Intellectual Property and the Rhetoric of Social Change
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 61 Issue 1 Article 10 2010 Comparative Tales of Origins and Access: Intellectual Property and the Rhetoric of Social Change Jessica Silbey Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jessica Silbey, Comparative Tales of Origins and Access: Intellectual Property and the Rhetoric of Social Change, 61 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 195 (2010) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol61/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 12/30/2010 8:34:29 PM COMPARATIVE TALES OF ORIGINS AND ACCESS: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE RHETORIC OF SOCIAL CHANGE Jessica Silbey† ABSTRACT This Article argues that the open-source and antiexpansionist rhetoric of current intellectual-property debates is a revolution of surface rhetoric but not of deep structure. What this Article terms “the Access Movements” are, by now, well- known communities devoted to providing more access to intellectual-property-protected goods, communities such as the Open Source Initiative and Access to Knowledge. This Article engages Movement actors in their critique of the balance struck by recent law (statutes and cases) and asks whether new laws that further restrict access to intellectual property “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” Relying on cases, statutes and recent policy debates, this Article contrasts the language of traditional intellectual-property law (origins and exclusivity) with the new language of the Access Movements (antiorigins and † Associate Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School. J.D., Ph.D. (Comparative Literature), University of Michigan; A.B., Stanford University. Thanks to Ann Bartow, Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, Dan Burk, Michael Carroll, Maggie Chon, Julie Cohen, Kevin Collins, Laura Dickinson, Laura Heymann, Mark Janis, Sonia Katyal, Greg Lastowka, Michael Madison, William McGeveran, Steven McJohn, Jeff Pokorak, Michael Rustad, Patrick Shin, Ilene Seidman, David Simon, Chris Sprigman, Rebecca Tushnet, and Molly Shaffer Van Houweling. This Article benefited from presentations at the 2009 Intellectual Property Scholars Conference, 2009 Works in Progress Intellectual Property Conference, and the 2008 Cyberlaw Colloquium at American University Washington College of Law. Comments welcome at [email protected]. 195 12/30/2010 8:34:29 PM 196 CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 61:1 access). The Article compares the language of the Access Movements to that of sociopolitical movements of the past, and it draws lessons for successful and unsuccessful uses of rhetoric to enact social change. The Article concludes by showing how the language of the Access Movements retains certain core elements of the intellectual-property regime to which it is reacting and investigates whether this is an effective strategy (whether or not a conscious one) to stimulate change. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 196 I. VARIATIONS ON THE THEME OF ―ACCESS‖ ......................... 203 II. INTELLECTUAL-PROPERTY ORIGIN STORIES ....................... 207 A. The Political Structure of Origin Stories ........................ 208 1. Authenticity ............................................................... 208 2. Heroic Actors ............................................................ 209 3. Consent ..................................................................... 211 B. The Myth, a Disconnect ................................................. 214 III. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE RHETORIC OF SOCIAL CHANGE ............................................................................. 219 A. The Antiorigins of the Countermobilization .................... 220 1. The Private/Public Breakdown ................................... 220 2. A Community “Sharing Nicely” ................................. 223 3. A New Incentive Story ................................................ 230 4. Community Building and the Public Interest .............. 232 B. Questioning Hierarchies ................................................ 235 1. Reversing Default Rules of Exclusivity ....................... 236 2. Substantive Equality Evaluations ............................... 238 3. Constrained Freedom ................................................ 242 4. New Forms and New Relations................................... 245 5. The Value of Diversity ............................................... 247 IV. THE LAST STAND ............................................................... 250 A. Autonomy and the Rights Revolution .............................. 251 B. Consent and the Specter of Choice ................................. 256 C. A Third Way .................................................................. 262 CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 265 INTRODUCTION There is a movement afoot among lawyers and advocates concerning intellectual-property protection. Indeed, there are several related movements afoot. James Boyle is credited with calling out the 12/30/2010 8:34:29 PM 2010] COMPARATIVE TALES 197 Second Enclosure Movement.1 On his heels (and even before), groups organized to provide open access to innovation and expression.2 Without presuming direct causality, it seems fair to say that these related movements, which this Article will collectively call the Access Movements, are a response to the expansion of intellectual- property rights (building fences statutorily or on a case-by-case basis) and a growing digital culture that disseminates information and expression broadly and quickly (breaking down fences). In a networked world where information and expression are only a click away, most users of the Internet recognize how much knowledge and culture (in the form of patented inventions, trademarks, or copyrighted works) are not free to use.3 For the most part, the Access Movements do not advocate dismantling the intellectual-property system. They do, however, advocate preserving a meaningful public domain and creating a robust commons by loosening the boundaries of intellectual-property protection and reshaping the norms of intellectual-property control. The Access Movements do this to serve the purposes of intellectual property—to promote science and the useful arts4—and nourish participatory democracy.5 1 See James Boyle, The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 33, 33 (2003) (developing the vocabulary and analytic framework necessary to articulate the arguments against the enclosure of the public domain). 2 See, e.g., About EFF, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUND., http://www.eff.org/about (last visited Oct. 30, 2010) (describing the founding of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 1990); About FEPP, FREE EXPRESSION POL‘Y PROJECT, http://fepproject.org/fepp/aboutfepp.html (last updated Sept. 27, 2010) (describing the founding of the Free Expression Policy Project in 2000); About FSF, FREE SOFTWARE FOUND., http://www.fsf.org/about (last visited Oct. 30, 2010) (describing the founding of the Free Software Foundation in 1985); About, STUDENTS FOR FREE CULTURE, http://freeculture.org/about (last visited Oct. 30, 2010) (describing the founding of Students for Free Culture in 2004); BUDAPEST OPEN ACCESS INITIATIVE, http://www. soros.org/openaccess/index.shtml (last visited Oct. 30, 2010) (describing the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2001 sponsored by the Open Society Institute); History, CREATIVE COMMONS, http://wiki.creativecommons.org/History (last modified Sept. 27, 2010, 9:35 PM) (describing the beginnings of Creative Commons in 2002). This is obviously not an exhaustive list. 3 See LAWRENCE LESSIG, FREE CULTURE, at xiv (2004) (―[W]e come from a tradition of ‗free culture‘—not ‗free‘ as in ‗free beer‘ (to borrow a phrase from the founder of the free- software movement), but ‗free‘ as in ‗free speech,‘ ‗free markets,‘ ‗free trade,‘ ‗free enterprise,‘ ‗free will,‘ and ‗free elections.‘ A free culture supports and protects creators and innovators. It does this directly by granting intellectual property rights. But it does so indirectly by limiting the reach of those rights, to guarantee that follow-on creators and innovators remain as free as possible from the control of the past. A free culture is not a culture without property, just as a free market is not a market in which everything is free. The opposite of a free culture is a ‗permission culture‘—a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past.‖ (footnote omitted)); see also id. at 8–9 (arguing that the protectionist movement against Internet-driven accessibility enhancements has created less of a free culture, and more of a permission culture). 4 The argument from the Access Movements, which will be discussed more infra, is that overprotection of intellectual property creates a permissions culture in which the essential borrowing from past innovations and creative works is chilled and future innovation and 12/30/2010 8:34:29 PM 198 CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 61:1 On the surface, this ―countermobilization‖—what some have called a ―new politics of intellectual