LJ Q&A: Knowledge is Power—Gigi Sohn

Imagine for a moment what the information landscape might look like if libraries had the lobbying resources and legal muscle of the entertainment and telecom industries. Now, snap out of it. It's never going to happen.

Nevertheless, libraries do have their assets and advantages in Washington. Among them is Gigi Sohn, president and cofounder, as well as the strategist, fundraiser, and face, of the advocacy group Public Knowledge (PK). Since cofounding the organization in 2001, Sohn has fought alongside major library associations and their allies for the public's interest in the emerging digital world.

Public Knowledge's stated mission is to ensure that the laws and policies governing “the three layers” of our communications system—the physical infrastructure, systems, and content—promote “fundamental democratic principles,” including “openness, access, and the capacity to create and compete.” In practice, that translates into a lot of complex, detailed work that takes place out of the public eye. Sohn and her colleagues at Public Knowledge are there for the heavy lifting, whether preparing testimony, educating lawmakers, writing letters, assembling coalitions, or contributing court filings or filings with regulators like the Copyright Office and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) where, Sohn says, so much of the “real action” takes place.

Sohn is both a big thinker and a detail-oriented lawyer. She is the author of a sensible six-point plan for copyright reform, as well detailed responses to the endless stream of policy and legislative broadsides that threaten the public interest.

An internationally recognized communications policy expert, she also brings a wealth of experience to the table, having served as executive director of the Media Access Project (MAP), a Washington, DC–based public interest telecommunications law firm, and as a member of President Clinton's Advisory Committee on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters.

In 1999, she joined the Ford Foundation's Media, Arts and Culture unit, where, with Laurie Racine, president of the Center for the Public Domain, and David Bollier, she began to examine the need for a “public interest intellectual property rights organization.” In 2001, Public Knowledge was born. There hasn't been a dull moment since.

LJ recently caught up with Sohn to discuss some simmering issues facing libraries, the public, and the Internet.

LJ: Where do libraries fit with PK's organizational agenda?

GS: Public Knowledge and libraries both have as their missions promoting the free flow of information and the sharing of knowledge, so, not surprisingly, we work with library groups on most of our issues, including a wide variety of domestic and international copyright issues and “open” Internet issues like net neutrality and promoting access to the broadband Internet.

In your opinion, how effective is the library community as a voice for the public?

The library community can be a very powerful voice for the public, and it has been, in debates over freedom of speech, privacy, and copyright. But at the grassroots level, it could be a lot stronger. I love working with library organizations. They are great. But libraries are like mom and apple pie to Americans—they are core to our educational and cultural lives—and, sometimes, I don't think librarians use that goodwill and their power enough. Remember, there are libraries in every Congressional district, and nothing is more powerful to a member of Congress than the voices of constituents. That is even more powerful than corporate resources, which we will never match. This is how we win, through the voices of real people.

Despite the promise of libraries in the digital age, with the legislative agendas of the content and broadband companies, are libraries endangered?

If the big content companies had their way, there would be no libraries. I'm serious. They are constantly looking to limit what libraries can do with copyrighted material. The broadband companies, largely telephone and cable, don't have it out for libraries particularly. But, like big content companies, they do want complete control over their networks and that includes the ability to decide that certain content, applications, and services will get better treatment. We can't allow the Internet to become like a cable system where a network operator gets to pick winners and losers. The Internet has become the most democratic medium we have ever seen because network operators have not been able to discriminate in favor of, or against, certain traffic.

Maintaining “net neutrality” is a major issue for libraries. How goes that battle?

It rages on. There are bills introduced in both houses of Congress that would reinstate a nondiscrimination principle, but Congress won't be moving these in an election year. All the action is at the FCC. PK and its public interest allies are pushing the FCC to find that the behavior of Comcast, which blocked certain peer-to-peer protocols, is illegal. We have also filed another petition asking the FCC to find that blocking text messages based on source or content is illegal. I think we will get a narrow decision in our favor finding that what Comcast did was not “reasonable network management,” but the FCC will not go further and adopt a prohibition against this kind of discrimination. The text messaging issue is more uncertain but has huge implications for free speech and civic discourse.

Another current issue for libraries is orphan works. Why should librarians get behind this legislation?

Librarians should get behind this legislation because it will permit them to use many historical and culturally significant works still under copyright even when they can't find the owner. The bill will not be perfect, I can assure you. But if passed, it will be the first significant reform of copyright laws in over 30 years, and that should not be overlooked.

There has been a lot of fear and misinformation from opponents about what the orphan works bill would do. How hard is it to combat this kind of talk?

It is very difficult. As Public Knowledge and libraries well know, it is much easier to stop a bill in Congress than it is to pass one. The opponents of this bill, largely photographers and illustrators, have been throwing around a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, what I call FUD, and to their credit—and my dismay—they have generated over 30,000 letters to members of Congress. Opponents fear that orphan works relief will take control away from them, but copyright law does not give absolute control to the creator. They also fail to realize that those seeking to take advantage of orphan works relief are not interested in someone's wedding pictures from 2002. They are interested in culturally and historically significant works.

A number of library bloggers have said the orphan works bills probably won't work. Stanford's Lawrence Lessig even opined against it. Why the pushback?

Lessig's main argument is that the diligent search process creates a burden. But it is pretty much the same burden as we have now. It doesn't exactly help when someone like [University of Texas's scholarly communication officer] Georgia Harper says librarians won't find the law useful. We're talking about works where, in almost every case, the copyright owner will probably never show up. So, what's the problem? To me, the argument just doesn't stand up.

In a 2007 speech, you proposed a very sensible six-point plan for broad copyright reform. Can that kind of meaningful copyright reform really happen?

I think we will get meaningful copyright reform when the following happens: first, when the unintended, or possibly intended, consequences of our current copyright regime [continue to] clash with common public practices and expectations; second, when the tech companies finally get serious about working in Washington and draw the line against content industry pressure; and third, when more of the public puts pressure on Congress for change. I think we are at least a decade away from that—but I do think it will happen. Since I made that speech, no one has come out against that proposal. No one has emailed and said, “This is a bad idea.”

How well do our legislators understand the complex information technology they are being lobbied to address?

Legislators understand very little about technology and the policy questions that arise around technology. It's embarrassing. They understand “piracy” because it is far simpler and because that's rhetoric the content industry constantly feeds them.

Google is currently facing a lawsuit from Viacom over YouTube, which Google says could cripple the Internet if it loses. Would it?

Well, of course it would depend on how [Google] lost. But I think it is absolutely correct. It would lead to filtering for copyright violations, which would cripple the Internet and limit free speech. Viacom and NBC-Universal have become the new content industry copyright cops. This case isn't about principle. Viacom just wants a big payday. If Google didn't have a multibillion-dollar market cap, there would be no lawsuit.

Your thoughts about authors' and publishers' suits against Google's library scanning?

I think the authors and publishers are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Could you imagine a better way to market your book than to have it on Google Book Search? Publishers claim that the case for them is about the copy that Google is making for the libraries. I think that is nonsense. They want Google to ask for permission first before they do anything, whether or not it is fair use. I think that this case has huge implications for search, particularly if the court decides that making a digital copy for the purpose of search is an infringement.

It seems to me that the Internet is provoking a major shift in our privacy values but without any real discussion. What do you think?

I agree and disagree with you on this. In some ways, there is a generational divide. Young people think nothing about putting their deepest secrets online, while folks over the age of 35 are more circumspect. I do think that everybody is freaked out over the power of the government to get information from online service providers and the willingness of some telephone companies to give it to them. Privacy online is going to explode over the next year, particularly if the content industry continues to insist that Internet service providers (ISPs) filter their networks for copyright violations.

What else is lurking out there that the library community should be aware of?

You may have seen the stories about how one cable operator, Charter, has struck a deal with a company called NebuAd to track what users do online in order to provide targeted advertising to those users. That companies can and do track one's every move on the Internet is going to upset a lot of people. The Charter-NebuAd issue is a bomb waiting to explode. There is also an awful lot going on in the international sphere, including a new forum for developed countries to strengthen copyright laws under the guise of halting counterfeiting.

The vehicle is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. It was formed by the content industries, in part, because civil society groups, including libraries, were successful in stopping the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) relentless march toward longer and stronger copyrights. ACTA is on a very fast track and one of only a number of new international initiatives to cloak copyright enforcement in the “counterfeiting” meme. PK and its allies are on the case, but it is going to be a very tough fight.

What can librarians do to help ensure that their agenda is heard?

First, keep apprised of what is going on in Washington. PK's blog and web site are excellent resources, as are the web sites of the American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, and Library Copyright Alliance (LCA). Support [LCA] and its member organizations' efforts on copyright and broadband issues. On net neutrality and broadband issues, SavetheInternet.com is a terrific resource.

Most important, get involved! PK and others make it easy for you to write to your representative or senator with just a few clicks of a mouse. I know that librarians have a lot of issues on their plate, [especially] funding. But copyright and broadband policy issues are critical to promoting the mission of libraries and, in my opinion, should demand a good deal of librarians' attention.