WEBVTT

NOTE 25. If You Believe in IP, How Do You Teach Others?

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.480
25. If you believe in IP, how do you teach others? November 16, 2009.

2
00:00:10.480 --> 00:00:16.280
Some Harvard professors are taking very seriously their intellectual property rights and have

3
00:00:16.280 --> 00:00:22.480
claimed copyright to the ideas that they spread in their classrooms. What prompted this was

4
00:00:22.480 --> 00:00:28.260
a website in which students posted their notes to help other students. The professors have

5
00:00:28.260 --> 00:00:34.180
have cracked down. It might have been enough to legislate against this behavior in particular.

6
00:00:34.180 --> 00:00:40.500
Instead, they wrapped their objection in the great fallacy of our age. The professor owns

7
00:00:40.500 --> 00:00:46.940
his ideas, and they may not be spread without his permission. This action has opened up

8
00:00:46.940 --> 00:00:52.900
a can of worms, and now other universities have taken up the puzzling question, how do

9
00:00:52.900 --> 00:00:58.580
Do you at once enforce intellectual property and uphold the ideal of a university, which

10
00:00:58.580 --> 00:01:03.940
is, after all, about teaching and spreading ideas to others?

11
00:01:03.940 --> 00:01:09.860
The problem is a serious one that highlights the absurdity of the notion that an idea,

12
00:01:09.860 --> 00:01:15.540
infinitely reproducible and thereby not scarce, and also taught with the overt purpose of

13
00:01:15.540 --> 00:01:22.820
gaining adherence among students, can be somehow contained and restrained once it is unleashed.

14
00:01:22.820 --> 00:01:29.140
The only way to retain exclusive possession of an idea is never to share it with anyone.

15
00:01:29.140 --> 00:01:34.180
But of course that not only cuts against the grain of teaching, it is contrary to the human

16
00:01:34.180 --> 00:01:40.340
impulse for bouncing ideas off others and still claiming some credit for innovation.

17
00:01:40.340 --> 00:01:47.580
There are two possible ways out of this problem in a digital age, open source or IP.

18
00:01:47.580 --> 00:01:52.860
The open source model has been adopted by MIT, which has made its entire curriculum

19
00:01:52.860 --> 00:01:56.900
open source and freely available online.

20
00:01:56.900 --> 00:02:01.340
This is a fairly straightforward approach, which finally gets down to the reality that

21
00:02:01.340 --> 00:02:07.820
what MIT is charging for is not so much the education, but the degree itself, clarity

22
00:02:07.820 --> 00:02:09.880
at last.

23
00:02:09.880 --> 00:02:15.180
Another approach is the one taken by Harvard and, most explicitly, by the University of

24
00:02:15.180 --> 00:02:21.560
of Texas, which has suggested that professors make the following contract with students.

25
00:02:21.560 --> 00:02:26.500
My lectures are protected by state common law and federal copyright law.

26
00:02:26.500 --> 00:02:31.240
They are my own, original expression and I record them at the same time that I deliver

27
00:02:31.240 --> 00:02:34.060
them in order to secure protection.

28
00:02:34.060 --> 00:02:38.340
Whereas you are authorized to take notes in class, thereby creating a derivative work

29
00:02:38.340 --> 00:02:43.660
from my lecture, the authorization extends only to making one set of notes for your own

30
00:02:43.660 --> 00:02:55.660
You are not authorized to record my lectures, to provide your notes to anyone else, or to make any commercial use of them without express prior permission from me.

31
00:02:55.660 --> 00:03:05.660
You can make no other use of what you learn? Really? That sort of smashes the whole point of education, doesn't it?

32
00:03:05.660 --> 00:03:12.660
The goal of the university is to spread knowledge, not to grant one-time use for what you learn in the classroom.

33
00:03:12.660 --> 00:03:18.260
The aim of an individual student is to gain knowledge that is used in every possible way

34
00:03:18.260 --> 00:03:22.740
for a lifetime, and to pass the ideas on to others.

35
00:03:22.740 --> 00:03:27.300
In fact, what the contract requires is impossible.

36
00:03:27.300 --> 00:03:31.720
It is not as if our bodies are equipped with hard drives that can be wiped clean after

37
00:03:31.720 --> 00:03:34.160
the semester is over.

38
00:03:34.160 --> 00:03:39.220
In any case, even if we were so equipped, that would defeat the whole purpose of taking

39
00:03:39.220 --> 00:03:47.180
I don't find this struggle ridiculous in the slightest.

40
00:03:47.180 --> 00:03:53.420
Once you posit the ownership of ideas already made public, this problem becomes inevitable.

41
00:03:53.420 --> 00:03:58.220
Of course the institution of teaching has been around since the ancient world, and yet

42
00:03:58.220 --> 00:04:02.740
this issue has never really presented itself before.

43
00:04:02.740 --> 00:04:06.940
But since the publishing mercantilists first asserted that property rights could be applied

44
00:04:06.940 --> 00:04:12.860
The problem of what to do about teaching has been waiting in the wings.

45
00:04:12.860 --> 00:04:19.540
The advent of digital media forces the issue because ideas, once stated, can spread globally

46
00:04:19.540 --> 00:04:21.900
in an instant.

47
00:04:21.900 --> 00:04:27.100
I am further struck by this problem in light of a fantastic new book on Ayn Rand called

48
00:04:27.100 --> 00:04:30.580
Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns.

49
00:04:30.580 --> 00:04:35.880
The author isn't quite zeroed in on this issue as such, but she provides enough information

50
00:04:35.880 --> 00:04:41.520
to document the fact that for Rand the issue of her intellectual property became increasingly

51
00:04:41.520 --> 00:04:44.260
important throughout her life.

52
00:04:44.260 --> 00:04:50.240
She documents how Rand's royalties from her work, Night of January 16th, gave her the

53
00:04:50.240 --> 00:04:55.400
first taste of financial independence, and how she later came to believe that she had

54
00:04:55.400 --> 00:04:57.720
not received enough.

55
00:04:57.720 --> 00:05:02.760
With each successive negotiation for book royalties and film rights, her terms became

56
00:05:02.760 --> 00:05:09.760
Now, in a free market, there is nothing wrong with an upfront payment for first-run rights to a book or movie.

57
00:05:09.760 --> 00:05:13.760
It is by being first past the post that profits are made.

58
00:05:13.760 --> 00:05:20.760
This was how artists were paid in the Renaissance, not through royalties, as if the artist owns the image or work,

59
00:05:20.760 --> 00:05:27.760
but through a payment that comes with granting some third party the opportunity to be the first to reveal the work.

60
00:05:27.760 --> 00:05:39.760
In the 19th century, for example, British authors would sell their manuscripts to American publishers who could not copyright the work.

61
00:05:39.760 --> 00:05:43.760
There was no such thing as international copyright in those days.

62
00:05:43.760 --> 00:05:50.760
It turned out that the authors made more money through this means of payment than through royalties in their own country.

63
00:05:50.760 --> 00:06:10.760
So on this score, Rand had perfectly sound instincts. A person should charge as much as he or she can for first run, but Rand's rationale was rooted in this modern notion of intellectual property, a theory shared by nearly all her contemporaries on which she was never once challenged.

64
00:06:10.760 --> 00:06:17.080
In fact, to a great extent, her philosophy exalted the role and rights of the Creator

65
00:06:17.080 --> 00:06:21.920
more than any, probably in the history of ideas.

66
00:06:21.920 --> 00:06:26.400
This is a great contribution, but she took the notion too far.

67
00:06:26.400 --> 00:06:31.420
For Rand, intellectual rights trumped real rights.

68
00:06:31.420 --> 00:06:34.120
This comes through not only in her writings.

69
00:06:34.120 --> 00:06:38.960
The fountainhead can be given a property rights spin, but ultimately it is about intellectual

70
00:06:38.960 --> 00:06:45.960
Here, property and her ideas became a source of conflict with friends such as Isabel Patterson,

71
00:06:45.960 --> 00:06:48.960
with whom Rand was friends for many years.

72
00:06:48.960 --> 00:06:53.960
Tensions entered into the friendship when Rand accused Patterson of taking her ideas

73
00:06:53.960 --> 00:06:56.960
in the writing of God of the Machine.

74
00:06:56.960 --> 00:07:02.960
Patterson responded that Rand's contribution to the ideas in this book was minimal.

75
00:07:02.960 --> 00:07:18.960
The distribution to the ideas in this book was minimal. They wrote back and forth and argued over specific instances of who said what to whom. They sorted through events in their associations attempting to reconstruct them and divvy the ideas.

76
00:07:18.960 --> 00:07:24.960
In truth, what had happened to Rand and Patterson is called a conversation.

77
00:07:24.960 --> 00:07:41.960
One person says something and another elaborates which prompts new thoughts, new directions, new comments, a consensus, which then gets interrupted by new thoughts, points of departure, new elaborations, a new consensus, and so on.

78
00:07:41.960 --> 00:07:52.960
And if you know how Rand was, staying up all night in these detailed discussions of theory, you know that it would be simply impossible to sort out who owned what.

79
00:07:52.960 --> 00:08:06.960
You can try this yourself with a friend. Talk for 15 minutes and then attempt to draw an ownership map of ideas. See if you can come to a consensus. Then see what the attempt does to your friendship.

80
00:08:06.960 --> 00:08:13.960
Reading through the history of Rand's relationships with people, we find that this dynamic was pervasive.

81
00:08:13.960 --> 00:08:20.640
Again, I'm not saying this as accusation, but merely observing that it is an extension

82
00:08:20.640 --> 00:08:25.000
of her theory concerning the ownership of ideas.

83
00:08:25.000 --> 00:08:30.440
This is particularly a problem for a theory of life that exalts independent thinking and

84
00:08:30.440 --> 00:08:31.680
creativity.

85
00:08:31.680 --> 00:08:37.120
What if the idea that one should be independent and creative itself actually came from someone

86
00:08:37.120 --> 00:08:38.540
else?

87
00:08:38.540 --> 00:08:42.000
One must constantly acknowledge one's debts.

88
00:08:42.000 --> 00:08:47.720
and, moreover, one should be cautious about remixing the ideas, lest the property right

89
00:08:47.720 --> 00:08:52.520
in the idea of being creative be stained and marred.

90
00:08:52.520 --> 00:08:57.240
Marrying the idea of intellectual property to the notion of being independent generates

91
00:08:57.240 --> 00:09:02.440
extreme dependence and mandatory intellectual compliance.

92
00:09:02.440 --> 00:09:07.120
The famed role of Nathaniel Brandon in the Rand Circle was not to be only a teacher of

93
00:09:07.120 --> 00:09:19.840
He was caught on the horns of a dilemma in many ways.

94
00:09:19.840 --> 00:09:24.180
On the one hand, he was seeking followers for Rand's ideas.

95
00:09:24.180 --> 00:09:28.800
On the other hand, he wanted to protect her ideas from being stolen.

96
00:09:28.800 --> 00:09:33.800
He probably wanted to maintain his own monopolistic possession of them.

97
00:09:33.800 --> 00:09:39.060
What kind of person, then, are you willing to tolerate as part of the inner circle?

98
00:09:39.060 --> 00:09:45.440
It would have to be a person who would repeat the ideas of Rand exactly, without alteration,

99
00:09:45.440 --> 00:09:51.480
and constantly cite Rand for her innovation, and assert her right to the idea.

100
00:09:51.480 --> 00:09:54.760
Taken far enough, one can imagine the result.

101
00:09:54.760 --> 00:10:00.440
A drone army of people who footnoted nearly every phrase coming out of their mouths.

102
00:10:00.440 --> 00:10:06.400
It was in the pursuit of intellectual property that Nathaniel intervened in objectivist clubs

103
00:10:06.400 --> 00:10:11.200
to prevent them from using the word objectivist, to prevent them from using quotes from John

104
00:10:11.200 --> 00:10:18.700
Galt, to prevent them even from advertising lectures on the topic by students of her ideas.

105
00:10:18.700 --> 00:10:25.080
As Burns demonstrates, but without clarity of casual explanation, the movement for Rand's

106
00:10:25.080 --> 00:10:30.840
Rand's ideas only really took off after Nathaniel Brandon had been cast out of the inner circle.

107
00:10:30.840 --> 00:10:36.720
The monopoly on her ideas could no longer be maintained. They were set free, not fully

108
00:10:36.720 --> 00:10:43.800
open source, but at least far less restricted. And so they flourished.

109
00:10:43.800 --> 00:10:50.000
Rand was not entirely happy about this transition. Her impression was not entirely invalid that

110
00:10:50.000 --> 00:10:56.960
Rand was having a huge influence.

111
00:10:56.960 --> 00:11:01.720
Like the professors discussed above, however, she turned away from an open source model

112
00:11:01.720 --> 00:11:04.960
toward IP enforcement.

113
00:11:04.960 --> 00:11:11.080
Of the Libertarian Party, for example, she wrote, it's a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist

114
00:11:11.080 --> 00:11:14.400
party to start by stealing ideas.

115
00:11:14.400 --> 00:11:17.200
But this raises the question.

116
00:11:17.200 --> 00:11:22.300
Would it have been better had the libertarians not been influenced by Rand?

117
00:11:22.300 --> 00:11:24.640
From her perspective, yes.

118
00:11:24.640 --> 00:11:31.760
It was even worse when ideas were stolen and then mixed with ideas with which she disagreed.

119
00:11:31.760 --> 00:11:35.640
The rest of the story played out as we might expect.

120
00:11:35.640 --> 00:11:40.460
She ended up feeling robbed and looted by everyone who was influenced by her.

121
00:11:40.460 --> 00:11:45.300
My own reading of her biography is that her belief that her ideas were property led to

122
00:11:45.300 --> 00:11:56.520
She might have been proud of her role as one of the most influential intellectual forces

123
00:11:56.520 --> 00:12:03.320
in the second half of the twentieth century. Lacking any university position and a professorship,

124
00:12:03.320 --> 00:12:08.720
she actually managed to make the whole of the English-speaking world her classroom.

125
00:12:08.720 --> 00:12:13.200
But rather than be thrilled at what she had done, she had the opposite reaction, which

126
00:12:13.200 --> 00:12:17.880
Which is exactly what one might expect from a deeply flawed conception of intellectual

127
00:12:17.880 --> 00:12:19.640
property.

128
00:12:19.640 --> 00:12:24.360
What Rand went through is precisely what these Harvard professors are going through, deep

129
00:12:24.360 --> 00:12:29.400
ambiguity concerning the application of property rights to their thoughts.

130
00:12:29.400 --> 00:12:33.720
Eventually, they will have to come to terms with it.

131
00:12:33.720 --> 00:12:40.360
It is the MIT model, or retirement from teaching, or a lifetime of bitterness.

132
00:12:40.360 --> 00:12:45.760
The MIT model is the model of the ancient world and every university environment ever

133
00:12:45.760 --> 00:12:52.280
since, and it is the only way to deal with a digital society in which every thought becomes

134
00:12:52.280 --> 00:12:54.280
is globalized upon utterance.