lee . Would you like to add digital right management to your work . If youve ever done a deal where youve gone to a publisher or record label or studio to make your work available, chances are they almost always ticked off that box. They say it would like to protect my work. Protecting your work doesnt sound like a crazy idea, but here is what happens when you kick the ball. The platform that you are using to make your work available scrambles your work. It encrypts it. It makes it so you cant read it without some kind of descrambler. They descrambling program and app on the phone, the netflix in your browser and that the scrambles the work. That technology that descrambler will have a characteristic determined by the people who made it by amazon or netflix or apple and they will decide what features they can and cant have your netflix for example, the entire basis of operation is as hallucination that theres a difference between a download of the street that i can somehow give you a stream of the work that is not a downloads or you can stream the movie, but you dont get a copy of it somehow. It doesnt land on your hard drive ever. What they mean when they say ive given you have downloaded not a stream is ive given you a download but the program doesnt have a save but. The way they ensure that as they provide you with a descrambling program that doesnt have a save button. Provided no one can you direct have to descrambling into which they might insert a save button they can make a distinction between download and stream. They can make rules about how you can make it use media and then they can do this thing that has been a holy grail of technology and arts for 20 years, the fairytale we have that you can subdivide appeaser artistic work into these underage dinner slices, like maybe you dont want the whole painting. Maybe you want the right to look at the painting on wednesday. So i will sleep the wednesday right to the painting. In theory this opens up whole economic metals that have never been asked were before. People who only ever want the painting on wednesday can buy the wednesday rise. Now people who have been historically locked out of the painting can get into the market by only buying the wednesday rights. They can make these subdivided markets people are talking about about for 20, 30 years now. A way this works as provide you with the player. The player has the key to unscramble the things i scrambled and provided you cant figure out how i hit the key is not player, you cant make your own work. What this is is i giving you a program and as long as you cant figure out where youve got this thing to take on the subject and whatever analysis you want to subject to, so long as you never figure out where this thing that you own and keeping your lab or in your email or company my model works. You may have spotted the flaw in this model. Theres a reason we dont let the bank robbers keep atms in their living room. It doesnt matter how well if you hand it to the person you dont trust, they will eventually figure out how. When your adversaries in clute grad students at their own electron microscopes but nothing to do this weekend, it is kind of game over. So in theory, no one would ever want to digital logs on their work because they would be broken immediately. The law has a fix for this. Starting in 1888 in the United States at the copyright act and all over the world with laws that are analogous to it, we have made it illegal to break these digital laws, to figure out where the keys are hidden to make your own players. So now, you have the world where anyone can download for the internet and rip a dvd but there are no products you can buy that rip a dvd. You have to know that it exists. It is not a thing where there is a lot that will show you how to do it. It is all kind of shady and theres not any obvious paths to repeating a dvd. In some way you can think of these locks has been in tax. But they are not really. In practice if you want to rip a dvd, it isnt to rip it. It is to find a copy some on all sides are a direct on the pirate bay and download it yourself. You dont have to be smart enough to figure out how to break the protection on the dvd. Yet to be smart enough to find a copy that someone also broke the protection on. So back to us come as soon as the serbs are made available they are made available for download without paying for them. The antipiracy site doesnt work although the people who make the piracy tool saves but had nothing. And what it tells me is actually worse than nothing. The reason is worth nothing as the rules around these digital locks come in the copyright act says that when you allow someone to lock up your Creative Work with sarawak only they are allowed to remove the lock. So if adobe or apple or amazon lock up your work and you decide later that you want to search something with the competitors. They can come with me they are not going to do it because youre letting him onto their garden. Where they generate money from being able to exploit the fact they are locked into diamond into arrivals. He actually just saw this play out in real time. We have five major publishers. Two are german. One is an Old Newspaper family, the other is a company that mostly sells cluster bombs and landmines. And then theres a french one owned by a company that also does lots of things including selling cluster bombs. They clearly have the rather sudden do. They are remarkably strategically illiterate because they always insisted that their work could be sold with digital locks on the. They are terrified of piracy. So every word, every book, all the rather imprints that ive ever been sold has been sold locked up to sontag ologies. Last year the beginning of this year, amazon sat down and said right, youre the first is the big five whose 10 year deals have expired. Is time to negotiate a new 10 year deal and we want a lock. They said that is more than we are prepared to give. Amazon said you dont have to sell your book through us anymore. And tell you agree to the terms weve said, we are not going to sell your book anymore. No longer will people be allowed to buy jk rowling books or Amanda Palmer books are amazon and which accounts for 40 to 50 of all the book sales in north america. If they had not lodged their work to do with magic anticopying snake oil, they would then say it is your choice whether or not you want to carry our books are not carry her books, but as long as you are not carrying our book we make them available everywhere else at half price and make this after that takes your amazon book for apple books or google books or anyone else that platform books. All those people that you have sold to get them into your garden and they are going to walk out and follow somewhere else because people dont ibooks because of the bookstore. They are not by jk rowling because jk rowling kit from amazon or day by jk rowling because they love the books and the books and they will follow jk rowling wherever they take her. They werent allowed to do that. They were capable of do that because basil the right to control customers to amazon for nothing. This is just going to get worse. Amazon has this other line of business. The come me that is the major audio book market. Unlike amazon bookmark where you get to decide whether or not the lack of your books, if you make your audio books available, you have to allow amazon to lock up your book. They only provide amazon to itunes. It is inaudible book to amazon. It is not like amazon said weve got all these people who work for come any though work for ottawa. And they have the same business except that audible has its suppliers by much shorter, curly or hair. They turned the screw here. In the near future we see it deems that make it look like my little pony episode here in so that is my law if someone locks it up and wont give you the key, you can be sure scare for your benefit. The second lot has been famous wont make you rich, but no one will buy your art unless theyve heard of you. He publishers oreilly books that the animals. He coined the term open source and hes a great onto boston aphorisms. Tim said a few years ago it is of security. That is resonated for people who went to war with that on their banners. I think when people heard that people unfortunately misunderstood. If you are famous enough, you will be rich. The way that people hear about our work as creators of the 21st century using the internet. Not the way with a give money. And Online Platforms like u2. They use payment processors like square or paypal or advertising brokers like googles ad words through the way we earn our living happens on the internet. Sometimes it happens through traditional publisher or studio or label it sometimes they go on the road. As the benches in these who have gone on their own and have pieced together the functions of a publisher from the bits and pieces on the internet these independent Publishing Services on the internet. Some of them started off in the mainstream. Her are or Amanda Palmer walked out of the record label system and walked off into independent lands and were able to leverage the success they had with the old media meets in a newer way. Some of them went another direction. Became an extremely successful independent writer and Simon Schuster, one of the big five publishers offer them a deal. The amazing thing was that since he spends so successful, he was able to dictate his turn to Simon Schuster. Pc only Simon Schuster writer of this millennium who got to keep his ebook rights. Simon schuster like the other big five have an ironclad, nonnegotiable, absolutely universal policy that if you sell a book you have to also let them do your ebook rights. But if you are hugh howley, and they need you more than you need them. Ou was able to get the exception to the rule that had no exception and as a consequence is able to retain more of earnings than he would have otherwise. And then people like Jonathan Poulton who became an independent musical success in saving independent nukes across success by storing in doing gag as an indie. All of those companies, all of this in vigils rather represent an existing proof that its possible to be success of your independent. That matters a lot because nonindependent art sectors of the publishing world has been subject to the same 21st century mergers are not station that every other sector has been subject to whether its logistics or retail or finance. We are down to five big publishers, forget labels and five big studios. We are effectively out of competition. You dont have to be a radical that the sellers get a worse deal. You see that reflected now the kind of deals as a major publisher or studio offering to the creators to sell it. If you are a musician and one of the very lucky key musicians and manages to get a wreck or deal, and includes a standard accounting crack this breakage is a line item that dates back to the era of physical records that represent a statistically likely percentage than in the factory broke it on the way to the record store and deducted from your mp3 royalty. Whats the underlying message of breakage be deducted from your royalties . If you oversee the lily tomlin sketch on saturday night live, we dont have to care. Were the phone company. The message is there solely for labels and theyll take breakage. If you dont like it, hit the bricks. The worst deal you can be offered by a major Financing Organization i publisher studio, the best you can get for yourself. The best you can get for yourself. If you go through the traditional publishing channel your deal gets better as a function of how many independents there are out there. In print publishing now a few solid novel to a publisher they want your englishlanguage rights throughout territories. They were all things that writers would have retain historically and sold separately and paid for separately for each one of those. So we need the dependent sector. The independent sector has been under attack for the studios and labels for the last 15 years. The major corporations that make up the entertainment in the street had lawmakers and regulators at the tourist regulatory burdens to the business of the one of these independent platforms in the name of fighting piracy. The name of stopping the works of independent musicians and filmmakers being ripped off by Youtube Youtube now has to have this multihundred billion dollars system by which they check to see whether or not anything you upload has previously been registered as a copyrighted work and if it has come a wont let you post the work to youtube. Youtube was started by three people the garage and silicon valley. If you want to start today for me not only need three people in a garage have you also need a couple hundred dollars to the a standard for operating video platform convoy speed the only competitors in the future will look just like youtube. Though cobra giant corporations that have exactly the same approach to the supply chain has all the giant corporations do. So they just created the streaming Music Company for service to inaugurate it, brought in and they license all of their work to make it available as a streaming and six service. After they stripped the deal with the four major record labels, they went to the append of labels and said he will take the terms that we negotiate with the four majors. Viacom argues that unless youtube a lawyer to review all that video as it was coming in to make sure it didnt infringe copyrights that they should be held liable for any infringement that showed up even given a multimilliondollar system and there are not enough lawyer hours to make any kind of a dent in youtubes video mode but viacom was prepared to do it but it is the unwillingness of the supreme court, there but for the grace of the court system to decided it wasnt in interesting enough case to have their bosses write opinions, they would write the opinions and their bosses put their names on. It was only by their countries that we didnt end up with that regime. What would have happened if viacom had been successful in saying the rule for the internet, everything that goes live on the internet is reviewed by a copyright lawyer before it can be seen by the public. And Cable Television before you make work available on cable tv the cable operator pays the lawyer to review it. And you may have radically fewer channels, we once thought a cable tv universe with 500 channels would be a thing of incredible glory and unbelievable variety, and that the web with 500 websites and how impoverished that would be by contemporary standards. Jeter you get vastly restricted availability, professor restricted channels to feed into it really people who get their work on cabletv are people who pay a lawyer or an insurer which is the same thing to guarantee it doesnt infringe copyrights. Is a world in which we affectively recreate the gatekeepers we have been traditional media in new media by raising the liability and expense of operating these things. We want lots of chaos in that sector. We Want Companies popping up entailing at speed because they are competing to see who can give us the best deals to be the competitor of last resort. The services to each sector has contracted radically largely thanks to efforts that were nominally on behalf of creators. So that is the second law. It doesnt matter how famous you are, you wont necessarily become rich but by the same token if no one has heard of you know when is giving you any money. Those of the first two loss. The third is the most important one of all. Information doesnt want to be free. You may have heard this phrase, information wants to be free. Half of a famous thing that everyone forgets the other half. Stewart brand, at the first hackers conference said to steve was the act on stage information wants to be free but information wants to be expensive. It was enormous cool, thoughtprovoking, but over the years it lost its utility because these days when people talk about advocating for a fair and free information infrastructure is they say it is about whether or not information wants to be free. I have never done anything because i wanted to make sure information fulfill its destiny but i have heard this so many times that i thought it would empirically investigate. Last spring i rented a cabin in the Lake District in england and invited information up for a three day weekend and it filled up a sweat lodge and cried about our parents, and we drank a lot of chardonnay and whether it was information, a long soulful i smelled the smoke and stubble on my cheek and it whispered its secret in my ear and said i dont want to be free. All want is for people to stop anthropomorphizing me. Information of course doesnt want anything and if it did who would care what information wanted . Distractions are no concern, no reason to get out of bed in the morning but people want to be free. The way you make people free in a world where effectively information, technology has colonized everything we do, having free, fair and open information infrastructure. The internet is not a glorified cable service. It is not a better way of doing video on demand, not the worlds most perfect pornography distribution system, it is not a way of recruiting jihadis. It is the nervous system of the 21st century and everything involved the internet and everything we do tomorrow will require it. It is true digital law has these negative impacts and Consumer Expectations on the incomes of artists, alienate the rifle share of publishers and studios in favor of Companies Like apple and google and that is a problem but it is not the real problem. The real problem with these things is in order to make a safe and secure and give them some longevity we made it a crime to break from. That crime, makes it a felony to tell people about flaws in the device that has a digital law that protects the copyright. Those flaws can be used to remove the digital law. If it runs doctor and apple didnt last you find a mistake that Apples Program is made and leverage it to trick the i phone into thinking something it wants to happen or doesnt want to happen is happening and you are presenting it with legitimate software from a third party, you have to break into the device. A flaw in a device is not merely useful poor people who want to jail break it but people who want to subvert it. And your iphone is not a super computer you keeping your pocket to throw birds and pigs and make the occasional phone call. The iphone is a supercomputer you keeping your pocket that has a camera and microphone that nose to your friends are, knows what you talk to them about knows everywhere you go, as a location center, taking into the toilet with you into the bedroom with you, undress in front of it and what you talk to your lawyer about and how to access your medical details it has every secret about you. Not knowing about flaws in your iphone has consequences that are much more grave than whether you are watching tv in a way that wasnt countenanced by the people who made the tv program. It is a much more significant thing. The world that we live in is now made out of computers. A modern building, not a building with be exposed brick work but a modern building fresh out of the wrapper that is being put it in a new complex today, that building will be a computer that you inhabit because the computers that govern its humidity control those computers because it has such high tech installation are critical to that buildings livability, it had ability. When you take computers out of the buildings they become uninhabitable because their installation is so good, when you leave the computers out of those buildings for any length of time they become permanently uninhabitable. In florida when they turn off the power to those sub prime, they had to scrape and down to the ground because the black mold that crept up the wall of the Climate Control the computer controls Climate Control was knocked out of the. Your house is a computer you live in. A car is a computer that rockets down the road at 70 miles an hour unless it is the belt way in which case it is 5 miles an hour, with you trapped inside of it and every year at conferences people get up and demo attacks when they go into the bluetooth interface and takeover steering and brakes. The most salient facts about your car is house secure its computer is. I live in the United Kingdom. I flew here in a boeing 747, and the boeing 747 is a flying aluminum case connected to tragically bad secured data controllers. Is not just the we keep our bodies and keep inside of our bodies. If you barack as i did with a walkman and you are younger and girl with him the 3 players you logging of punishing hours that if you live long enough and not killed myself driving car sunday you get a hearing aid and it is almost certainly not going to be a base retro hipster analog transistor hearing aid. It will be a computer you put inside your body. Depending how it is configured it will either tell you what is there or it will tell other people would you are hearing or make you hear things that arent there or not let you hear things that are there. All things are possible depending how that computer is designed and this may sound like a sciencefiction but this is the reality on the ground today. Barnaby jack said the deceased security researcher in 2012 demo a wireless attack, does simulators from 31 he could administer heart attacks. Dick cheney implanted the febrile later in a wireless interface turned off because it was implanted. The university of michigan, they have a chilling. Dick cheney implanted the febrile later in a wireless interface turned off because it was implanted. The university of michigan, they have a chilling throwing Youtube Video where they hooked up a bluetooth, pacemaker to a piece of raw bacon and by compromising its roots that the secured bluetooth interface they can cook a piece of bacon. I was in an airport lounge and the first rule of the frequent flier was abc, always be charging. When you get to airport lounge you scan the baseboards for plugs. I got into an airport lounge snagged the only plug i was snugly sitting there working on my laptop with the opluy club charging my battery and a man came up and very cheekily said do you mind if i use that plug. I said i am charging imac top before the flight. He pulled up his pants and should be the robotic prosthetic leg he had on from the knee down and that i need to charge my leg before the flight. I said you can have the plug. Stacking the deck against disclosure of the flaws in the devices we depend on for everything, everything is an insanely bad idea. You should be allowed to know about the flaws in your iphone, your x box, your thermostat, in everws hing you use you should be allowed to know about those laws even if it compromises someones Business Model, someones rapid of making sure every time you buy a nintendo chame nintendo gets its 30 . When it comes to the rules we have for the people youtube and facierook and twitters of the world the major impact of increasing liability isnt on the arts although the impact on the arts is gray of, youtube gets 100 of video every minute. All the copyrigfroed professionally produced commercial video ever made is uploaded to youtube that is just the first month. Everything else is Everything Else that we have to say to each other. That is what is fair. When you make rules and say you can sensor anws hing by pointing at it and saying that infringes my copyright with no effective penalties for lying and no burden of proof for you when you create an unaccountable system of censorship it would be heartbreakingly naive to assume that it wouldnt be used to co00it acts of unaccountable censorship and that is how is used. Everyone from the king of thailand to british neonazis to the church of scientology routinely abusing cops isigfro claims to make things disappear. Most of what is on youtube is not a police acadesna clips or musicte. Ido s that have been uploaded without the performers permission. Most of what is on youtube is Everything Else, cat videos. Of one come 2 cammed vido s in a aorinute. They are important too. Every moment of the umbrella revolution in hong kong and ferstuson and the uprisings in Tahrir Square in to nietzsche that made their way to youtube are more impo woant and deserve protection and shouldnt be taken down on the face of someone who decides they just dont want them there and have a consequence free way of making them disappear or because they are indifferent to what happens if they make a mistake in sending a censorshikilynotice. Homeland was taken down for many websites all the while authorized its distribution because they thought it might be their tv show homeland, not maecause they wanted to sensor my book but they didnt give a of a censored my bow b when they wrote an alrgrithm that said if the string homeland of years in the filename than a legal notice that in infringers your copyright. So it is absolutely in our so of val interest or collective interests to allow people to take things a moment and make available. I want to talk about cat videos. What you are supposed to say when you talk about thete. Alue of this independently produced during macular communicative stuff that goes on the web you are sugrayosed to say theres a lot of it that is really banal and hardly matters at all although youtubete. Ido s and comments, why do we care about those . Because we have no way of tionstokcting the legal regime that would from the umbrella revolution show up on the internet while still allowing trivial material i am the early risers sell and make breakfast. I ask how she slept. Dont ask how she slept because i dont know. I know how my wife left because i sleep next to her. When she has a bad night i know to extremely precise degree how her night was. What i have done when i asked how she slept is i have cited a message in the worlds easiest to crack seifert. That message is i love you, thinking about you, care about you, we are having a moment together. All those things you see on the internet that has no bearing to you, they have bearing to someone. Everything you see on the internet where you say unequivocally that does have meaning and moment and should be preserved, it is cancer, it is not cancer, i am pregnant lost the baby lost the job, they kicked me out of the university and in jail everyone of those messages parisians they have meaning to the people who receive them is they are grown in a soil composed of a million of those moments. It is the height of arrogance to save it in the name of making sure people do what they are told when Given Entertainment products we are willing to sacrifice all of that. It should be obviously unacceptable to any artist. To understand the extent to which this is a struggle not about whether information wants to be free but whether people want to be free i will give you an example from the country and in the United Kingdom. Last parliament, the last parliament we have on the last day of the last Parliament Something extraordinary happened. When there is an election in the United Kingdom they have one more sitting of parliament and they have bills that are voted on it keep the lights on while they are gone all the appropriation everything that keeps things running while elected officials go back to their home districts to campaign for reelection and that is called a washed up. It only lasts a couple hours. They usually barely have a quorum because most people have gone back to their constituencies to see if they can get reelected and keep their jobs and by tradition only noncontroversial, nontechnical legislation is introduced but in the last washup almost five years ago exactly because we are about to have our new election in the u. K. They introduced a bill called the Digital Economy bill which is now the Digital Economy act because it past. Tom watson a veteran labor mp with indicated experience called the most complicated technical bill he had ever been asked to consider. It was not given any substantial debate and it included a clause that said if you are accused of three acts a Copyright Infringement you would be disconnected from the internet and no one would be allowed to reconnect you for a year. It wasnt primary legislation. Was secondary legislation, the secretary of state would be empowered to make that rule whenever they wanted my giving tom wheeler, the chairman of the fcc the power to make this will whenever he feels like it in the future giving that statutory authority. The amazing thing about this is not just that they voted on it and passed it to wash up. If you did this in the context where a month over they got this amazing report in, theres a woman in the u. K. Named Marvin Foster who had not just one but two of the coolest of titles i ever heard of. Turk current job title is the postmodern dungeons and dragons east founding but before she was the barrenness of soho you if you have to admit is an awesome weird thing to be before she was the barrenness of socialism champion for digital inclusion. Her job was figuring how to get hold country on broadband. She wanted to know what would happen if you gave people access to highspeed internet service. Sheet hired Price Waterhouse cooper to do a study. There was a council of state like Housing Project in the north where they connected them a few years earlier to a Free Internet site where everybody got Free Internet in the building. They were not like Housing Project full of nerds. It was regular people, the closest to wherever they bring the wire from. It was a cool experiment because they have a group of people who are demographically similar to their neighbors but have one difference which for a couple of years they had Internet Access and their neighbors havent. By looking at the difference between their lives and their neighborss lives and derive series about what the internet delivers. They went in thinking their kids would get better grades and they were Getting Better grades but more likely to get into post secondary education so they are more socially mobile and their parents and better jobs with more disposable income, better nutrition Better Health outcomes, more sickly engage, more likely to work in their community, more politically engaged, more. In on the news and more likely to vote. Everything we use to measure the quality of life in a Civilized Society is approved when you give people the internet. What parliament did that day with backroom shenanigans was say that if you live in the same house as a piece of networking equipment, someone who may or may not live with you, to be entertained in an unauthorized way, you will no longer have access to free speech or free press, freedom of assembly, access to education, and Better Health outcomes, civic and Political Engagement and everything we care about. If there was ever any doubt in your mind that this is not a fight about whether information wants to be free but whether people can be free, that should settle it. They never pass the three strikes rule. The first ip czar under barack obama closed a 6 strikes rule. Because of the Net Neutrality situation where effectively most people get their internet, was able to gather around, provide Internet Access to voluntarily agreed the Copyright Infringement after six notices. And they were not forced to do it. They did it on their own. When we as a society are prepared to punish people collectively over what they do with the information in these draconian ways it tells you our priorities have become terribly awfully skewed. I make my living in the arts and that is a weird and wonderful thing, being a sciencefiction writer is the least probable job i can imagine. It is like painting stripes on bumblebees for a living. It is the thing i wanted to do since i was a small child and every morning i get up a maze that i get to do this for a living. I happen to think i can earn in the king doing this without requiring censorship surveillance and control being added to the internet but even if i didnt i would sooner go out and get a real job and demand that in the name of my artistic creativity, that the thing that wires together our whole world be distorted and perverted in these grotesque way is, as much as i would like to bequeath to my daughters the income from my copyright, i am more interested in bequeathing to her a world that she can be free where she has a chance of pushing back against the forces of reaction and and fairness and organizing and being a jew jaded by peers and colleagues around the world using a free and fair infrastructure. There are millions of ways, billions of ways to fail to earn a living in the arts and artists can and should try to do what they can to earn a living and our policies can and should be structured so that when money arises from our creative endeavors that flows preferentially to the artist. If the artistic Business Model requires since the ship and surveillance you are in the wrong business. The arts should always be opposed to censorship and surveillance. When you are a sciencefiction writer people mistake you for someone who can predict the future. Sciencefiction writers who try to predict the future are like drug dealers to sample their own product. Endeavour ends well. People always ask me if im Optimistic Pessimistic about this duck and it doesnt matter. If i were optimistic about technologys possibility to be a force for liberation instead of a precious i would get up every morning and do everything i could to make sure that technology was liberating as instead of oppressing us. If i was pessimistic about it i would do the same thing. Rather than optimism or pessimism, rather than predicting or assuming the future verizon of matter what you do, i am going to ask instead the you have hope. Hope is why if your ship sinks in the middle of the open sea you tread water. Not because you have a reasonable expectation of being picked up by another passing ship but because everyone who is ever rescued tread water until the ship arrived. If your ship sank and you are with a friend who couldnt kick for themselves the would put your arms around your neck and kick because that is what we do. The earth has everything we love and care about on it and so we need to kick very hard dont destroy the earth. Is where i keep all my stuff. There are organizations that do the kicking, and you can support those organizations like the Electronic Frontier foundation in d. C. In the d. C. Area. The aclu, and a new america foundation, demand progress, create of commons, Free Software foundation, so many of these organizations to work on these issues and they are all converging because every issue is being fired on the internet. The fight over the death of the internet isnt the most important ibm. Site over climate, racial and gender justice or Economic Justice are far more important than the fight over the internet. The internet is the foundational fight because every one of those flights will be fought and won or loss on the internet. I wont ask you how to only do things with technology that makes the world a better place. It is hard to be a vegan much less the bavarian. It may be every month you find yourself making an automated data to a Company Comcast that set itself to destroying Net Neutrality and insuring giant Cable Companies get to decide who can speak and be heard in the Global Networks and maybe that you have a fruit flavored phone you are very in amber and of even though that company has made its offer and the mega adding Digital Rights management to all of our tools and has in fact filed a patent for a system that will allow Law Enforcement to remotely operate your camera and microphone and maybe that you find yourself watching a lot of netflix because they have great movies even though the World Wide Web consortium to that Digital Rights management to standard browsers themselves turning of the browsers that the web runs on into long lived reservoirs of vulnerabilities that are illegal to report and can screw you in every conceivable way from apple to appetite. It may be defined yourself giving money to companies it do things that are not very good. It is hard to be alive in the 21st century and not do that. I wont ask you to issue all of that. The reason we give the money to those companies is they give us things we want or need. Im going to ask you to do a budget. Add up what you are spending every month on Companies Whose mission in life is to destroy everything we hold dear. Think of a percentage, a fair percentage. In church a state 10 . Maybe 10 , Denise Cooper is a Free Software advocate that you give 100 the same budget you give to comcast you can give to organizations like this. Take an organization or two or three and see if you can hedge your bet a little see if you can, although you need the benefits those Companies Give you, see if you can maybe offset the things theyre taking away from our future. That is my message. Have hope and keep kicking and do what you can because the future is up to us to make. I will invite your questions. I find my q a sessions are a bit of a sausage fast so i have been alternating genders in my q as. If you are male identified or female identified we will go back and forth and i remind you a long rambling statement followed by what the you think about is technically a question but not a good one. [applause] those of you who have questions this will be the microphone where you last that question. Line up behind it. You will be video taped in this question sessions so if that makes you uncomfortable this is not a question session for you. Make an orderly line right here everybody has a question. So you post a tour which is a shed . Macmillan. I know you did your own book which was a little up by france which you did yourself. I wonder if you speak about that experience and give it is a liberating or horrible good question. My novels are all published by tour. I am published by a lot of publishers depending on the format but for those my novel. I thought i would do an experiment to see what goes on with short story collections. I put together my own short story collections and in a limited Edition Hardcover and print on demand paperback and i publish the finances for every month, did it for a year, i should do one soon, i have been really busy, documented how much money and spend and made i made a pretty good sum of money, my best ever short story collection i made about 20,000 and done this one i netted 30,000, a pretty good sum for a short story, very good sum for a short story collection that were already written and sold somewhere else. On the other hand it was a tremendous amount of work, a huge amount of work that wasnt right and at the end of it doing a limited Edition Hardcover was superfun. Unsolicited from writer friends of mine paper ephemera i could use an end papers. I got a cancer diagnosis, sketches, kathy center great ii report card for too rambunctious. They were bound into individual books and i will do more limited Edition Hardcovers. Having done it, if paula wanted to do with their money i could get a job. What i did was it took a bunch of time i would have spent writing and put it into casks i didnt find it interesting as writing. And other people find publishing such incredibly interesting and they should do it. In the women in the queue who would like to step forward . Thank you. I would like to go back to your rule number 1 about the locks. You were talking about the point where you self published or you published on amazon and theres a check box you can check the one your product, your work protected . There is an option range you can choose not to have d r m on your work is that something you would recommend . To what protect is that given your scheme of information doesnt want to be free . Choosing not to block your works is beneficial they have tech companies. Is a good idea on its face. Theres a positive outcome that your work can now poisoned the devices they touch. A reviewer works on a phone or some box without mandating what people and not allowed to report vulnerabilities. Can they utilitarian matter. And all the money generated by your work, and adding digital losses by superbad idea in the long run. And walkovers to companies that would give you a better deal. That is a concrete thing you can do other than just hope. Absolutely. In advocating hope you dont think barack obama has completely the legitimize that aspiration. I am curious. I came in late so maybe i missed this. Where you think some sort of impact he may or may not have had in all of this. What impact i may have had . Or obama may have had in all this . Hard to answer. Doing the reading list the new plan greenwald, Thomas Pickering and so on on it. Obama has been a really mixed bag. I think that obama has been proved that neil liberal goes all the way around to just plain old conservative in your the canadian terms. Neoliberalism is indistinguishable past the margin from your basic kind of ranianair superconservative approach. I had a friend who at one point said cynically it doesnt matter who you vote for because their policies are all effectively the same. He pointed out the Administrative Branch is filled with appointees who tend to be from the more extreme wing of the parties, and democratic president s, an oil man running the epa, under obama, all the places it seem as a matter, a lobbyist running the fcc and Goldman Sacks face hugging vampire squibbs running the finance industry. It seems not to have made much difference. I dont know i am the right date to the right guy to ask about obamas legacy. Are there any women who would like to ask a question next . As a student engineering student, i have been asked to pay 300 for a single book, an extra hundred dollars for online access. When is your opinion on adding educational material. I am against it. As a textbook publishing racket has been really intense. Publishers, professors are accomplices in it. It is a good money piece on this a couple weeks ago where they characterized it as an example of the principal agent problem where the people who buy and the people who say which but you have to buy dont have to pay for them. You get a call from a sales rep from wiley who says the fifth edition is coming out and all these glorious features are in it and we provide supplementary materials and they never even mention what it is going to cost and that sounds great and maybe they go up for a three martini lunch. And you then have to pay for the 300 text. I dont think breaking the law, although as a means of civil disobedience, breaking the law is a sustainable solution. What we have the problem with making this an argument about how much it costs is it disguises the real reason we should object to textbooks being made this way which is it doesnt produce the best text books. The best will be produced by educational institutions forming cooperatives that paid to produce textbooks, paid doctors or creators produce them that are freely reusable and improveable. When we get bogged down, humans the real reason it should be using open learning material which is why the scholarship works is openness. There is no scholarship, openness in scholarship. Before science existed we had something that looked like science called out of me and how, they had the same goal they understood it whoever got their first, would turn to gold and be very rich and teach you the others as competitors caught their discoveries, the varied jealously discovered because Human Capacity for self deception, and mercury was a bad idea. For 500 years what we thought of is only when we publish, a dialectical process, where people tell you the ways you have done mistakes this comes up a lot with software where we argue about what cost more or costs less. If you are building a hospital and hire a firm of engineers to build a new wing and your hospital and they said we will do it but we wont tell you what maps we used to calculate the load stress is on these joints that is a proprietary thing and we wont to you where in the walls we put the condom with, you can add new electrical sockets when you needed. We said that would be illegal to build a hospital that way. They have to tell you how do you the source so that you know it is not shoddily built but information infrastructure without which the building is as useless as if it were lying in rubble on the grounds you can hire a group of accountants and consultants to build you the information infrastructure and they can say is all a secret how we built it, you treated like a black box and if you need improvements you can tell us and the right model for this we are seeing an information infrastructure is to former effectively cooperative ventures where you pay people to make this stuff but dont intermediaries whose only job is to spin around and collect rent on the stock after is made. In the u. K. Where they had a tremendously catastrophic collapse of held by t. Programs for the National Health service out of the rubble of that bunch of different hospitals have built open source free open source alternatives. Open ice is the best patient record tracking software in the world, is free and open. Every online hospital uses it when they need new futures. Whatever of hospital needs it it pays to added and everybody gets to use it. People are paid to do the labor. You dont get the intermediaries that collect wage for selling of the labor someone else put into it and that is how textbooks should be made. That is the right way to make text books. Thank you very much. What is your opinion about the right to be forgotten in light of the internet . The e. U. s right to be forgotten . The privacy question is an important one, put we have to be really wary of what i call the security syllogism which goes something must be done i have done something, something has been done. That way lies the key as a. I think the e. U. Looked at an actual problem and came up with a non actual solution and we actually see it playing out in ways that have been disastrous. People are mass filing right to be forgone requests an there is no penalty for following serious ones and material that is germane to the Public Record is removed from the Public Record for no good reason because of vanity or often because people who are fraud steers dont want victims to google their name and find that they committed a bunch of acts of fraud. This your solution that does nothing is actually worse than no solution because it imposes a costs and it leaves all the people who were wrong by the problem to begin with a house in the cold. So i think the e. U. Got it wrong on this. So before you ask the question are there any women in the queue would like to ask next . I consider myself to have an average level of tech savvy mess. I am a molecular biologist and i use a computer. I have a computer that i use for everything but it is complicated to figure things out. I dont want 50 sports channels. I want the few things i want to watch. I thought i would watch it over the computer but now i cant get Comedy Central through my tv. How do they do that . How do they stop me . I can watch it on my computer but now i cant. What you discovered is google has done a deal where they agree to abide by flags in the broadcasted material or the web tested material where if it is web cast with a flag that says dont allow this to be comcast to your tv set then they honor it. There is not any reason why technically it cant be done. Obviously if comcast can move pixels, one set of pixels from your screen here to your screen there it can move a different set of pixels there are no magic pixels that are not movable. Pixels is pixels. What you found it is in the absence or the presence of a felony to ask otherwise legal features your device, features that could be illegal and have reasonable. To expect the shutting your device and it is more easily discerned examples of that so dvds of digital lost ntvs bonet otherwise there functionally identical in terms of how they are made and read. In taking that route you from you and transferring it to the companies that made the dvd. I call it the tract infection Business Model. So with the cd like all good value lows in the healthy and with dvds its painful. And in the absence of a role, otherwise legal features, you would expect someone would come in and of that. But no one has made that product. They also have al you, i realized i couldnt put my cds and i can only say what i brought an itunes. Thank you. The internet has you cannot keep the movie under wraps. There is some information that might actually be dangerous. I was wondering if theres any useful utility and not at all or what would we talk about in surveillance security with dangerous information by well, i read in the wrong hands or the wrong type allergy could be really scary. Theres a lot of problems that computers give rise to that are genuinely scary. Im not much of a gun person on this so they are something to give me some trepidation. So i do have i worried about that. I think we dont know if theres one thing copyright words have taught us it is making these extraordinary relief from lives where we dont have a about the Collateral Damage doesnt actually stop the information worm spreading to places where we want them to spread a redoubt wanted to spread. I think we need again like going back to the 30s we need to slake surveillance in the sense that Public Health expert sees it where youre actually trying to gather data about the state of Public Health in realtime. I sigh fascinating presentation on the hiv pandemic and one of the huge structural barriers to limiting the spread of hiv was that people from the the gay seen the word credibly the stressful for good reason. They felt like identifying themselves as hivpositive were outed themselves as gay was a hugely risky activity. The lack of legitimacy actually compounded surveillance. Our best hope of preventing pandemic is not merely stopping people from knowing the smallpox genome because even if you did there could be some other mutation next week that could be very dangerous to last. We need to help surveillance in a positive sense. You have to have a state that as democratic legitimacy and thats the outset of surveillance we have now. I think when you look at the epidemiology of people, you see that the more legitimate to say it is, its not just a nod her of how many robert lets you have. Its also a matter of whether people trust you. One of the biggest problems in my is there is the belief the state had made up the epidemic as a form of social control. That is actually prevented the number of pc from being used because the state had no legitimacy. So i was wondering if you had some specific thoughts on two dimensional or visual artists. You talked about music and writers in the digital age. Visual artist specifically i feel like where the gallery system is a little bit obsolete but easily shared. If you posted on facebook about coming to doing any promotion for yourself. If you had more specific thoughts about the function of visual arts. Sure, that is a great question. I want to correct the face the pain. I am not a huge fan of facebook. I think Martin Zucker byrd is a creep. I think their license language has been misread. License agreement tend to be paul shea. What he said is when you give us an Image Company let us play the image and you dont get to sue us for making nonimage available that youve given us. It says you cant exclusively you surrender but you have been actually transferred. There are visual artists who found the fact theyve discovered an audience on the internet and sell their work in physical instances or is visual instances. They found enormous value in it. Theres other artists who found it difficult to make a go of it. I talk about the six basic people about or made money from the hour. Theres really only have to does soon. If you sell stuff like physical instances. You display the art. You take patronage there are six of them in the boat. And theyve not changed substantially. How and who gets to be done has changed. We havent added any new ones and 600 years and i dont think we are going to. I want to go back to the coin flipping thing. Like most visual artists have totally failed to earn a living and continue to do so. But then again every description. The thing that im really interested in to be very specific is not which way the visual artist taken in calm but hardly make sure theres income to be made that she gets to keep as much of it as possible. I think the fallacy of big data has been if you take teams that are really rare, whatever they have in common is like if you only buy one car the things people do just before they buy cars is the one true signifier of car buying and we can always advertise the people and the reality is buying cars is so rare that it may just be whatever people have in common is coincidental. This is a commonly understood statistical problem was serious correlations and your measuring happens rarely. So i know how you can visual artists will visual artists will make a living. It may be to earn a living because theyre pointed on the edge. How do we ensure the money is going to do quite that is the important question. Lets stop. How many of you are there . I will take all three of her questions come to answer all at once in space anyone they would like to face. Per year six Copyright Infringement to get someone kicked off the internet. Can six people just write songs and accuse everyone of parliament and congress . Thats a good question. Next one. And learning programming in part because it can be done through free online courses. Wondered if you had any thoughts about the long term viability. We are finally in this country and in the u. K. , two, after 100 years starting to figure out a war on drugs is a bad idea. Im wondering how bad do you think the war on sharing, for instance, something as utopian as the word drugs. I dont think it would work sending notices to parliament because the law is not equally applied. So i think that people who are rich and powerful tend to be able to circle the law. In fact, anchor junior during night of the war against 19,000 American College kids admitted that his kid downloaded music and he said i thought he was suitably disciplined. He learned his lesson. The other 19,000 kids that his company soon lost their lifesaving and his kid i dont know what happened. He got a stern talking to. So i dont think you would work and i think the lesson they are is that it happens in a society where theres problems much more important than computer problems as i said before, which has to do with corruption were probably, but the way we do. Credentialed education is going to well continue to have a fraught relationship with the internet. A pure learning, where i want to do something he do a little bit more than i do so i ask you for some help. I think that is a model that has been alive and well since the earliest days and continues to thrive in part because theres something and need to what we do. Its very satisfying to help someone else do something that you know a little bit more to greatly expand your own expertise. It feels like a natural impulse. The thing that distinguishes making me for battering a keen from the postwar Popular Mechanics often consists anything i like to do. I found someone on the internet has done 80 of it. Ill find it for an affordable than for the guidelines for someone who wants to do what i just. And then the question about the war on drugs. It will be worse than the war on drugs in as much when you undermine the integrity of the internet and it doesnt just create the mass incarceration the super racialized and classbased discrimination that the war and the ability to control your state of mind. All of those are enormous problems. But what it does is it actually undermines our ability to organize at all in order to resist all of these things. When i was an activist in the