A Republic of Letters
Revolution, Art, and Ownership
| Let’s protect our cultural patrimony from appropriation by commercial interests. This 2010 review of the latest book by Lewis Hyde -- an eloquent and erudite plea for such a defense -- is from the New York Times, August 20 (via reader Heathor Remoff). The reviewer is director of the Harvard Library. |
by Robert Darnton
In Common as Air, Lewis Hyde evokes the ideal of a Republic of Letters with another name, the “cultural commons,” which summons up associations with current projects for sharing knowledge like Creative Commons, the Public Library of Science, Wikipedia, and the Internet Archive. He contrasts it with efforts to close off sectors of knowledge, as in the case of companies that attempt to use the understanding of the human genome in order to gain control of DNA segments related to diabetes and breast cancer.The history that Hyde, author of “The Gift” (1983), a defense of the noncommercial aspects of art, invokes goes back to the Middle Ages, when villagers enjoyed collective rights to common lands. But for the most part, Hyde invokes the US founding founders in order to warn us against a new enclosure movement. This one would fence off large sectors of the public domain -- in science, the arts, literature, and the entire world of knowledge -- in order to exploit [having] monopolies.
Hyde cites plenty of examples from Hollywood, the pharmaceutical industry, agribusiness, and the swarm of lobbyists who transform public knowledge into private preserves by manipulating laws for the protection of intellectual property. Then he draws on Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison for arguments against such privatization.
Jefferson: “The field of knowledge is the common property of mankind.”
Franklin: “That as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously.”
Hyde cites the historian J. G. A. Pocock, whose studies of civic republicanism reveal how early modern philosophers drew on a current of thought about the nature of citizenship that goes back to ancient Greece and Rome.
Hyde builds his argument by telling stories, and he tells them well. His account of Franklin and the lightning rod shows that Franklin actually collaborated with three other experimenters in a common laboratory set up in the Pennsylvania State House. He also applied information derived from earlier theorists and experimenters, including William Harvey, Isaac Newton, the inventors of the Leyden jar, and many wits who had noticed the similarity between electric sparks and lightning.
Franklin’s famous kite experiment did indeed express original insight about the nature of electricity; but when Franklin reported it in The Pennsylvania Gazette, he did not mention that he was the experimenter and did not attach his name to the article. When publishing instructions on how to make a lightning rod in Poor Richard’s Almanac, he also refrained from noting that he was the inventor. And he never sought a patent for it, because he had drawn on a common stock of knowledge and felt committed to “produce something for the common benefit.”
The same attitude lay behind Jefferson’s description of knowledge as “common property.” It pervaded the entire Enlightenment, when men discussed experiments and ideas in correspondence networks and a chain of academies that extended from St. Petersburg to Philadelphia. Letters, learned societies and the printed word came together in the creation of a Republic of Letters, an egalitarian world of knowledge open to everyone -- at least in principle, although in practice it was restricted to a literate elite.
Jefferson wondered whether copyright ought to exist at all. In a famous letter to Isaac McPherson, he noted a peculiarity of communication by print: “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
In the end, Jefferson was persuaded by Madison that a strictly limited copyright would indeed “promote the progress of science and the useful arts,” as the Constitution was to proclaim. By enjoying a short-term monopoly on the publication of their writings, authors would be encouraged to share their ideas in print. How short should the term be? The copyright act of 1790 set it at 14 years, renewable once. The founders took this limit from British precedents, which went back through a series of court cases to the original copyright act of 1710. Along the way, some experts argued that copyright should be perpetual, because intellectual property was like ownership of land -- absolute until alienated by sale. But that view was overridden by the notion that knowledge belonged to everyone and should revert to the public domain, where everyone can make use of it.
Today, however, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years -- or even longer in some cases. The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, because the monopoly on Mickey was about to expire) now prevents most 20th-century literature from being available in the public domain. When asked how long he thought copyrights should last, Jack Valenti, the lobbyist for Hollywood, quipped, “Forever, minus a day.” Valenti has won, Jefferson has lost.
What can be done to protect the cultural commons from further enclosure? Hyde praises projects like General Public Licenses, which channel intellectual property into the public domain, and the Distributed Annotation System, which prevents the monopolization of genomic knowledge. But he does not propose a program for action, nor does he dispute the need for limited commercial applications of new knowledge. Instead, he tells stories with a moral. If we reassessed our history, he teaches, we would reassert our citizenship in a Republic of Letters that was crucial to the creation of the American Republic -- and that is more important than ever in the age of the Internet.
JJS: Both Jefferson and Franklin were physiocrats, the cutting-edge economic thinking during the Enlightenment. They saw that landowners have both rights and duties, a right to privacy and to profit from one’s improvements but also the duty to pay rent to the community (but no taxes on our wages and interest), since we all have an equal right to earth while owning some excludes everyone else from our parcel. Indeed, the first US constitution, the Articles of Confederation, mandated a tax on land (not on labor or capital).
When owners must pay land dues, they can’t profit from mere speculation, so they don’t assemble latifundia but leave enough for others. Same with patents. When owners pay the annual rental value of monopolizing the technology, they don’t stockpile it (as now do MicroSoft, Intel, and others, getting thousands of patents each year that they don't use but stockpile so no one can use them) but let good ideas flood the market. (To see the Monsanto Patent for a Pig, click here.)
The idea of compensating those whom you exclude is an ethical base of geonomics.
---------------------
Editor Jeffery J. Smith runs the Forum on Geonomics.
|
Also see: Let knowledge enter the commons more quickly?
Is Intellectual Property Always Proper?
Paris Metro's cheaters say … |
| Email this article | Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email |
What are your views? Share your opinions with The Progress Report:
| Page One | Page Two | Archive |
| Discussion Room | Letters | What's Geoism? |
