Authors@Google: Cory Doctorow


Uploaded by AtGoogleTalks on 05.03.2010

Transcript:
>> Okay everyone, thanks very much for coming and it's my good pleasure to introduce Cory
Doctorow and Cory is a very prolific member of the Internet community as I know, I could
describe it that way. He's probably known to most people in this room and someone that
I would like to see more of at Google here today but he's going to speak a little bit
about his latest book, "Makers", and some other issues that are on his mind. Cory?
Cory Doctorow >> Thanks. So I thought I would start by - oh and thank you all for coming.
I thought I would start a little by reading something from "Makers" which is the book
that's just out from Harper Collins here in the UK and touring the US and available for
free online. Has anyone here actually read any of it or all of it? Okay, that's good.
So it's available for free online, as with all my books, Creative Commons License, Craphound.com.
I'm easy to find, I'm the first Cory in Google so relatively straightforward to find if you'd
like to read some more, you can always buy the book and it's a book about economic collapse
and rebirth so I wrote it as a parable about the dot com years which I lived through in
San Francisco which I found really kind of inspiring and also grim. I moved there at
the peak of the boom. I was spending a lot of money on a very small half of an illegal
sublet to live in and my window looked at over the yard for the flat I was living in,
in which there was a man who was paying $900 a month to live in a Sears shed without a
toilet. The reason he took that is because it had a place to park his Jag so this was
all he could find and then all the money left the Valley in like a hot second. It just vanished
and a lot of people went home. It was kind of a ghost town. You could walk down the streets
and find people having essentially car boot sales of Aeron chairs and dot com t-shirts,
kind of make an offer going back to Oklahoma in the morning and then the interesting thing
was that it was kind of like that last scene in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" because
people kept on making stuff. All the money had disappeared and it turned out that all
you needed to make interesting things was a laptop and someone's WiFi connection, even
if it wasn't your WiFi connection and all kinds of really interesting start ups emerged
from the Valley, driven not by some kind of crazy search for market opportunity but just
for scratching an itch, doing that classic free software thing, doing something that
just seemed right, that seemed ethical, that seemed interesting, that seemed like good
art and you got everything from Flickr to Twitter to lots of other kinds of web 2.0
stuff out of it. Lots of stuff that didn't go anywhere too but it was amazing to see
that it turned out, you know not withstanding your wonderful cafeteria
here, that you could create all kinds of amazing things on the Internet without a Foosball
table and that was kind of a revelation I think for a lot of us. So I wrote this book
as a kind of parable about it and for various reasons, it was delayed in publication and
another book my publisher wanted to get out first and I luckily happened into the circumstance
that the economy collapsed before the book was published so it seems not so much a parable
about the dot com years anymore as a prescient prediction of the economic collapse that we
just lived through and are living through indeed today. The premise of the story is
that some Silicon Valley venture capitalists have bought up a bunch of rust belt companies
that had more money on hand then their market capitalizations so there's essentially free
money if you just broke them up for parts. They took that money and used it to fund little
tech start ups in dead Wal-Marts and malls in the suburbs of America, which have largely
been abandoned thanks to fuel crisis, and in those places inventors just invent interesting
stuff and the idea is - I'll give you $10,000, you invent something, we sell it for six weeks
and then it's cloned. We take $30,000 out of the company. That's an incredible 200%
ROI and then we do it again. Invent something new every six weeks. New business every six
weeks and won't that be interesting and cool, and that's where the story starts. The journalist
for the San Jose Mercury News, Suzanne Church, has gone to Hollywood, Florida, where the
first of these start ups is to interview the two people and to serve as a kind of embedded
journalist through this period and that's where the bit that I'm going to read to you
today starts. Perry gestured with an arm, deep into the
center of the junk pile,“All right, check this stuff out as we go.” He stuck
his hand through the unglazed window of a never-built shop and plucked out a toy in
a battered box. “I love these things,” he said, handing it to her.She took it. It
was a Sesame Street Elmo doll, labeled BOOGIE WOOGIE ELMO. “That’s from the great Elmo
Crash,” Perry said, taking back the box and expertly extracting the Elmo like he was
shelling a nut. “The last and greatest generation of Elmoid technology, cast into an uncaring
world that bought millions of Li’l Tagger washable graffiti kits instead after Rosie
gave them two thumbs up on her Christmas shopping guide. “Poor Elmo was an orphan, and every
junkyard in the world has millions of mint-in-package BWEs, getting rained on, waiting to start
their long, half-million-year decomposition.“But check this out.” He flicked a multitool
off his belt and extracted a short, sharp scalpel-blade. He slit the grinning, disco
suited Elmo open from chin to groin and shucked its furry exterior and the foam tissue that
overlaid its skeleton. He slide the blade under the plastic cover on its ass and revealed
a little printed circuit board.“That’s an entire Atom processor on a chip, there,”
he said. "Every limb and head have their own subcontrollers and there's a high powered
digital-to-analog ring for letting him sing and dance to new songs, and an analog-to-digital
converter for converting spoken and danced commands to motions. Basically, you sing and
dance for Elmo and he'll dance and sing back for you." Suzanne nodded. She’d missed that
toy, which was a pity. She had a five year old goddaughter in Minneapolis who would have
loved a Boogie Woogie Elmo. They'd come to a giant barn, sat on the edge of a story-and-a-half’s
worth of half built anchor store. “This used to be where the contractors kept their
heavy equipment,” Lester rumbled, aiming a car-door remote at the door, which queeped
and opened. Inside, it was cool and bright, the chugging air-conditioners efficiently
blasting purified air over the many work-surfaces. The barn was a good
25 feet tall, with a loft and a catwalk circling it halfway up. It was lined with metallic
shelves stacked neatly with labeled boxes of parts scrounged from the junkyard. Perry
set Elmo down on a workbench and worked a miniature USB cable into it's chest cavity.
The other end terminated with a PDA with a small rubberized photovoltaic cell on the
front. “This thing is running InstallParty - it can recognize any hardware and build
a Linux distro for it on the fly without any human intervention. They used a ton of different
suppliers for the BWE, so every one is a little different, depending on who was offering the
cheapest components the day it was built. InstallParty doesn’t care though: one click
and away it goes.” The PDA was doing all kinds of funny dances on its screen, montages
of playful photoshopping of public figures matted into historical fine art.“All done.
Now, have a look - this is a Linux computer with some of the most advanced robotics ever
engineered. No sweatshop stuff, either, see this? The solder is too precise to be done
by hand—that’s because it’s from India. If it had come from Cambodia, you’d see
all kinds of wobble in the solder: that means that clever, tiny hands were used to create
it, which means that somewhere in the device’s karmic history, there’s a sweatshop full
of crippled children inhaling solder fumes until they keel over and are dumped in a ditch
but this is the good stuff. “So here we have this karmically clean robot with infinitely
malleable computation and a bunch of robotic capabilities. I’ve turned these things into
wall-climbing monkeys; I’ve modded them for a woman at the University of Miami at
the Jackson Memorial who used their capability to ape human motions in physiotherapy programs
with nerve-damage cases. But the best thing I’ve done with them so far is the Distributed
Boogie Woogie Elmo Motor Vehicle Operations Cluster. Come on,” he said, and took off
deeper into the barn’s depths. They came to a dusty, stripped-down Smart car, one of
those tiny two-seat electrical cars that you could literally buy out of a vending machine
in Europe. It was barely recognizable, having been reduced to its roll cage, drivetrain
and a control panel. A gang of naked Elmos were piled into it. “Wake up boys, time
for a demo!” Perry shouted, and they sat up and made canned, tinny Elmo “oh boy”
noises, climbing into position on the pedals, around the wheel, and on the gear tree. “I
got the idea when I was teaching some Elmos to play Super Mario Brothers. I thought it’d
get a decent diggdotting. I could get it to speed run all of the first level using an
old paddle I’d found and rehabilitated, and I was trying to figure out what to do
next. The dead mall across the way is a drive in and I was out front watching the silent
movies one night, and one of them showed all these cute little furry animated whatevers
collectively driving a car. It’s a really old sight gag, I mean, like racial memory
old. I’d seen the Little Rascals do that same bit, with Alfalfa on the wheel and Buckwheat
and Spanky on the brake and clutch and the doggy working the gearshift. “And I thought,
Shit, I could do that with Elmos. They don’t have any networking capability, but they can
talk and they can parse spoken commands, so all I need to do is designate one for left
and one for right and one for fast and one for slow and one to be the eyes, barking orders
and they should be able to do this. And it works! They even adjust their balance and
centers of gravity for when the car swerves to stay upright at their posts. Check this
out." He turned to the car. “Driving Elmos, ten-HUT!” They snapped upright and ticked
salutes off their naked plastic noggins. “In circles, DRIVE!" The Elmos scrambled into
position and fired up the car and in short order they were doing donuts in the car’s
little indoor pasture. “Elmos, HALT” Perry shouted and the car stopped silently, rocking
gently. “Stand DOWN.” The Elmos sat down with a series of tiny thumps. Suzanne found
herself applauding. “That was amazing,” she said. “Really impressive. So that’s
what you’re going to do for Kodacell?" The companies that they bought and liquidated
are Kodak and Duracell, they call them Kodacell. "That's what you're going to do for Kodacell,
make these things out of recycled toys?” Lester chuckled. “Nope, not quite. That’s
just for starters. The Elmos are all about the universal availability of cycles and apparatus.
Everywhere you look, there’s devices for free that have everything you need to make
anything do anything. “But have a look at part two, c’mere.” He lumbered off in
another direction, and Suzanne and Perry trailed along behind him. “This is Lester’s workshop,”
Perry said, as they passed through a set of swinging double doors and into a cluttered
wonderland. Where Perry’s domain had been clean and neatly organized, Lester’s area
was a happy shambles. His shelves weren’t orderly, but rather, crammed with looming
piles of amazing junk: thrift-store wedding dresses, plaster statues of bowling monkeys,
box kites, knee-high tin knights-in-armor, seashells painted with the American flag,
presidential action-figures, paste jewelry and antique cough-drop tins. “You know how
they say a sculptor starts with a block of marble and chips away everything that doesn’t
look like a statue? Like he can see the statue in the block? I get like that with garbage:
I see the pieces on the heaps and in the roadside trash and I can just see how it'll go together,
like this." He reached down behind a work table and hoisted up a huge triptych made
out of three hinged car doors stood on end. Carefully, he unfolded it and stood it like
a screen on the cracked concrete floor. The inside of the car doors had been stripped
clean and polished to a high metal gleam that glowed like sterling silver. Spot welded to
it were all manner of soda tin cans, pounded flat and cut into gears, chutes, springs and
other mechanical apparatus. “It’s a mechanical calculator,” he said proudly. “About half
as powerful as Univac. I milled all the parts using a laser cutter. What you do is, you
fill this hopper with GI Joe heads, and this hopper with Barbie heads. You crank this
wheel and it will drop a number of M&Ms equal to the product of the two values into this
hopper, here.” He put three scuffed GI Joe heads in one hopper and four scrofulous Barbies
in another and began to crank, slowly. A musicbox beside the crank played a slow, irregular
rendition of “Pop Goes the Weasel” while hundreds of little coin shaped gears turned,
flipping switches and adding and removing tension to the springs. After the weasel had
popped a few times, twelve brown M&Ms fell into the outstretched rubber hand. He picked
them out carefully and offered them to her. “It’s OK. They’re not from the trash,”
he said. “I buy them in bulk.” He turned his broad back to her and heaved a huge galvanized
tin washtub full of brown M&Ms in her direction. “See, it’s a bit bucket!” he said. Suzanne
giggled in spite of herself. “You guys are hilarious,” she said. “This is really
good, exciting nerdy stuff.” The gears on the mechanical computer were very sharp and
precise; they looked like you could cut yourself on them. When they ground over the polished
surfaces on the car doors, they made a sound like a box of toothpicks falling to the floor:
click-click, clickclickclick, click. She turned the crank until twelve more brown M&Ms fell
out. “Who’s the Van Halen fan?” Lester beamed. “Might as well jump, JUMP!” He
mimed heavy metal air guitar and thrashed his shorn head up and down as though he were
head banging with a mighty mane of hair band locks. “You’re the first one to get the
joke!” he said. “Even Perry didn’t get it!” “Get what?” Perry said, also grinning.
“Van Halen had this thing where if there were any brown M&Ms in their dressing room
they’d trash it and refuse to play. When I was a
kid, I used to dream about being so famous that I could act like that much of a prick.
Ever since, I’ve afforded a great personal significance to the brown M&M.” She laughed
again. Then she frowned a little. “Look, I hate to break this party up, but I came
here because Kettlewell said that you guys exemplified everything that he wanted to do
with Kodacell. This stuff you're doing is very interesting, I mean, it's killer art
but I don’t see the business angle. So, could you help me out here?” “That’s
step three,” Perry said. “C’mere.” He led her back to his workspace, to a platform
surrounded by articulated arms that terminated in webcams, like a grocery scale in the embrace
of a metal spider. "The 3D scanner," he said, producing a Barbie head from Lester’s machine
and dropping it on the scales. He prodded a button and a nearby screen filled with a
three dimensional model of the head, flattened on the side where it touched the surface.
He turned the head over and scanned again and now there were two digital versions of
the head on the screen. He moused on over the other one until they lined up, right clicked
a drop-down menu, selected an option and then they were merged, rotating. "Once we've got
the 3D scan, it’s basically Plasticine.” He distorted the Barbie head, stretching it
and squeezing it with the mouse. “So we can take a real object and make this kind
of protean hyper object out of it, or drop it down to a wireframe and skin it with any
bitmap, like this.” More fast mousing, Barbie’s head turned into a gridded mesh, fine filaments
stretching off along each mussed strand of plastic hair. Then a Campbell’s Cream of
Mushroom Soup label wrapped around her like a stocking being pulled over her head. There
was something stupendously weird and simultaneously very comic about the sight, the kind of inherent
comedy in a cartoon stretched out on a blob of Silly Putty. “So we can build anything
out of interesting junk, with any shape, and then we can digitize the shape and then we
can do anything with the shape and then we can output the shape." He typed quickly and
another machine, sealed and mammoth like an outsized photocopier, started to grunt and
churn. The air filled with a smell like Saran Wrap in a microwave. “The goop we use in
this thing is epoxy-based. You wouldn’t want to build a car out of it, but it makes
a mean dollhouse. The last stage of the output switches to inks, so you
get whatever bitmap you’ve skinned your object with baked right in. It does about
one cubic inch per minute, so this job should be almost done now.” He drummed his fingers
on top of the machine and then it'd start chunking and something inside it went clunk.
He lifted a lid and reached inside and plucked out the Barbie head, stretched and distorted,
skinned with a Campbell’s Soup label. He handed it to Suzanne. She expected it to be
warm, like a squashed penny from a machine on Fisherman’s Wharf, but it was cool and
had the seamless texture of a plastic margarine tub and the heft of a paperweight. “So,
that’s the business,” Lester said. “Or so we’re told. We’ve been making cool
stuff and selling it to collectors on the web for you know, gigantic bucks. We move
one or two pieces a month at about ten grand per. But Kettlewell says he’s going to industrialize
us, alienate us from the product of our labor, and turn us into an assembly line.” “He
didn’t say any such thing,” Perry said. Suzanne was aware that her ears had grown
points. Perry gave Lester an affectionate slug in the shoulder. “Lester’s only kidding.
What we need is a couple of dogsbodies and some bigger printers and we’ll be able to
turn out more modest devices by the hundreds or possibly the thousands. We can tweak the
designs really easily because nothing is coming off a mold, so there’s no setup charge,
and so we can do limited runs of a hundred, redesign, do another hundred. We can make
them to order." So, that's the reading.
So I thought I would talk briefly about some of the ideas that went into "Makers" and into
the way that I publish my work, and specifically about copyright and the way that it regulated
around the world and here in the UK because "Makers" really is a story about a kind of
enterprise that is built around the idea of cheap coordination over the Internet. And
it's also a parable about what happens when people who don't think about the value of
cheap coordination over the Internet but only about what businesses are being displaced
by it get to make policy for the Internet. So, I used to worry a lot about copyright
in terms of what it would do to artist income and I would get embroiled, as I still do,
in these endless fights about whether or not, without strong copyright, artists can earn
a living or they can't. We'd argue about whether Madonna going to a concert promoter and leaving
her record label meant that artist's could figure out how to earn a living from live
performance instead of recordings, or we'd argue about whether or not free software was
a good model for music or books or movies. We'd argue about all these things but I've
come to realize that limiting the copyright discussion to whether or not it's good for
artists is a deeply parochial way of thinking about copyright. Think of everything else
we do on the net. You know, Google is a confessor, right? Look at that amazing, terrible thing
that AOL released when they released all that search corpus and I'm sure some of you have
had a look at your raw search corpus and think about just how much we use our information
tools for things that go well beyond downloading the occasional mp3, whether in the AOL case
it's how to kill our husbands, or just what to do if we have disease or what to do if
we're having lifestyle problems or if we're depressed or how we'll find a maid or what
have you. Think of how we use the net to get our education. I teach both at the Open University
and University of Waterloo in Canada. Collectively, I've visited both campuses four times in two
years. All of my students I connect to over the Internet but it's also how we learn, obviously.
My continuing education is all built around the Internet. I basically use the Internet
as an outboard brain these days. I don't have to remember anything interesting; my Google
phone finds it for me. Think of how we use it for love. The first six months that I knew
my wife we were conducting a long distance relationship with me in San Francisco and
she here in London, and how many of us have met our loved ones over the Internet and how
many of us use the Internet as part of how we stay in touch with our loved ones, not
just our spouses but everybody we love in the world and how the network has strengthened
our connections to all those people we love. Think of how we use it for employment. I mean,
obviously no one here could earn a living without the Internet but that's increasingly
true of everyone, whether you're on a university campus, whether you're an engineer working
on a job site, whether you are someone who is teaching a classroom full of five year
olds. The number of people who can earn a living without the Internet has shrunk to
an insignificant slice, I think it gets smaller every day and also think about how we use
it for political action. I mean, many of you I'm sure have signed up for the Open Rights
Group mailing list and if you haven't, I'll talk to you about that at the end of this
talk but you may have also used something like the Number 10 petition site or any number
of other political tools to contact your legislatores, to weigh in on issues of the day, to organize
with other people around you on anything that you care about politically, and certainly
in the US we recently saw how an entire election could be swung based on grassroots organizing,
grassroots fundraising, and moving away from that centralized top down political infrastructure,
and even civic process. I mean, it's very hard these days to get a permit from the council
to build a new shed without the Internet. Almost all of the stuff takes place
over the network and when it doesn't we get understandably very vexed and we call up the
council and we demand to know why we can't register our marriage over the Internet like
a sensible person might, and eventually the councils will cave to us. So policy is being
written though not with any of those things in mind, it's being written essentially by
people who think of the Internet as a glorified tool for delivering TV, movies, and music,
and so they don't take any of that stuff into consideration and they don't really worry
if any of that stuff is implicated as collateral damage in the way that they intend to regulate
the net so look at Peter Mandelson's latest digital economy bill, which I've been calling
"The Analog Economy Bill" because it's really built around the idea of preserving businesses
whose entire model is built around the difficulty of copying things. The inherent limitations
on copying. Those inherent limitations on copying are fast falling away and I'd say
at this point they've basically been completely put paid to, there are no more real good inherent
limitations on copying the way the record industry understands them. You know, hard
drives are going to get less capacious to more and more expensive, networks aren't going
to get harder to use, libraries won't have taught fewer OAP's to type 'Batman Returns
bit torrent' into Google, right? Our general capacity to copy things is only going to go
up from here. As I said in an article that was in "The Guardian" yesterday, this is the
hardest that copying will ever be. Here today, November 27, 2009, is as hard as copying will
ever be. On November 28th, copying will be incrementally easier. A year from now, copying
will be vastly easier. A year after that, copying will be easier still and yet we have
the digital economy bill that kind of comes in two parts. The first part is here are some
kind of feel good measures we are going to do. We are going to spawn everyone's Internet
connection and send angry letters to people who we think are copying the wrong things.
We are going to do that for a year and if in a year copying in Britain hasn't fallen
by 70%, we are going to do a bunch of other bad stuff. Now let's just examine this 70%
business for a minute. I mean, is there anyone whose ever enacted any measure on any Internet
connection, anywhere in the world, that has substantially reduced copying over any lasting
period? I think the answer is generally no. There was a little blip when they got rid
of the Pirate Bay and brought in IPRED in Sweden. Swedish Internet traffic is higher
then it was before IPRED was introduced in Sweden. It took about four or five months.
As far as we can tell, the trajectory of the digital society is more copying, not less,
forever, and there is no legislative measure short of maybe turning off all the nuclear
reactors and plunging us into the dark, that we can use to shut down copying. So digital
businesses, the businesses that are really built around the digital economy, don't assume
that copying will slow down. These are the businesses that profit no matter what happens
with copying. One of the most inspiring things about Google's history, to my mind, is by
in large as Google has done its acquisitions, especially the weird ones like this gentleman
in his "Blogger" shirt. I remember when Google bought "Blogger" and no one could really figure
out why they'd done it and I asked around and I was writing for Business 2.0 then and
I talked to a lot of people on and off the record and there were a couple of answers
that really run true for me about why Google had bought "Blogger". The first was that it
would just be a crying shame for it to disappear and Ev and his team were smart and it was
a pretty cheap way to hire them. But the other one was that generally speaking, the more
people used the Internet, the more money Google would make, right? Google had a business model
that was based on Internet use going up and Google's income going up at the same time.
They'd figure that out. That's what a digital business looks like. It's not a business that
relies on the totally ahistorical and vastly improbable proposition that Internet use will
decline. So the problem with ascribing liability as the digital economy bill does to intermediaries,
so that's companies like Blogger and YouTube but also any company that hosts or makes copies
of user generated content, is that it basically destroys the business model for everyone who
allows anyone to put anything on the Internet without a copyright lawyer reviewing it first,
right? If you're on the hook for any infringing material that shows up on YouTube, not on
the hook for taking it down but on the hook as a participant in the infringement itself,
and in the US that would be $150,000 per download of that infringing YouTube clip, you can't
run YouTube, right? For all that, YouTube's bandwidth bill may be very high, and if you
believe the trade press they say a million and a half dollars a day or something being
lost on YouTube. I don't know if that's true or not but I do know that there aren't enough
lawyer hours remaining between now and the heat death of the Universe to vent 16 hours
of video every sixty seconds, right? And that even if you could manage to raise that many
lawyers, graduate them from university, and fill a boiler room with them, that the cost
of paying them all would outstrip the entire income available to Google and probably all
Internet businesses put together and it's not just Google, of course. It's everyone
who has user generated material so many of you have probably seen MOO cards, those little
business cards that you can get your Flickr photos on the back of. So what would it do
to MOO, which is a relatively profitable small business based here in Clark , well they've
actually just moved up to Silicon Roundabout at Old Street. What would it do to MOO if
they had to hire a copyright lawyer to ensure that every photo they printed on the back
of every business card didn't contain any copyright infringement? What would it do to
Last.fm if they had to ensure that every song that they streamed didn't contribute to a
copyright infringement? Basically what we're talking about is eliminating the internet
in favor of something a lot more like cable television. Cable television where if you
want to put a program on Sky, first you go to Rupert Murdoch's lawyers and you show him
the material and they go over it with a fine tooth comb with your insurers, you get clearances
for anything that may or may not create a copyright liability, and then you get to put
it on and you get a hundred channels, five hundred channels in some places. You remember
the five hundred channel universe about ten years ago? Everyone's talking about how cable
television would deliver the five hundred channel universe and how amazing that is.
Think of how poor five hundred websites sounds like as the entire
Internet today, right? The one trillion channel universe is a little more like it. I think
I'd be okay with a one trillion channel universe but a five hundred channel universe is an
extremely poor one and of course from going back to this parochial artistic cultural perspective,
the purpose of copyright isn't to ensure that last years winners in the digital economy
or in the creative economy remain on top forever. The purpose of copyright is to ensure the
broadest, most diverse participation in culture as possible, right? So more channels equals
good as far as copyright is concerned. So it's the collateral damage that I'm really
starting to worry about. It's not culture, it's not the arts. It's what happens to everything
else that we do because everything else that we do on the Internet involves copying and
because copying always triggers copyright law. Copyright law is a regulation and like
any regulation, it has to figure out somewhere in it's makeup when it applies and when it
doesn't. Who should be bound by copyright law and who shouldn't. An easy heuristic for
determining who was doing something that came under the purview of copyright law historically
has been, "Are they making copies?" Specifically are they making lots of copies because making
lots of copies of a record involved buying a 400 million dollar record press and if you
are going to spend that kind of money on a giant
printing plan and a global distribution network, you can pay a lawyer a couple of hundred thousand
dollars a year to make sure that everything you do on it is legal. If you are going to
make copies of movies, you need a giant film lab, no more. You and I, we make thousands
of copies every morning before breakfast. Every I.M, every click, every email involves
hundreds if not thousands of copies. So the problem is that we're left with this heuristic,
when should we treat copying as industrial and subject to regulation when mass copying
occurs? But that heuristic no longer applies in contemporary society. My friend Jamie Boyle,
who is at the Duke Center for Public Domain, says that copyright used to be like a tank
mine. It only went off if you drove over it with a giant factory, right? You'd need a
huge printing press, a huge record press, a huge film lab for copyright to really come
to bear on you. But now it's become the kind of land mine that blows the legs off of children,
right? Now copyright is triggered when your kid puts up a Harry Potter fan site. Now copyright
is triggered when your kid grabs a little bit
of video and turns it into an icon on LiveJournal or Twitter, right? So copyright no longer
makes sense, not because there's anything inherently wrong with regulating the creative
industries and their supply chain using a system of government regulation, but because
that regulation is supremely unsuited to regulating for example how we get an education or how
we deal with our relatives or how we monitor our children from abroad or how we get our
health information or how we do any of those other things that we do on the Internet. Copyright
is very unsuited to it. For the same reason that you don't have to file papers with the
FSA if you take a friend out for lunch, you shouldn't have to concern yourself with copyright
if you make some personal copies or share them around your office or around with your
colleagues, right? The process of putting a Dilbert cartoon or an XKCD cartoon on your
cubicle and allowing your coworkers to see it doesn't trigger copyright because no copying
is made, but if you take a photo of that and put it on Flickr and your coworkers see it,
you are suddenly in deep dutch because you violated copyright law because that same transaction
that involves a network business like Google with offices all over the world where your
coworkers may not be in the next cubicle but may be on a different continent triggers copyright
because we have a bad heuristic for copyright. So copyright has become the de facto regulator
of everything we do in the information society and copyright policy is not being made with
that in mind. Instead, it's being made by people like Peter Mandelson who get all expense
paid vacations from entertainment executives like David Geffen and come back with copyright
fire in their hearts. You know among the other things that we've heard proposed from Mr.
Mandelson is that he would like to have a three strikes regime for the Internet here,
like they've passed in France, and the way that that would work is if anyone in your
household was accused of three acts of infringement, not convicted of three acts of infringement,
there needn't be any due process or evidence, just the say so of a copyright enforcer, your
whole household loses access to the Internet and the way this works in France is your household's
name is added to a list of people for whom it's illegal to provide Internet access and
no one in the country can hook you up anymore, right? So imagine if we reversed this. There
is an ex-Googler named Kevin Marks who has just gone to work for BT who many of you probably
know and when Kevin heard this he said, "What if we
reversed that?" Like we know that Universal, for example, sends all kinds of ridiculous
copyright notices, you know? Prince and Universal sent a copyright notice to YouTube over a
clip of an adorable two year old dancing in the kitchen and for a few seconds in the background
you could hear Prince's "Let's Go Crazy". This is, you know, canonical fair dealing,
canonical fair use and yet they filed a copyright complaint and asked YouTube to take it down.
We know they're very sloppy about this because there's no penalty for doing it so what if
we turned it around? What if we said, "Okay, you can have three strikes but it goes both
ways." The day that Universal makes three erroneous copyright claims, we go to every
Universal office all over the world with a big set of bolt cutters and we go to their
wiring closet and we take them offline and Universal can be the record label that does
all of its business from now on by fax. But we know that that record label would immediately
go bust, right? It is the death penalty for a company to take it off the Internet and
it's the death penalty for our digital lives to take our
households off the Internet. Collective punishment, the idea that you can terminate an entire
group of people's access to the Internet or punish them otherwise because one person has
done it, it may prevail in the wrong kind of gym classes but its certainly not something
that we think of as fundamental to justice. You know, the Geneva Conventions prohibit
it so for the idea that this might become the law of the land and it's not just here,
it's all over the world - there's an international copyright treaty under way called ACTA, the
Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which has moved copyright negotiations from the
UN, from the World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO. I sometimes say it has the same relationship
to bad copyright law that Mordor has to evil but WIPO has one single virtue which is that
non-governmental organizations are allowed in. They have rules, their the UN, so we went
in and we started writing down everything they said and blogging it twice a day and
it got slashed on it and it got picked up by lots of people and all of a sudden people
all over the world started calling up their elected representatives and saying, "What
the hell are you doing in Geneva?" And the treaty collapsed and millions of dollars worth
of entertainment industry lobbying went down the drain and they reconvened, not at the
United Nations, but in a closed door meeting, that only rich countries are invited to, although
every country would eventually be bound to it through other trade agreements, right?
If you want to stay in the WTO, you have to adopt the ACTA provisions and they declared
the text of the treaty a secret, although we've seen drafts of it because it leaks like
a sieve because there's, you know, hundreds of negotiators there and they all share them
with executives from various industries in their countries. You know there's a list of
people who are allowed to see the US Trade representatives documents, it's quite long
and it includes things like a beer executive, a car executive, a guy who's a fertilizer
executive, so once you start telling fertilizer executives top secrets, they no longer remain
secret for very long. So we've seen it and it includes things like three strikes, it
also includes criminal penalties for simple infringement, noncommercial infringement so
your kids no longer just stand to use their life savings but to go to jail for sharing
files the way we all did when we were kids. I mean I don't know about you but if it wasn't
for mix tapes, my entire adolescence would have been celibate, you know? So this is a
disaster. It also includes a burden for those of you who travel, it includes a burden on
every country's customs officers to search hard drives and any other storage media that
could be capable of carrying something that would be a substantial copyright infringement,
and at first they said, "Oh, well this wouldn't include iPods and personal stereos because
they don't carry enough music to be a substantial infringement." And then someone kind of pointed
out to them that 80 gigs is a lot of music and that it's going up from there every year
and I think iPods are kind of back in the definition here. So, this is where it's headed
because we're not making copyright law with an eye to all the other things that happen
on the Internet. You know, a burden on ISP's to surveil their customers won't really stop
pirates. I mean, you and I can figure out a hundred ways to encrypt your traffic so
that an ISP's depacket inspection would be completely incapable of discovering it, right?
When they sued Napster and started to interdict Napster servers and declared victory on the
war on file sharing, everyone who looked at it said, "Well, no. Now that you sued Napster,
they'll just reimplement Newtella and make it a little better." And then when they started
to sue Newtella trackers, they said, "Well, okay. They're just going to tracker list Newtella's
and then they'll start ding tracker list bit torrent." I mean, you're just evolving the
world's most perfect antibiotic resistant bacterium here. You know, this isn't going
to actually stop it. The only reason that it's possible to eavesdrop on file sharing
traffic is because no can be arsed to encrypt it. It's not because encrypting traffic is
a particularly challenging problem, we do it every day. Bankers manage to do it. If
bankers can do it, anyone can do it. [laughing] So, I'm an artist and copyright does effect
my livelihood and I'm pretty sure that I can make a living in a freely copied world. You
know, my books are all available for free for download. You can buy them in shops and
they do very well. "Little Brother", the last one that came out, 17 languages and film rights
sold to the guy who made "Transformers" and you know, video game rights and CD rights
under discussion and so on and so forth, New York Times Bestseller. I just got a huge check
for it and I'm going to pay off most of my mortgage with it. I mean, generally speaking,
I think I can make a living in a copy native world but even if I couldn't, I'd still be
a copy fighter and I would be because I'm also a father and I'm a citizen, I'm an immigrant,
I'm a son, I'm a husband, I'm a volunteer, I'm a student, and I'm a teacher, and I don't
want all those rules to be sacrificed on copyrights' altar. Principle is the thing that you stand
on, even when it's not convenient for you personally and it's time that we take principle
stands on these issues, even if they may eat some of our lunch. So there's lot of organizations
you can join. I talked about the Open Rights Group. I co-founded that here in the UK although
I have very little to do with running it. I'm on the advisory board, along with Ben
Laurie, who works out of this office and many other interesting and good people. Also, Alan
Cox who you may know from old Linux kernel maintenance, although he's not doing that
anymore famously. But there's also groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, EDRI,
all around the world and we are making serious headway, not just by shutting down bad laws
although we've done plenty of that but also by holding them at bay long enough for people
to understand what's at stake because as soon as the civilians among us, the people who
don't work with computers every day, the people who don't understand that cryptography is
easy, the people that don't understand that the Internet is for more then MP3's. As soon
as they come to realize all the things that they can do with the net, then our fight becomes
exponentially easier because it's not just a few anarachs calling up their MP's and saying
you are going to do something that you don't understand to something else that you don't
understand and that will be bad in a way that you don't understand but it's everyone going
down to their MP surgeries and saying you can't do this. You can't do this because we
won't vote for you, you can't do this because it will destroy fundamental and important
things about our civil society. So that's what I'd like to ask you to do. I mean, you
can buy my book if you want, you can download it for free from the Internet if you want.
That'd be nice, I'm not bothered because it sells pretty well, although I'll mention it's
a 'tenner' today which is a very stellar deal but what I hope you'll do at the end of this
talk is that if you're not already an ORG member, you'll join. It's a 'fiver' a month
but you'll get involved with the Electronic Frontier Foundation with Free Software Foundation
Europe. I hope that you'll talk to your MP's and the people in your life because Googlers
have a lot of moral authority in this world, going to your personal MP at your MP's next
surgery and talking to her or him about Mandelson's proposal will make a huge difference as an
employee of Google so I hope that you'll do that and I hope that you'll continue to take
action on this and I hope that you won't make the mistake of thinking that superior technology
will make inferior laws irrelevant because the Internet isn't free because it's inherently
free. It's free because we fought it to keep it that way. Thank you.
[applause]
>> So, we have about 20 minutes for questions.
>> Sorry, I am losing my voice a little. I'm coming down with a cold or coming over a cold.
We have a mic in the back too.
>> Who has questions?
>> Thanks Cory. Because you give your books away online for free and you still have a
print business, do you have to butt heads with your publishers in every country every
time you do this or are they just now know it's you and they're okay with it? You're
actually the, you know, minority.
Cory Doctorow >> Yeah. I was really lucky in that my editor who bought my first novel,
Patrick Nielsen Hayden at Tor Books in New York, who runs the largest science fiction
line in the world and is the most senior editor there. I've known him since I was 17. I met
him on a BBS. He maintains his own Linux boxes, he writes his own movable type plugins and
when I sat down and said, "There's this new thing coming out called a Creative Commons
License and I want to try releasing a book under it." He said, "E-books have the worst
ratio of hours in meetings to dollars in income generated of anything this publisher has ever
done. Why don't we try it, right? What's the worst that can happen?" Publishing like every
other business is essentially an IT business these days. You know, Walmart isn't a Chinese
manufacturer of goods business, Walmart is an IT business that uses IT to manage a supply
chain that moves a shipping container once per second from China to America so they're
an IT company too and they've experienced great benefits from IT and among those is
that they can do very short run hard covers so they can print four to six thousand copies
of a first novel to hard cover. This is great for first novelists because it used to be
that first novels were always in mass market paperback and they do 50,000 so unless they
felt they could 50,000, they wouldn't take a chance on it. Now they are publishing tons
of first novels because they can do it. You know, I come from a big Ashkenazi family.
If everyone of my relatives buys a copy, we've earned out. So it's a very low risk experiment,
which we did and it worked really well. Everybody was happy and they reprinted the book a whole
ton and it generated a lot of publicity which is nice because it was the first thing but
it also generated a lot of secondary publicity which was not the publicity of "Oh my God,
this is a Creative Commons License book. I'm a slashed out reader. I support them inherently,
you should read it", it was the publicity that went "Oh my God, I love this book and
I'd like to press it into your hands the way that we have done with books since time in
memorial except I can press it into your hands even though you live in a different country
and I can press it into your hands without parting with it", and so that magnification
of the good feeling people had about my book on its own merits was selling lots of books
too. So that kind of set the tone for things, right? By the time I'd done three novels that
were CC licensed and sold "Little Brother", both here and in the US, was the first novel
I sold in both countries, it was pretty straightforward. There wasn't really anything that Harper Collins
could say or do because it was already CC licensed, right? We weren't going to be able
to take that back and so they kind of came onboard and they were very good about it.
The woman who is running it, she is very kind of IT centric, very Internet savvy and she
invited me in to talk to the whole business about copyright, technology, DRM and why it
doesn't work. You know, to publishers who believe in DRM I say, "Behold: the typist",
and it went great. Now my foreign publishers have been a little more complicated only because
the relationship tends to be more attenuated so its my agent's sub-agent dealing with an
editor and so I often times don't even know who the editor at a foreign publisher is and
every now and again, I'll get an email from a reader saying, "You know, we just translated
your book into Bulgarian and your Bulgarian publisher is going crazy." It's not a real
example. I won't narc on the real publisher who did this and I write to my agent and my
agent writes his sub-agent and his sub-agent writes to the publisher and the publisher
writes back and says, "We had no idea. We thought that they were violating copyright.
If you're okay with it, I guess we're okay with it too. It seems like it's working pretty
well." So I mean, I think foreign publishers are a lot more worried about the fact that
for science fiction, in translation, a good portion that audience reads English and they
will buy the books from Amazon before the foreign edition comes out so I think they're
way more interested in doing day and dates so now I'm taking pitches of my books and
even the roughs of the books and giving them to my agent's foreign agent to take to Frankfurt
to the book fair and to London to the book fair to sell the foreign rights so they can
come out at the same time, not for the CC but just because so many kind of geeky science
fiction readers in whatever country read enough English that they'll just happily order the
American or British edition off of Amazon unless there's an edition in their native
language.
>> Thanks. So you say basically for books it's a little bit less free because it's harder
to consume digitally. What about other media? I mean, it's a lot easier to consume music
and TV or TV shows online. Is your opinion a little bit differentiated?
Cory Doctorow >> Well, I actually say arguably that music is better online than it is in
CD, at least if you live in London, right? Every centimeter I give over to a CD is a
centimeter I can't give over to my daughter, you know? In my tiny London flat so yeah I
mean, we took all the DVD's out of the sitting room and ripped them and all of the sudden
we got like three more shelves we could use for books. It was fantastic, right? And we
compressed them down to a hard drive about 'yay big', right? This is brilliant. So yeah,
arguably it's much better. Now seventy years ago, Vaudeville and live performance were
all but destroyed by the radio and the record player and the Vaudeville artists of the day
said you know, yes, there may be a business opportunity for the kind of people who sound
good on a record but some of us aren't recording artists, we're performers, right? You lose
something when you move our performance to a record. We are not going to be mere clerks
who sit in a backroom and let you intervene with our audiences on our behalf, we are doing
something old and holy, you know? This is as old as stories told in front of fire so
you have no right to tell us how to earn our living. Those people ended up driving taxis.
Seventy years later, the people who put them out of business and their spiritual descendents
are saying, "What do you mean I have to be a performer? I'm not a performer. I'm a white
collar worker. I labor indoors and when I'm done, I slide my work under the door and some
bourgeois man of commerce takes it out to my audience. You have no right to turn me
into a trained monkey." And the ones who say that will end up driving taxis because that's
the way it goes. Technology giveth and technology taketh away. The point of copyright shouldn't
be to ensure that one particular kind of creation, right, music performed in music halls, music
performed in record studios, music performed in large venues, music performed in small
studios, that one particular kind thrives at whatever expense it takes, it should be
to ensure that the largest number of people can participate at the lowest cost and that's
what you get when you move to a 'give your recordings away for free on the Internet and
solicit donations to do live performance' model which is working for everyone from Jonathan
Coulton down at the bottom to Madonna up at the top, and frankly replacing the record
industry's opportunities for artists is pretty trivial because 97% of the artists in the
United States with a record deal earn $600 a year or less from it. You can probably make
that on AdSense on a lot of those pages, right? So this is, you know, doing as well as the
record industry has done for artists, not hard. I mean, I'd like to set the bar a little
higher then that frankly but not hard to at least do that. As to films, I like seeing
robots throwing buildings at each other as much as the next guy but maybe we've reached
the end of the 300 million dollar movie. You know, does that mean that we've reached the
end of movie making? I think YouTube says no because for all that, there's a few Jon
Stewart clips and what have you on the net, on Youtube there is so much more stuff out
there that represents the kind of movies that people can make outside of a studio system
and their values are different, right? They're not about the resolution of the CGI, they
are about the intimacy and the importance to the small but critical audience for whom
the movie was made, right? It's not about reaching a million people with a beautiful
movie, it's about reaching six people with a movie that's so personal that it touches
every one of them in a way that's completely unforeseen and unprecedented in the history
of film making and again, if we lose one to get the other, c'est la vie, right? The Protestant
Reformation got rid of all the cathedral buildings and we got lots and lots of little wee kirks
on the hill. Religion didn't end, right? So yeah, there's lots of different things that
is going to happen to a lot of different kinds of creative enterprise and actually one of
the great lies of copyright is that there's such a thing as a copyrighted work. That you
can apply the same regulation incentives to the creation of crossword puzzles, needlepoint
patterns, 300 million dollar movies, cake decorations, one off sculptures, mass market
novels, and pornography and that you'll get the same outcomes in all of them, right? This
is a crazy idea and you know it's kind of a consequence of a bunch of historical anomalies,
that all these things have been grouped under this odious umbrella we call intellectual
property. The actual like on the ground reality is that they all respond to different incentives,
they all have different market characteristics and none of them as a class are threatened,
although members of the class are and you know I weep for the lost poets of days gone
by and I miss the days where the man would walk down the street with his bell and a knife
sharpener but technology giveth and technology taketh away and so long as we've got sharp
knives and poetry, we're okay. Other questions?
>>
So I tend to like the user experience that Spotify has built. I am a Spotify fan. I'm
not sure in your kind of view of principle to copyright if Spotify is a good thing or
a bad thing.
Cory Doctorow >> I think Spotify is a great thing as far as it goes, although I think
that you know streaming is the flawgicine of the 21st century. There is no such thing
as 'streaming', right? There's just downloading and then sometimes your computer keeps the
bits and sometimes it doesn't. So the illusion that Spotify is not giving you copies of the
music that it sends to you is a kind of mass hysteria among record executives and I worry
that eventually they are going to wake up and go, "Wait a second. You told us that there
was a thing called streaming. It turns out it's just downloading where the client throws
away the bits and you can write a client that doesn't throw away the bits!" And I also worry
that that might lead you on a path to saying, "Well, there should be regulations saying
that people can't write their own clients." But networks protocols, or that there should
be non user accessible components on their computer, all of which are not particularly
plausible technical premises, right? You know, I'm going to hide a key somewhere on your
computer, I'm going to give that computer to anyone who wants to buy one and trust that
no one in the entire world has an electron tunneling microscope and wants to take their
computer and look at it, right? It's just not a really plausible premise and yet we
kind of build on that anyway but what I think the problem with Spotify, to the extent that
there is one, is that people are saying, "Well, we've got Spotify so we solve file sharing."
And the problem isn't that Spotify isn't good, the problem is that people haven't voluntarily
stopped using P2P MP3 technologies and moved over to Spotify and there's not really any
reason to believe, I think, that they're going to in great numbers which leaves you with
this bizarre circumstance where kind of everyone is a copyright criminal to some value of everyone,
even though Spotify is going great guns and when everyone is presumptively a criminal,
it's really bad for society. So in America, at Swarthmore College, there was a kid who
was maintaining a piece of free software called Flatland. Flatland indexed Samba shares on
the network, in the same way that Google indexes HTP shares on the Web and it got all the things
that you would find on a Samba share on a university network. It got profs lectures
and their notes and all the rest of it but also you know games, movies, music, porn,
whatever kids had so the record industry sued this kid, not for maintaining a search engine
which is of course totally illegal or you'd all be clapped in irons, they sued him for
being a music downloader and they knew he was a music downloader because he is an American
university student and they are all music downloaders and because the penalty for being
a downloader is a 150 thousand dollars per infringement, they were able to exert enormous
leverage over him so they said, "We not only want your entire life savings, as we ask for
all the students we go after, we want you to change majors. We don't want you to get
a computer science degree because we don't want people like you programming computers.
We want to make an example out of you." Now this was not very good strategy on their part
because it was so obnoxious that we were able to make a huge stink out of it and they had
to back off on the demand but that's the leverage you get over people when they're presumptively
guilty of something, is that you can go after them for things that aren't unlawful and you
can use the leverage that they're all criminals in some other realm to force them to give
up things that merely upset your apple cart so that's what I worry about Spotify. Spotify
doesn't solve the big problem, that we're all criminals, right? You know, we could have
a thousand Spotify's, it'd be great. I'd be delighted to see it but it still wouldn't
solve the important problem.
>> I wondered if the movie rights to your books are given away as freely as the books
themselves and whether there were any issues when you discussed making "Little Brother".
Cory Doctorow >> It kind of depends on what you mean by the movie rights. So the Noncommercial
Creative Commons Movie Right, the CCNCSA, are given away. Anyone can make a movie. There
have been a couple of nice little student films based on it. The commercial movie rights
are negotiated through a system of regulation that has been reasonably good at moderating
the supply chain of the entertainment industry. Copyright, right? So here I am, an industrial
player, right? I have a lawyer, I have an agent, I have a publisher, they have lawyers,
I have a film company and they have lawyers and agents, and they all sit down and they
talk to each other and they use a system of regulation devised to bound those negotiations
and that's how we make the movie, right? But if you're 16 years old or 36 years old or
56 years old and you've just got a Flip camera and you want to spend your Christmas break
making a little film out of "Little Brother" that you're going to put on YouTube and not
charge any money for, you don't need to talk to copyright because it doesn't make any sense
for you to talk to copyright. You don't have a lawyer, my lawyer doesn't want to talk to
you, right? I'm not going to pay my lawyer $400 an hour to talk to you to find out to
basically make sure that the thing that you're making that won't make me any money is going
to be good. This is the other tragedy, of course, of copyright. It's not just that it
makes no sense for a 12 year old to call Warner's and find out whether or not she can make a
Harry Potter fan site; it's that no one at Warner's will answer the phone when she does,
right? Because it makes no sense for Warner's to negotiate this with a 12 year old, right?
So yeah, I have the same deal for every filmmaker that I have for everyone who wants to use
my books which is commercial deal: talk to my agent; noncommercial deal: go crazy and
share alike. Let other people do stuff with your stuff and you know, it's working for
me. It puts me in this great position where you know financially, I'm doing great but
artistically, I'm doing great. I'm not insisting that my art made in the 21st century not be
copied which is such a crazy un-21st century proposition, right? It's kind of cool that
someone is like the blacksmith at the reenactment of the Battle of 1066 once a year but that's
not exactly contemporary art, you know? I like to make contemporary art because it's
science fiction and contemporary art has to assume that it's going to be copied because
it's the 21st century. So I get to do the thing that's artistically right and morally
right because I don't have to go around telling people not to copy when I copy all day long.
I don't have to go around pretending that, you know, I live in some great moral Olympus
and that they're all doing something that's wrong. You know, every movie company, every
publisher, every record company, they all copy their asses off, right? No movie starts
without someone going out and making a mood book by scanning and copying and photocopying
bits and pieces of visual stuff that they want to put together to instruct the design
team, right? When Kirby Dick, who is a wonderful documentary filmmaker, made a movie called
"This Film Was Not Yet Rated" about the American Film Rating system which is shrouded in secrecy,
no one really knows. You know, you go now and it's like to the cinema here, you know
Quentin Thomas says you are allowed to watch this movie but when you go to a movie in the
US, it just says the MPAA has rated this whatever, PG, and the identities of the people on the
MPAA's rating board are kept a secret and they're supposed to be rotated every few years
and it's supposed to be parents of young kids and Kirby didn't think they were so he hired
a private eye to follow them around and he made a documentary about it. He found out
all their identities and submitted it to the Ratings Board for a rating. So he gets a phone
call from the MPAA's chief lobbyist who is an ex-Congressman living in Washington, DC
and the man says, "Kirby, I've seen your movie.", and he says, "Really? That's interesting because
as far I know, it's in Los Angeles and you're in Washington." He says, "Well, one of them
sent me a copy." And Kirby says, "Well, what do you mean they sent you a copy? I didn't
authorize them to make a copy." And he said, "Oh don't worry. It's in my vault." Like I
don't know if we can get away with that. "Yes, I've got a hard drive with twenty thousand
infringing MP3's, I keep it in vault though." But they copy all day long. We all copy all
day long. The rest of the movie is about incidentally about what happens with Kirby and the MPAA.
It's very good movie. It's called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". It's absolutely brilliant
and I think it's a CC download at this point so there's no excuse not to watch it and he's
just done a new movie called "Outrageous". That's where he outs gay American right wing
senators who oppose gay marriage and gay rights which is quite an amazing bit of film as well.
Anyway, so that was my talk. Thank you very much. As I said, these are only a 'tenner'
according to my publisher which at the cover price is fifteen quid so it's a 30% discount
and I'm not sure who takes the money. Is that you guys? Yeah, I think so and you can also
download them for free and it was very nice to meet you all. If you need to get in touch
with me, I am the first Cory in Google. Thanks.
[applause]