Comments on recent reading for @mecredis’ Copyright, Cyberlaw and Free Culture class this evening….

Fred’s class is a big ongoing history lesson for recent history, where 5 years ago often seems a real long way back.  Since January, we’ve romped through topics such as the Statute of Anne (ok, that’s pretty ancient), the concept of fair use, the DMCA, Eldred, Google Books, TOR, Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman, Wikipedia, and we’re still going…

This week we read Professor Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks – Chapter 3: Peer Production and Sharing.  There’s only one small part I’m going to comment on this week, and it ties back to the “jeez , history just got way less dusty than I’m used to” point.

At the end of the chapter, there is a short discussion of spectrum policy.  Professor Benkler explains the concept of a “spectrum commons” and the fact that WiFi sat in the realm of “low-power devices like garage openers and the spurious emissions of microwave ovens.” 

Now, unless you have been locked in a garage or had your head in a microwave oven over the past week or so you can’t have missed the ginormous amounts of press on the recent publication of the FCC’s Broadband Plan.  The Plan addresses the issue of spectrum directly and according to the NYT, the FCC hopes to “free up roughly 500 megahertz of spectrum, much of which would come from television broadcasters“  (NYT, 03/12/10).

Spectrum is but one of many issues to be looked at as we try to improve the provision of broadband to US citizens, open access and increasing competition for example being of critical importance.  I mention spectrum in this post specifically though to highlight how the history Fred is telling us about is very much evolving and changing.  The fact that a piece published 4 years ago that are studying as ‘history’ is authored by someone who is in the press this weekend on these issues again, being debated, and considered – and of seriously critical importance: its great. I’m struggling for the right phrasing, but essentially, when we study history, it helps us to learn and contemplate, and really think about the issues raised if the lessons pop. Happily – right now in this field, these lessons are snap-crackling at the moment.

Having grown up watching and listening to the familiar jousting and debating of PMQs, I am throwing my support behind the cross party group campaigning to introduce a similar system here.

Parliamentary debate is a hugely effective way to engage all sides of the political spectrum in rigorous dialog, and is an intensely public way of  holding political leaders in check.  There’s no better BS detector for us than to see our leaders dodge, fluff or fumble when being questioned.  Of course, the system has its downsides, discussions can be reduced to a series of theatrical quips and jabs, but overall, the system is a highly effective method of enabling debate between politicians and their keeping their overall accountability to the electorate firmly in the public view.

Since the petition was launched two days ago, it has hauled in over 12,000 signatures, and on Wednesday, was discussed Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton during the White House daily briefing.  Despite him saying that at the moment, a regular Question Time was not in the offing, the fact that the issue is being address seriously by the White House is a great step.  David Corn, the man who asked the question about Question Time to Bill Burton has more here.  Spontaneous rallying calls such as this one are refreshing to see.  Keep up the good work.

Details of Demand Question Time and the petition here.

Tweeting here.