Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Big Ideas -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) New Sleek Geeks' Oil of Uterus - as you look. because you're only as old Sleek Geeks. Good night! Well, that's the end of tonight's Closed Captions by CSI This Program is Captioned Live. # Theme music I'm Waleed Aly. Hi and welcome to Big Ideas, In this edition of the show, Robert Shiller, leading Yale economist cultural historian Roman Krznaric, technology activist Cory Doctorow, science fiction writer and the Stiff Gins and some great music from at this year's TEDx in Sydney. an interesting and unpopular position First up, Robert Shiller taking on financial institutions. democratise not demonise, His message is - the Occupy Wall Street protesters. a position that runs counter to rather than condemning finance, His argument is that for the common good. we need to reclaim it not less. We need more financial innovation, put your scepticism aside So, if you can, who gave us Irrational Exuberance. and tune in to the economist of financial capitalism We are living in an era the world now. which is taking hold of All over the world, and futures markets there are opening stock markets

and setting up corporations there's been rapid economic growth and at the same time

through much of the world. people harbour doubts about this. But at the same time, capitalism looks fairly secure I think that support for financial there's still big doubts. but it seems like our civilisation, Finance is too fundamental to by financial arrangements, all of our activities are moderated or important that people do and practically anything good

the financial sector. is going to go through We need to think of finance and maintains our goals. as something that manages in life Each of us has his or her own goals but the... um... ..the... and make things happen, order to coordinate those we need knowledge of finance.

Occupy Wall Street The proper reaction to shouldn't end with protests. What's the next step? our financial institutions The next step, I think, is changing understanding of the institutions, but that requires some knowledge and and changing it. it involves getting into them any moral dilemma about finance now So I don't think that there's if we take the right attitude. an invention, Financial institutions are facilitate human activities a complex invention that and attainment of human goals. are constantly being improved. And these inventions of the rate of improvement We're likely to see an acceleration information technology now. because of our new understanding of human nature And also because of our better study of behavioural economics, through the rapid advance in behavioural finance, neuro-economics. We understand people better are complex, and we understand that people a simple model. they can't be reduced to and they have a selfish side to them People have generous sides to them are characteristic of our species. and they have many patterns that to minimise the impact Modern civilisation manages or anti-social character of our aggressive and encourages our cooperation. are involved in doing that. Financial institutions I'm trying to dispel scepticism. that I felt myself at times In fact, scepticism about all this financial innovation about what has happened in the past the new information age. and what will happen in and we need to humanise finance. We need to democratise finance and make it work for real people. Make it work more for our goals is essential to capitalism I think that philanthropy make large fortunes because some people and they can't possibly consume it. You have to give it away. as we have it today And the problem with capitalism make large fortunes is that often people of making a fortune and they get so involved in the game at the end of their life that when they - they have no idea what to do with it. it doesn't make any sense. And it just goes to random heirs, philanthropy more. So, capitalism has to incorporate is not very satisfying But the problem is that philanthropy in its present form as it could be. or it's not as satisfying our financial markets The original ideas that promote motivates people - are that it somehow

every day, people watch the stock market that makes life interesting. it, I don't know, it's something People like to accumulate over their lifetime and they like to build something and direct that to something better. so we have to somehow guide that of business, So I had an idea for another form I call it a participation non-profit. a hospital or a school This would be, say, a non-profit, which is normally - often a different form. but it would be taking donations in of selling shares, OK? The donations would consist this is still a non-profit Now, remember, the non-profit, but instead of giving money to you buy shares in it. be tax-deductible, as usual. I'm hoping they would a dividend from the profits And then the shares receive but they don't go to you directly, in your name they go to a special closed account for any charitable purpose. which allows you to use those profits But you've committed yourself when you bought shares, when you gave money, a philanthropist. you've committed yourself to being because the public respects them Non-profits function well

and will be generous to them and thinks that they are good

and support them in many ways, so it has that benefit. the accumulation benefit But it also has through time. that you can watch your account grow are fundamentally egotistical, And I think people they try not to reveal that everyone has an ego. but there's a human side - for charitable purposes So people can use their thing even in an egotistical way. the money to some university Your dividends, you could give if it were that big an amount. and name a building after yourself - I think that people have the same acquisitive feeling satisfied by donating to a participation non-profit. Government finance is very traditional today, all over the world. Government, most of the time, just issue straight debt - you know, it has an interest rate and it has a term. Companies do that too, but they don't just restrict themselves to straight debt. They also sell shares and they have many other forms of options and swaps and the like. So my proposal is that the government

should get a little bit more sophisticated in its financing and start selling shares, so the government should issue one trillionth share of their GDP. The shares would pay a dividend. Last year it would have been something like ?1.80, which is one trillionth of the UK GDP. But in coming years it could go up or down with the whole economy. This is like a stock market. These things would have a price in the market, they'd be tradable, but you would be actually trading the UK. Why is this a good thing to do? There's a lot of aspects to this,

but it involves managing the risk to the government. Right now the UK economy is under performing, but the debts come to just as much as always. So it's creating a crisis that's brought on the whole austerity program here. In short, the British government, like all other governments of the world, have leveraged themselves up by borrowing money on a fixed rate, rather than issuing shares. So if they issued shares instead, they wouldn't be in the budget crisis. Moreover, I think that the shares would get a really good price. Right now mortgage instruments are just simple, are simple debt contracts, but people get in trouble. As you know, UK home prices have fallen a lot. They've fallen even more in the United States.

In the US we have 11 million households who are underwater on their mortgages. That's one in four families with a mortgage have lost everything. It's just astonishing to me that we let that happen and there's no plans to change that. It's still the general policy that a young family puts all of their life savings into the mortgage and leverage it up 10 to 1 by borrowing. If home prices go down, they're wiped out. So I'm proposing that mortgages have built in work-outs that depend on home prices, so if home prices go down then the home owner will have a lower mortgage automatically. And if we had had that before the crisis, we would not have the subprime crisis, the home crisis, that brought on this financial turmoil. The slogan of Occupy Wall Street is 'We are the 99%'. The Occupy Wall Street people are very animated by the current level of inequality. But there doesn't seem to be much focus on the fact that it's trending worse and this trend might continue and it might get much worse than it is now.

So my thought is that at least let's think about the future and let's plan now to prevent it from getting much worse. So the idea is then some limit to the extent of inequality has to be decided on now and we say that automatically we tax the rich more when that happens. Raise taxes, maybe a lot if necessary, but we decide it now, not wait until it happens. Yaacov Trope is a psychologist who has developed what he calls 'temporal construal theory'. And this theory is just that people are more idealistic about the abstract or distant future than they are about today. So if you talk about raising taxes on the rich today, there's huge opposition, but if you talk about raising them in ten years, contingent on some development then they're very much more likely to be generous. So I think we do that now. Now this is finance, because I'm talking about risks, I'm talking about the risk of worse inequality and I'm talking about getting kind of an insurance policy now against it. Financial innovation is the clear path to dealing with these concerns,

but financial innovation for young people who are considering careers - if you are concerned about Occupy Wall Street issues maybe you should be learning about finance and you should be getting involved and trying to make it work better for the future. That was leading economist Robert Shiller speaking at the RSA in London. Next up, cultural historian Roman Krznaric on how the art of empathy can not only enrich your life, but it can also drive social change. For some years he was project director at avant garde foundation Oxford Muse, set up to stimulate courage and invention in personal, professional and cultural life. Here at the RSA he gives us the six habits of highly empathetic people. The 20th Century I see as the age of introspection. That was the era in which the self help industry and therapy culture told us that the best way to discover who we are and what to do with our lives

was to look inside ourselves, to gaze at our own navels. And combined with the idea of capitalist individualism in the 20th Century, that pointed us towards pursuing the good life through self-interest and pursuing luxury lifestyles. And what we've discovered, of course, is that has not delivered the good life to most of us. So the 21st Century needs to be different. Instead of the age of introspection, we need to shift to the age of outrospection. And by outrospection, I mean the idea of discovering who you are and what to do with your life by stepping outside yourself, discovering the lives of other people, other civilisations. And the ultimate artform for the age of outrospection is empathy. Empathy isn't just something that makes you good, that expands your moral universe. Empathy is something that is good for you - that can make you a more creative thinker, improve your relationships,

can create the human bonds that make life worth living. But more than that, empathy is also about social change, radical social change. People often think of empathy as a nice soft fluffy concept. I think it's anything but that. It's actually quite dangerous because empathy can create revolution. Not one of those old-fashioned revolutions of new states, policies, governments, laws, but something much more fiery and dangerous which is a revolution of human relationships. Now it might seem strange to try and base a whole philosophy of life or agenda for radical social change on an idea like empathy because we've been told by our culture for the last 300 or 400 years that in fact we're not really empathic beings we are essentially self-interested self-seeking creatures.

And the last 20 years there's been incredibly important advances in scientific thinking in various realms

which is revealing to us that we are not just self-interested creatures but we are also homo-empathicus. We are empathic beings. We have an empathic side which exists alongside our selfish inner drives. You find this idea partly in evolutionary biology. For example, in the works of Frans de Waal up there his book The Age of Empathy where he says that we have naturally developed evolutionarily to be cooperative, community-oriented creatures

for self-defense, for food security, we've needed to work together we've needed to empathise with each other. Not only human beings but the hippy-like bonobo chimp who are very friendly towards one another. And other creatures too. Equally, neuroscientists have been telling us about we may well have empathy circuitry in our brains and if part of our brains are damaged then we may well lose our empathic capacities and we are born with an empathic circuitry and it develops early in childhood. Psychologists, of course, have been thinking about empathy

and writing about it for over a century. But it's in the last couple of decades, again, there's been a new wave of research showing that even two-years-olds have this ability to step into the shoes of another person. So if I think of my own children when they were quite young, when they were, say, one-and-a-half, if my daughter - I've got two-year-old twins - If my daughter saw her brother being unhappy, if he was crying, she may well go and give her own teddy to him to comfort him. That's what she used to do. But once she became a bit older, about 2.5 or three, instead of giving her own teddy as a comfort she went and got his teddy and gave it to her. Because she had then made that cognitive leap that what really mattered to him was his own comforting toy. But with that scientific background in mind, now I think we need to go beyond that and start thinking about how to apply empathy to our own lives

to social and political change and that's where the six habits of highly empathic people come in. The first one is to cultivate curiosity about strangers. We make assumptions about people, we have prejudices about people which block us from seeing their uniqueness, their individuality.

We use labels, whether it's 'working-class miner', or 'single mother' or 'Muslim extremist' even 'greedy banker' and highly empathic people get beyond those labels by nurturing their curiosity about others.

Of course, we are not, in many ways very good at that -

You probably don't know that many people on your own street where you live, very well. We're not very good about being curious about our neighbours. So how might we nurture our curiosity?

Where can we find inspiration?

I think we can find inspiration in George Orwell. You might remember, or might know, that he came from a very privileged background. He was a colonial police officer in Burma but what he realised in his 20s was that he realised very little about his own country particularly about the way that those people living on the social margins really experienced life. So he decided to do something about it and conduct one of the most brilliant empathy experiments, which was to go tramping on the streets of East London. He in the late '20s and early '30s, he used to dress up as a tramp in his shabby coat and holed shoes, go out absolutely penniless and spend his time on the streets with vagabonds and beggars and others,

sometimes for a few days, sometimes for weeks at a time. But the important thing about Orwell's experience was it not only expanded his moral universe he became a more compassionate person to beggars and other people living down-and-out, but it also cultivated his curiosity about strangers, he developed new friendships and he gathered a whole load of literary materials he used for the rest of his life. In a way, this empathy adventure, it made him good but it was also good for him. Habit Two is to challenge prejudices and discover commonalities. Highly empathic people tend to be looking for what they share with others not what divides them. Let me give you an example. His name was CP Ellis, Claiborne Paul Ellis. He was born in 1927 in the county of Durham, North Carolina. He was from a poor white working-class background and like his father before him he decided to blame his problems on the African-American population, on black people. And like his father before him he joined the Ku Klux Klan. He rose through the ranks. He became The Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter of the Klu Klux Klan. CP Ellis was invited to a community meeting in his town to tackle racial problems in schools. He was invited because he was a prominent local figure. He was elected co-chair with a woman who he hated with a purple passion which was this black civil rights activists Ann Atwater and they thought there was no way they were going to be able to work with each other. But something astonishing happened. They spent a few days trying to recruit people onto their race committee

CP Ellis went out knocking on doors of his white supremacist friends and he came back and said to Ann Atwater, 'You know, I have been out knocking on the doors and nobody wants to talk to me. No-one wants to be a part of this because I'm spending my time with a black civil rights activist. And Ann Atwater said, 'Same thing's happened to me.

I've been knocking on doors in the black community and no-one will speak to me because I was speaking with a known Klansman.' And then CP Ellis said, 'You know my son came home crying from school yesterday because a white liberal teacher made fun of him because of what I was doing working with you.' And then Atwater said, 'yesterday, the same thing happened to my daughter. She was being made fun of by the kids at school because I was spending my time with A KKK member.' They discovered they had things in common.

They actually discovered, more importantly, that they shared the oppression of poverty. This encounter exploded CP Ellis's prejudices. He recognised that he shared a lot with this other person. That she was just another human being. In fact, at the end of the ten day community meeting he stood up in front of 1,000 people

and he tore up his Ku Klux Klan membership card.

He later became a prominent civil rights activist, a leader of a union that was 70% black

and they became friends for the rest of their lives. But it is an example of the way that even the greatest prejudices can be overcome with an empathic connection. Now I've talked quite a lot about the attitudes required for empathy but what about in practice? What should we really do to become more empathic in our imaginations? I think we need to get into extreme sport.

Not the normal extreme sports of ice-climbing and abseiling and so on, but the extreme sport of experiential empathy. Really trying to be in somebody else's life. The woman up there on the screen, her name is Patricia Moore. She is now a very famous US industrial designer. When she was 26 she was working in New York

for a firm called Raymond Loewy who invented the Coca-Cola bottle and the Shell logo. And she was in a meeting with some of the partners - who was the only woman working there at the time in the '70s - and in this meeting when they were talking about the design of fridge doors

she said 'couldn't we design the refrigerator doors so that someone with arthritis would find it easy to open?' And one of the partners at the meeting said, 'You know, Patty, we just don't design for those people.'

And she was incensed by this idea that these elderly people would be ignored in the design process. So she decided to conduct an experiment. An experiment worthy of George Orwell. She decided to dress up as an 80-year-old. She got a professional make-up artist to make her look 80 years old. She put on thick glasses which were distorted so she couldn't see properly, and when she went out into the world this is what she looked like. Between 1979 and 1982 she visited over 100 US cities dressed as an 80 year old to discover what was it like, how would you be treated. Out of this experiment she came up with a new concept of design, the idea of universal design. That things should be designed for people from all backgrounds, all classes and all age groups. Design should be non-discriminatory. She came up with particular inventions. You know, like those thick-grip can openers you can get? The OXO Good Grip that was her invention from her experiment as an 80 year old. Now there is a fourth habit - which is to practice the art of conversation. Highly empathic people tend to be sensitive listeners they're very good at understanding what somebody else's needs are. They tend to be also people who in conversations share part of their own lives make conversations two-way dialogues. Open their emotions, make themselves vulnerable.

This is the motto of a grass-roots peace-building organisation in Israel and the Palestinian territories called the Parent Circle or the Bereaved Families Forum as they're sometimes called.

What it does is bring together Palestinian and Israeli families who share something very special. These families have all lost members of their own families in the conflict. They might be an Israeli graphic designer whose daughter was blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber, a Palestinian family whose son was shot by an Israeli sniper, and the Parents Circle brings them together for conversations, picnics, meetings, where they share each other's stories, they discover that they share the same pain, the same blood, they make that empathic bond. They also have other fantastic projects, my favourite one is Hello, Peace! And it's a free phone telephone line so anybody can pick up and call that number. If you're a Palestinian and call it, you're immediately put through to an Israeli, you can have a half-hour conversation.

If you're an Israeli, pick it up, you're put through to a Palestinian. Since 2002, over a million calls have been logged on the Hello Peace! free phone line. That's the kind of project that is trying to create grassroots empathy and we need to think about. The last thousand years of history, of the globe, I think not of the rise and fall of civilisations and religions or political systems,

I think of the rise and fall of empathy. Moments of mass empathic flowering, and also, of course, of empathic collapse. As you probably know, in the 1780s in Britain slavery was an accepted part of society. People felt that the economy was as dependent on slavery as our economy is on oil today. Half a million African slaves were being worked to death

on British plantations in the Caribbean, sugar plantations, everybody had this sugar in their teas and nobody thought this could ever be eroded, this institution of slavery. It was totally normal. Seemed impossible to get rid of. But in the late 1780s, there was the rise of the world's first great human rights movement,

the movement against slavery and the slave trade. And it was a movement powered by empathy. Its leaders - a Quaker businessmen, an Anglican archdeacon, and others - developed a very empathic campaign. The idea they had was to try and get people in Britain to experience or understand, at least, what it was like to be a slave on a slave ship, on a slave plantation. They published written accounts with sort of oral stories of former slaves

talking about what it was like to be whipped until they were lying on the ground. They organised for former slaves to give talks around Britain about their experiences. And this led to a revolutionary social movement, really, it led to petitions, it led to public protest,

it led to the first great fair trade boycott of sugar in the late 18th Century. Eventually it led to the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and later slavery itself. But we need to think about one final habit, which is to develop an ambitious imagination. We normally think of empathy as empathising with the down and outs, the poor and marginalised, those on the edges of society. I think we need to be more adventurous in who we try to empathise with. I think we need to empathise with those in power, even greedy bankers like Dick Fuld here, formally from Lehman Brothers. We need to understand how those in power, in whatever realm it is, think about the world and their lives and their ambitions. We need to understand their values. Only then are we going to be able to develop effective strategies for social, political and economic transformation. Equally, I think, we need to have conversations with people like - who are elites, try and share our own lives, try and bridge those divides. It doesn't mean we have to adopt their views, but we do need to understand their views of the world. Equally, I think we need to apply our more ambitious thinking in policy realms such as thinking about climate change. We all know there's a huge gap about what we know about climate change and the amount of action that people are taking - ie, not very much. I think that gap is explained by empathy in two forms. I think there's an empathic gap, in terms of we're not empathising across space with people in developing countries like in India, people who are being hit by climate change induced floods or droughts in Kenya. Equally, and almost more importantly, perhaps, we are failing to empathise through time with future generations. We're hopeless at putting ourselves into the shoes of future generations and adjusting our behaviour after doing that. And I think we need to learn to expand our empathic imaginations forwards through time as well as across space. Socrates said that the way to live a wise and good life was to 'know thyself'. And we've generally thought of that

as being about self-reflective, looking in at ourselves, it's been about introspection. But I think in the 21st Century, we need to recognise that to know thyself is something that can also be achieved

by stepping outside yourself, by discovering other people's lives and I think empathy is the way to revolutionise our own philosophies of life, to become more outrospective and to create the revolution of human relationships that I think we so desperately need. That was cultural historian, Roman Krznaric, on the art of empathy, in a lecture at the RSA in London. Next up, blogger and technology activist, Corey Doctorow, blowing apart the commercial, artistic and moral cases for copyright and copyright laws. He's giving one of the keynote addresses at the Vivid Festival in Sydney. I want to talk first about copying because copying is foundational, copying is part of what it means to be alive. Four billion years ago, thanks to a process that we still don't entirely understand, some molecules figured out how to copy themselves. We are their descendents, because we have a name for things that don't copy themselves, we call them dead. And we call them extinct. Copying is foundational to what it means to be human, right? Because we are descended from very prolific copiers and so copying is really there right from the beginning. So, about four years ago my daughter was born,

four and a half years ago my daughter was born. I live in London, my parents live in Canada. And a couple of weeks after she was born my parents came over for a visit. My mom has a doctorate in early childhood education, so she's like a baby whisperer. And so, she got here and she said, 'have you stuck your tongue out at her yet?' And I said, 'no, mom, I haven't stuck my tongue out at my newborn yet. Why would I stick my tongue out at my newborn?' And she said, 'well just watch this'. And she took my daughter in her arms and she looked down at her and she went like this... ..and my daughter, two weeks old, awfully cute, not very coordinated,

hadn't yet actually touched her tongue. Hadn't seen a mirror, didn't know really that she had a tongue or what it was for. But she looked up at her grandmother and did this. Because we copy like we nuzzle for the breast, right? I mean it's there from the minute we emerge. Copying is how we learn to make art, copying is how we learn to do language, so copying is - and to draw things and how we learn to do all that other stuff. So, the first story I ever wrote in 1977, I was six years old, there weren't a lot of sophisticated stories, stories that are multiple points of view, stories that had non-linear timelines and so on - available to kids 'cause we had only one or two over the air channels, and in Toronto there weren't VCR's, there weren't DVD Players. So, my dad took me to see Star Wars, and it was like the most complicated story I'd ever seen at that point, right? And it was like a revelation, you know, it just blew my mind. So I got home and I wanted to figure out how that story works.

So I took some A4 and I stapled it up the side and I trimmed it to the size of a mass-market paperbook,

'cause I knew that's what a book was and I just wrote out that story over and over again like a kid playing scales on a piano. Because copying is how we learn to do art -

I mean, amateurs plagiarise, artists steal. Art always starts with copying, art always involves copying,

and what we do is we say 'Oh, the bit that we copied, that was plumbing and the bit that we added that was art, right?' So, like, Cervantes, he invented the novel, unless it was someone else, because, of course, all the great inventions are invented simultaneously by lots of people all around the world, because when its railroad time, you get railroading. But that's not to say that Cervantes didn't do something important when he invented the novel independent of all those other people who invented novels.

So, Cervantes invented the novel and every time I write a novel, I copy Cervantes. But I don't acknowledge him as the proper person to acknowledge for having written novels because it's plumbing now, right? Edgar Allan Poe invented the detective story and when I write detective stories I don't go, 'I'm writing a Poe-ian detective story. Poe, he's just plumbing now, he doesn't get any kind of accolade because it came before me, so it's plumbing, the part I add is important, the stuff they did is not important. And that's not enough obviously, we need a better conception than that and so from time to time we come up with rules to regulate what kind of copying can happen when within the contours of the supply chain of the entertainment industry, and we call that copyright. It's a regulatory framework for an industry. And there's nothing wrong with regulation for industry. For example, I'd love it if the finance industry had some real, meaningful regulation, right? (Audience chuckles) But imagine this, imagine that we say, 'OK, we're going to give meaningful regulation to finance and the way we are going to test whether or not you are doing something financial is whether a million dollars changes hands in a transaction. When a million dollars changes hands in a transaction, you've got to go tell the banking regulator about it

so they can make sure nothing untoward is going on.

And then, eurozone collapse, worldwide commodity spikes, hyper-inflation, and now you need a wheelbarrow full of dollars

to buy a pint. So, a million dollars every time you want to buy a sandwich, a million dollars every time you want to buy a pint.

So, you buy your friend a sandwich, according to the finance rules, you're now a bank. So, do we say 'OK, we've had hyper-inflation. it takes a million dollars to buy a sandwich, therefore everyone who buys a sandwich is a bank,' Or do we say, 'that test that we used to have before something that was rare, a million dollars, became ubiquitous, to determine whether or not you're in the industry,' that test no longer works. I think if we'd had a sane regulation we'd say, 'OK, that test no longer works.' But copying is what we use to test whether or not you're in the entertainment industry. We say, 'Oh, you're making a copy, that you're doing something industrial related to entertainment.' Because to make a copy of a movie you need a million dollar movie factory. And to make a copy of a record you need a record studio and to make a copy of a book you need a printing press and so the way we test whether or not you're within copyrights remit is whether you're doing something industrial, and copying is an inherently industrial act, therefore everybody who copies is in the industry and should be governed by copyrights regulations. And then along comes the computer, and the computer is a kind of hyperinflation for copying,

because everything a computer does starts and ends with copying. We say that I stream the file to you but I didn't give you a download. This is wrong, right? There is no such thing as a stream that doesn't involve a download because all a stream is is I send you a copy of the file and then I believe, maybe erroneously, that your computer doesn't have a 'save as' button to save the file. (Audience laughs) But the only way you can see a movie or hear a song that's on my server with your computer is if your computer gets a copy of it, right?

The internet is not made of tubes and mirrors. The internet is made out of bits. So, to get a copy from here to there or to get the signal from here to there there has to be a copy made of it, and in fact, not one copy, but copies and copies and copies and copies and copies. Copies to the frame buffer, copies to the RAM, copies to the graphics buffer, copies to the network buffers, copies to all over the place, right? Just so many copies that they are uncountable. Millions of copies everyday before breakfast. So are we now all part of the entertainment industry?

I don't think so. And I think that's the problem, right? Collectively, the people in this room have probably made more copies this year than everybody in the world had made up to the moment when the first non-literary, real, properly speaking twentieth century copyright law came into effect, which was when they licensed sound recordings in 1908 in America, the piano rule laws. So that's how many copies we've made, I don't think that we are collectively, the entertainment industry, I mean, some of us may be participants in it, but I think when you watch a video of your kid that you upload to YouTube so that your parents on the other side of the world can see it, that you are engaged in something industrial and should be regulated the same way a record label is. So, the problem with getting that wrong is that because we copy like we breathe today and because copyright regulation regulates copyright, the stakes have become really high in copyright regulation, right? If we get it wrong, we don't just regulate the entertainment industry and maybe do it violence that it doesn't deserve or screw it up in some important way,

but we also end up screwing up all the other things we do that involves copying. Which is everything we do that involves the internet and computers. So, I want to get beyond rules about whether copyright is good or bad tonight and I want to dig into a media question, I want to dig into what do we want copyright to do and how do we design a copyright that does it? So, I want to start with something that I think many people would agree with, a relatively uncontroversial idea. If you're designing an industrial regulation

for the entertainment industry, it should serve as an incentive to creativity, a good copyright system results in works being made,

creative works being made. More people making more works. It serves creators, that may not be it's Alpha and Omega but that's at least one of the important facets of copyright. So, 15 years ago the world's governments started looking at the question of modernising copyright for the 21st Century, for the digital age. And the first order of business was to see to it that things that prevented copying, technologies that prevented copying, and these traded under a lot of difference names, digital rights management or digital locks, or technical protection measures, I'll just call them digital locks, we can just talk as if - I think it expresses pretty well what they are. That digital locks should receive very special protection and that breaking digital locks should become a kind of new offence that's separate from any kind of copyright infringement. That the act of removing the lock That the act of making the tools to remove the locks becomes an offence. So, this started at WIPO, WIPO is the UN Agency that produces the world's copyright rules, the World Intellectual Property Organisation. It has the same relationship to bad copyright that Mordor has to evil. (Audience laughs) It's kind of the eternal wellspring of every dumb copyright rule we've ever had.

And in 1996, WIPO created the WIPO Copyright Treaty, the WCT. And it said that nations should create a special kind of protection

for digital locks. And in the US it became the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, you've probably gone to a YouTube video and it said 'this video's been removed because of DMCA', that's the DMCA. The Australian version came into law as part of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. If you want trade with the US you have to adopt this treaty in 2004, it's in your national law. But Australian copyright law and the DMCA don't just do what the WIPO copyright treaty demands, which is to say 'it's against the law to break a digital lock

if you're infringing copyright. They actually go further than that. They actually say it's against the law to remove a digital lock under any circumstances unless you're the person who put it there. Unless you're the company that made the lock. So, these rules cease to become rules about works, creative works, and they become rules about locks. So what does that mean? Well, if you're a user of a copyrighted work

and that's where this discussion usually goes. If you're the person who's got the region lock DVD and it won't play in your DVD player or if you're the person who's got the eBook that won't play it, it means that even if the law says you're allowed to back this up or you're allowed to move this from this device to that. You can't, right? And that's what people usually say and they say, 'Oh, that's very objectionable and we should fix that.' But that's not the major thing I'm going to talk about tonight, although it's worth noting that the most voracious consumers of information are creators of information. Remember, all creativity starts with copying, right? There's a reason that if your author photo on the jacket of your book isn't you standing on a windswept tarn looking out at infinity, it's probably you standing in front of a bookcase, right? Because like this is how you say, 'I've done my homework, look at all the people I stole from to write this book.' (Audience laughter) And so as prolific users of creative works, rules that restrict how you use creative works, bind creators especially, but there's a secondary effect that's must subtler and much more drastic.

It means that DRM companies, digital law companies,

get a greater say over the works that we produce and the works that our publishers or labels or studios invest in

than we do and that our investors get. So, consider the iTunes store for a minute. The iTunes store no longer has DRM on music, but it has mandatory DRM for video and audio books, and by mandatory, I mean that if a rights holder goes to Apple and says 'I would like to sell some video in your store without your DRM,' or 'I would like to sell an audiobook in your store without DRM.' Apple says 'no, we will only allow these works to be sold with DRM.'

And that is not just individual rights holders, but very big ones, Random House, who do my audiobooks, who as you probably know, are owned by Bertelsmann, the largest publisher in the world, asked them to distribute my audiobooks without DRM, they refused. It's not that they need to develop new technology, the stuff that they give away doesn't have DRM, the podcasts and stuff, it's literally like they just won't click the 'no-DRM' check box for these kinds of works. And they control 90% of the audiobook market, Audible and iTunes. And so imagine that you're a big audiobook publisher and you sell a couple of million dollars worth of audiobooks through the Apple channel, so they're locked with Apple's propriety technology

and only Apple can authorise your customers,

the people who bought this work to remove the DRM. And so along comes a spunky start-up and they go,

'we've got a technology that's as good as iTunes for distributing audiobooks and we're going to give you a better discount, you get to keep more of the money,

we're not going to ask for as big a discount as iTunes does, and better terms, better reporting, we're better in every way.' Which is what start-ups do. I mean, it's what iTunes did 'til the companies that sold music on the internet, before iTunes came along, right? So, someone comes along and makes you this offer and you go, 'great, I'm going to shift to you guys.' And Apple says, 'well, wait a second, if you shift to those guys, we're not going to authorise your customers, who at this point are our customers, to remove our DRM to play in their players. If you want your customers, your new customers to have audiobooks in their format, they're going to have to maintain a separate parallel infrastructure, they're going to have to have their own player, it's like having to have a different bookcase for every bookstore you shop in.

So, as the investor and as the writer, you've kind of lost control of the destiny over your work.

So you've lost control over the way that - one of the most important rights in copyrights, which was the right to authorise people to follow from one platform to another. You've lost that, and it's accrued to someone else. So, who gets the lion share of copyright? Who gets to say, 'Yes, you are allowed to copy this file made up of my precious, expensive-to-produce creative bits.' Well, it's not the creator, and it's not the investor. It's the digital lock vendor. And the digital lock vendor is not an important participant in the creative act here. Which is what copyright is supposed to be protecting. And the digital rights vendor may have done something very clever but that clever thing amounts to manufacturing a skinny piece of electronics in a Pacific Rim sweatshop, and taking my file and putting it on it, right? And I understand why they may want some rules to help them, but I don't understand why they should be the entertainment industry's supply chain rules. Why that should be the most important person in the entertainment industry's supply chain, because surely that's not the most important bit of the audio book. Surely it was either writing the book that went into it,

or recording the book and investing in it, not manufacturing the skinny bit of electronics that will be on the e-waste heap in 18 months. So, this is not copyright as a friend of creators, this is copyright as a platform owner's friend. And the funny thing is, that it wouldn't be hard to write a digital lock rule that didn't produce this outcome. All you'd have to say is it's against the rules to break a digital lock unless you're not violating copyright otherwise. And since there's no copyright that says you can't shelve the book from vendor A on the bookcase from vendor B.

It will always be legal. But that's not what your legislature and none of the legislature's I work with - I'm Canadian and I live in Britain and I used to work for Americans - none of those legislatures did. They all got it wrong. What they've actually said, instead of, 'we'll protect copyright with digital locks,' is what they've said is, 'Whatever the digital lock, locks up, whether it locks up a use that is legal or illegal or up or down, left or right, we'll spend an infinite number of tax dollars to make sure that nobody ever disrupts that business model.' So what company wouldn't take up the government on that offer? What DRM vendor wouldn't rub their hands together and say 'Great, it's like the world's greatest subsidy for anything we can think up and convince people to do, it's a law prohibiting people from disrupting us, it's awesome.' So, some companies have figured out how to play this like virtuosos. And Apple is one of them. Apple's whole IOS ecosystem is kind of an exhibit-A of how laws that protect digital locks instead of copyright can go wrong. So they use digital locks to insure that only apps

bought from the app store can run on their platforms. What that means is that if you write an app, and I have an iPad, and I want to give you money for the app. Unless Apple says that the app is allowed to run on my iPhone or iPad, and unless I promise to give 30% of the money to Apple, copyright law says that the person who created a creative work isn't allowed to sell it to the customer who wants to pay for it. That's crazy, right? I mean, that really - that's not what copyright law is for. You're not allowed to sell creative works to willing customers, unless a company in Cupertino says so. I mean, that can't be what we made copyright law for, right? That's got to be a bug and not a feature.

(Smattering of audience laughter) Now every time people do opt into that ecosystem it strengthens the lock that Apple has on the platform, because it becomes the place that people go to because the platform has lots of apps on it and then that's the place you have to send your apps, and the more power Apple gets, the more marketplace power they get, unsurprisingly, the more marketplace muscle they flex. So, when Apple kicked us all off, it was you have to give us 30% of the money the customer gives you

when they buy your app. Now the deal is, you have to give us 30% of the money the customer gives you when they buy your app, and if they spend any more money using your app, you have to give us 30% of that too. Now that's pretty clearly a totally different deal, from 30% from the person who buys your app. And it's pretty obvious why they did it. Because they make more money, and because nobody has any market power to stop them, so why wouldn't they do it, right? They're not running a charity. What I don't understand is why we as creators, A) didn't see this coming, and why more importantly, our supposedly wily investors, you know, the publishers, the studios, the record labels, why they didn't see it coming. And more importantly, why law makers set this up. Why do they give us a copyright law that gives this mirror intermediary a bunch of market power they don't need and it doesn't end up promoting creativity, although it does certainly promote multi-billion dollar valuations. That was Cory Doctorow, and you can find the extended version of his address on our website, as well as his conversation with anthropologist, Genevieve Bell. And you can always find him blogging on Last up, Nardi Simpson and Kaleena Briggs, better known as the Stiff Gins, in performance at this year's TEDx festival in Sydney. This song - so Kaleena mentioned

that we always pay respect here to Gadigal. 'Cause we live on Gadigal, I was born here. My mob's from 10 hours north-west in a car. We're Yuwaalaraay people, Yuwaalaraay people, linguists call us. And we're going to sing a song in my language now. And I found the words to this song buried in a book that was written in 1897. And it's a song about birralee - our word for children is birralee. And this book explains how mothers of Yuwaalaraay country put the babies over the smoke of the fire and rub into them the words of this song and the smoke of those fires of that country willing our young people to be generous and to be kind and to be strong. And I found those words in that book written in 1897 in a place called Bangit Station. And I watch 'Who Do You Think You Are', and I think, yeah, I want to found out who I am. Looking through family history and I found my great grandmother, my nan's mother was born on Bangit Station in 1898. So this song was sung over her. So it gives us great pleasure to sing it now to you.

Also, even more so, because her daughter, my grandmother, was forbidden to use her language, forbidden to speak Yuwaalaraay. And so it's wonderful to stand on this country after singing a Wiradjuri song, now singing a Yuwaalaraay song, with words that my grandmother was not able to say. But letting it wash over you fellas now, here in the language of my country. So this song is called, 'Birralee, for the children.' (Sings in Yuwaalaraay language)

(Applause) That was the Stiff Gin's in performance at this year's TEDx in Sydney. That's all for this edition of Big Ideas, you can find all these performances and talks on our website and you can find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

I'm Waleed Aly, catch you next time. Closed Captions by CSI. NEWSREADER: Some of these Vietnamese refugees have been at sea for more than a year. Many have told me that they've been promised that they will be sailed to Australia in the Roland. REPORTER: This is just one of many Khmer Rouge killing grounds in Kampuchea, in which people were slaughtered indiscriminately. It's an historic and a highly emotional moment. For practical purposes, the Berlin Wall has been all but torn down. REPORTER : Perhaps the most disturbing thing I've seen all day was people jumping from the 80th floor. Many of them were alight. We saw probably 20 bodies falling. REPORTER: When the shooting stopped, four students lay dead. Crows of onlookers around the universities are now showing their anger at the death of students. There's every chance now that rioting could break out. REPORTER : US Marines are rigorous with their own security. setting upon the ABC crew as we filmed from our car. MARINE: Hands down! Get down! MAN: We're media! Hey, turn that off! Closed Captions by CSI - Matt Whitmore This Program is Captioned


Hundreds of jobs to go at Ford factories in Geelong and

Melbourne. Well this is

obviously very sad news for 400

families who will lose their

jobs here at Ford. An anti-

uranium protest leads to

arrests at Roxby Downs in arrests at Roxby Downs in South Australia. Keep it in the ground! Predatory behaviour,

local producers reckon Dick

Smith is as tough as the

multinationals. And if he's

nervous, he's not showing

it. People back in Australia

could say James Magnuson's race

is coming on TV, it's a sure

thing. Hello and welcome to

ABC News across Australia, I'm