{"id":6165,"date":"2021-10-06T15:40:37","date_gmt":"2021-10-06T14:40:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.infolaw.co.uk\/newsletter\/?p=6165"},"modified":"2021-10-08T11:37:43","modified_gmt":"2021-10-08T10:37:43","slug":"the-internet-as-a-commons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.infolaw.co.uk\/newsletter\/2021\/10\/the-internet-as-a-commons\/","title":{"rendered":"The internet as a commons"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Since the beginning of the \u201cinformation revolution\u201d there has built up a tension between the rights of the owners of information and other intellectual property and the practical ability and desire of others to exploit that property using the developing technologies. This tension heightened considerably with the popularisation of the internet and the web as it has become ever easier to \u201cdownload\u201d and \u201cshare\u201d (ie to copy and redistribute or republish) content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Information wants to be free<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cInformation wants to be free\u201d is an expression meaning that people should be able to access information freely. It is often used by technology activists to criticise intellectual property laws that limit transparency and general access to information. Critics say that such laws conflict with the potential development of a public domain of information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The iconic expression is attributed to Stewart Brand<\/a>, who, in the late 1960s, founded the Whole Earth Catalog<\/em> and argued that technology could be liberating rather than oppressing. Its earliest recorded use was at the first Hackers Conference in 1984, where Brand told Apple founder Steve Wozniak:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOn the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it\u2019s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Copyright vs the commons<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The idea that the internet was a \u201ccommons\u201d in which creativity could flourish was developed by then-Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig<\/a> in his 2001 book, The Future of Ideas<\/em>. The internet protected a commons on which the widest range of innovators could experiment, but, manipulating the law for their own purposes, corporations established themselves as virtual gatekeepers of the internet while Congress, in the pockets of media magnates, rewrote copyright and patent laws to stifle creativity and progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2001, with Hal Abelson and Eric Eldred and the support of the Center for the Public Domain, he founded the Creative Commons<\/a>, devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He developed his arguments in Free Culture (2004).<\/em> Digital technologies have extended the reach of copyright law and are regulating activities that the original legislators never dreamed of restricting. \u201cIn a digital age, copying is as natural as breathing.\u201d Every web page view is technically a copy, regulated by copyright law, a situation which was unintended and is totally inefficient. He proposed that distribution for commercial purposes rather than simply the act of copying were the appropriate thing to \u201ctax\u201d with copyright legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Remix<\/em> (2008) Lessig further developed and refined these arguments. His central theme was that the current copyright regime is so at odds with the 21st century context in which it operates that we risk criminalising an entire generation \u2013 the net generation \u2013 who are growing up with the means to consume, remix and create and publish media in ways unimaginable even 30 years ago, yet with the permission to do less even than consume according to the 20th century industry models. Saddled with arcane laws of whose reach they may be unaware, and which, if acknowledged, they cannot understand and cannot respect, our children do what comes naturally, what seems fair to them \u2013 they \u201cbreak the law\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Creative Commons<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Creative Commons copyright licences<\/a> provide a simple, standardised way to give permission to share and use creative work. They forge a balance inside the traditional \u201call rights reserved\u201d setting that copyright law creates and are now in wide use, particularly on \u201csharing\u201d sites such as Flickr (photo-sharing) and the like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe combination of our tools and our users is a vast and growing digital commons, a pool of content that can be copied, distributed, edited, remixed, and built upon, all within the boundaries of copyright law.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The types of CC licences are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n