Stories like this. It is always wonderful to come back to stories like fred and the better thriving so visibly. The vast time i spoke it was amazing to see the Community Supporting the store. Thank you offer being Stores Supporters of great independent stores tearjerkers to have been. Not all places do. This is an extraordinary bookstore. So like many of you i earned my living from the art over the internet. Even if youre living on the internet today there is a reasonable chance that some fraction of how you live tomorrow will take this on the internet because after all everything about the internet and everything we do tomorrow will require it. Theres a wonderful thing about the hours since it is very much a personalized, individual life at tbd. When you look at the income of people who work in the art, you see each one is doing something different. Usually profoundly different even at 10000 feet it might look like a painter is a painter and a novelist as a novelist they do something that is unique to the way they practice the media. The frustrating thing is this means theres not one easy way to kind of get into the cars. There is no prescribed path to answer the hours and thrive on it. There is no one great Business Model for the art. So almost everyone who earns a living in the arts has lost money in the business. Of those who actually made money and the ice, most of them made of various elemental. Those who made lots of money many didnt can tame you to earn lots of money. They crashed and burned. It is independent of your media your area have area have the economic arts effectively always worked. Short of a minimum guaranteed income it is hard to imagine a copyright regime that would provide an income to a significant plurality of people who like to earn a living from the iris. It is kind of a six sigma event. Something very rare. You imagine a firing line, maybe the 49th parallel with people lined all along it and they are all passing points all day long and most of those coins will, either heads or tails. If enough people passing of coins enough times, stumbling and on the edge. Obviously you can get better at making your coin land on the edge. You can practice getting your coin land on the edge. The more you flip your coin, the greater the chance. The one thing we can tell about everyone is that they may all have in common with one another more than perseverance, more than skill is sloth. Sophistic; all collaborated to get the coin to land on the edge. Now with the winners that the people in this contest should get their coin on the edge their culture here is then put on magazines and high people tell them that theyve done Something Wonderful. You would see lots of people lining up to be professional coin passers. Not only could you imagine that people would be feted for doing this or celebrated for doing this imagine that tossing a coin was something intrinsically satisfying which is what we talk about when we talk about our. We give people who have mentally start through ptsd, we get them art therapy, a critical means of recovering their equilibrium. Art comes with the human condition. This is what living in the arts really looks like. Its an incredibly lucky thing that some of us get them that many people try to participate in because not only is an intrinsically satisfying, but the people who win are thought to ask to have done Something Wonderful and extort very. Artists in particular dont like to be reminded that the luck element in this because art as a class can suffer and so reminding people who have succeeded in the hours that their success is as much of luck is perseverance and talent is something horrifying. It is like a reminder that this too shall pass on any day you might end up like your colleagues are you started off with is a young writer or young teacher or some other artist who worked as hard as you did but never made it and so its a great way to get people very angry at you is to remind them that they owe their success has much to luck as to any other intrinsic value. The arts are foundational in a nonmarketing tvt. They are not doing something economically rational. The economically rational return on artistic investment is negative. Would make it anyway. So what we talk about the art and technology we bring to its something that economists call survivor bias. We examine people who succeed in the art and say how can we make sure these kinds of people who are successful artists, the kind of artist that should be succeeding and make it work we love, how do we ensure they go on succeeding with . This is an entirely backwards way of thinking about the knowledge in relationship to the art. If you think back to the dawn of recorded music, before recorded music and before radio it was literally inconceivable to imagine a musician who was a great musician whose performances were thrilled millions, but he didnt like being in front of crowds. This is as weird as a swimmer who could be an omen that Gold Medalist but didnt like water. The advent of radio and records made it possible to be a kind of artist that would conceive before that and although the artist who had made their career on the stage were off should about the future that John Philip Sousa with the American Congress in 1909 and internal talking machines are about to go on. We lose our voice boxes as sure as we lost our tails when we came down over the trees. Points to sousa for being controversial series of natural selection, i. T. Sure paints a big teacher there. When we say that what we preserve its Business Model instead of a fortune of artist as a class we end up on one hand strangling the potential artist who might thrive in the new technical reality. More importantly we go to war against whatever technological and social factors have given rise to a new art and artistic crack this. The major impact of radio was not that it created a new artist. A major impact of radio was that remade the world every single way we could think of. When you go to war against radio, you dont decide as a party send for a live performance. Use side for a whole way of being that was precluding the radio is not a part of the way we build out our world. So i am someone who is lucky enough to win the art lottery in the last round of technology that is rapidly changing unsorted being replaced a new kinds of technology. For me personally, what Business Model will be the best Business Model is one that is extremely important. Putting on and taking off my party send for me had been putting on my partisan for artist as a class have committed things im most interested in is how do we ensure that the rules that we formulate for the art guarantee whatever money is being generated for artistic crack this is preferentially to the people who make art on the secondarily to the people who invested art and people with the platforms and retailers to make the art available. I have grandiosely characterize this prethree loss of arts in the 20th century. I live in the United Kingdom so when i come to north america to give a talk oftentimes the first day that i am here at whatever talk i gave her a little bit hallucinogenic because they are influenced by an allnight jet lag session which im allowed basically rewriting the speech that i widely wrote when i was well rested back in london. So this is no exception. I was in new york to give a talk at a publishing conference. I wrote my talking came up with this thing i called doctorow law. I went out to eat with my agent. I went out to lunch with my aged and used to represent arthur c. Clarke and albuquerque stay. I said i came up with the law and i presented it today at a conference and it went over really well. He said if theres one thing i learned to representing arthur c. Clarke cant have one law. You have to have three. So that is how this talk is structured. Its how the new book is structured. Its a brand that fairytale theme. So blog number one, the law i came up with at 2 00 in the morning at a New York Hotel room if any time someone gives you a law book and want to be the key you can ensure it is there for your benefit. So if youve ever made something creative and then intemperate to sell it on the internet using one of the platforms like amazon and the apple app store, google apps store when you make that available you are often given a checkbox that says what you like to protect your work or piracy or would you like to protect your work more generically . Would you like to add Digital Rights management to your work . If you have ever gotten a deal where youve gone to a publisher or record label or studio to make your work available chances are they almost always kick off that box. Protecting your work doesnt sound like a crazy idea. Here is what happens when you kick the ball. The platform you are using to make your work available scrambles your work. It encrypts it so you cant read it without some kind of descrambler. They provide to the audience that discriminant program or device and apple on a phone, the netflix plugin for your browser and that he scrambles the work. That technology, that will have this characteristic determined by the people who made it that amazon or netflix or apple when they will decide what it can and cant have. Netflix, for example is this consensus hallucination that theres a difference between a download and a screen. I can somehow give you a stream over its not a downloadable work so you can stream the movie, but you dont get a copy of it somehow. It doesnt land on your hard drive ever. What they mean when they say ive given you downloaded not a stream is activated, but the program they use doesnt have a save button. The way they ensure that as they provide you with the descrambling program that doesnt have a save button and provided that no one can figure out how to descrambling using the program into which they might insert a save button they make a distinction between downloading and streaming. They can make a post about how you can and cant use media and do this thing that has been a holy grail of technology and the fairytale day you can subdivide a piece of artistic work in todays thinner and thinner slices. Maybe you dont want the whole painting. Maybe the right to look at the painting on wednesday. I will sell you the wednesday rights of the painting. In theory this opens up a whole economic model that has never been explored before. They only ever wanted to painting and now people who are historically lots of the painting can get into the painting market by only buying the ones they write. So they can make the subdivided markets that people have been talking about for 20, 30 years now. The way this works as i provide you with a player. The player has the key to unscramble the thing that i scrambled and provided you cant figure out how i had the key you cant make your own work. Effectively what this is as ive given you a program or device had hidden a secret somewhere in there. As long as you can figure out where ive given you that youve got to take home and subject to whatever abuse that you want to subject it to you in whatever analysis you want to subject it to, so long as you never figure out where this thing that you own and keeping your lab or in your company or in your hacker space come you never figure out where i had the key. By model works. You may have found a flaw in the model. Theres a reason they dont let the big keeper keep atf in their living room aired it doesnt matter how well built, if you handed to the person you dont trust, they will eventually figure out how to open it up. When your adversaries include more grad students that theyre an electron microscope with nothing to do this weekend, it is kind of game over. So in theory, no one would ever want a digital lock on their work because they would be broken immediately. The law has a fix for this. Starting in 1998 the United States had a digital copyright act in all over the world with less analogous to it, we made it illegal to break the digital allows them a duty to represent keys are hidden to make your own players. So now, you have a world where anyone can download from the internet and ripped a dvd, but there are no products you can buy. You have to know it exists to rip a dvd. It is not a thing where theres coops that will show you how to do it. It is all kind of shady and theres not any obvious paths to ripping a dvd. You can think of these has been in past. In practice they are not really because in practice the easiest way to rip a dvd is to find a copy someone elses arty ripped on the pirate bay and download it yourself. You dont have to be smart enough to figure out how to break the protection on the dvd. He does have to be smart enough to find a copy of the dvd that someone else broke the protection on. As soon as works are made available, they are available for download without paying for them. The antipiracy site doesnt work although the peoplehood make the tool said well its better than nothing. What my first law tells you is its actually worse than nothing. The reason its worse than nothing is that the rules around the digital laws the 1998 copyright act says that when you allow someone to log your Creative Work only they are about to remove the lock. So if adobe or apple or amazon lock up your work and you decide later to you when to start selling your work through one of their competitors and you say you know, i would like it if you are if you unlock all those books you sold to my readers so they can come with me to one of your competitors, only they get the right to decide whether or not they are going to do it and chances are they are not going to do it because you are basically letting them out of their walledgarden where they generate lots of money from being able to exploit the fact your customers are locked into them. We actually just saw this play out in real time with one of the big five publishers. Five major publishers left in the world. Two are german, one titled newspaper family and one mostly felt like cluster bombs and landmines. And a french one is owned by a company that also does lots of things including selling cluster bombs. They clearly hasnt read out their ardor for us. Theyre remarkably strategically illiterate because theyve always insisted their works be sold with digital locks on them. And so every book in all of their imprints thats ever been sold has been sold lockstep to some platforms technology. Last year or the beginning of this year amazon sat down and said you were the first of the big five to do 10 year deal is with us. It is time to negotiate the new 10 year deal and we want a lot here we want a lot. They said that is more than we are prepared to give. Amazon said no problem you dont have to sell your books duress anymore. Actually intaglio agree to the terms, we are not going to sell your books anymore. No longer will people be about two by jk rowlings books or Amanda Palmer spoke through amazon which accounts for 40 to 50 of all of the books in north america. This is a huge blow. If they had not launched their work up with amazon, magic anticopying snake oil, they wouldve said albright it is your choice whether or not you want to carrier books are not carriere books, but so long as you are not carrying our books we are going to make them available everywhere else at halfprice and make this little app that takes their amazon book and turns them into apple books or google books or anyone elses platform book and all of those people that you have sold at a loss to get them into your walledgarden, they will walk out of fall with the morals because people dont live books because the bookstore. They are not by jk rowling because they came from amazon here they are buying it because they love jk rowling books and so they will follow jk rowling were to retake her. They werent allowed to do that. They were capable because they had sold the right to control their customers to amazon for effectively nothing. Theyre crazy for you bear customers to amazon platform. They have this other line of business a Company Called audible that is the major audio book market. Where you get to decide whether or not you let them lock up your books, if you make your audio books available you have to allow amazon to lock your book. And they are 90 of the market. And they are the only ones allowed to provide audio books to itunes. So if you ever buy the idea book on itunes, it is all locks to amazon. It is not like amazon said you know, weve got all these people who work for our company and a lot of them are super cutthroat hypercompetitive. We will make the work for other divisions and the ones that are patchouli scented, easygoing they will work for audible. Amazon is like a normal curve of cutthroat Business Activities and they have the same proportion of cutthroat Business People work in their audible divisions and other divisions except that audible has suppliers by much shorter, curly or hairs. So its really only a matter of time until days start to turn the screw here. Ill buy you a not one of mine, that in the near future we will see happening instead make a shot site look like a my little pony episode. So that is my law. Anytime someone locks up something that belongs to you and will give you the key you can be sure the lock is in there for benefit. Now the second lot is being famous wont make you rich, but knowable by your art unless they have heard of you. So this Great Technology innovator and entrepreneur and publisher. He publishes a rather books, computer books with the animals on the cover. He coined the term open source and web 2. 0 and hes great with open aphorisms. He said two years ago for most artists a problem with tiresias of security. That resonate for a lot of people. People went to war without on their banners and i think when people heard that, a lot of them unfortunately misunderstood. They thought he was saying if youre famous enough youll be rich. And of course thats not true us all. But it is absolutely true that no one can buy your works unless theyve heard of them. The way people hear about her works as creators of the 21st century is using the internet and my father so the way they give us money. Said the Search Engines and social media of Online Platforms like you to. We are remunerated for them to send payment like square or paypal or advertising brokers like googles ad words were true crowd funding platforms like kickstart. The way that we are now living happens on the internet. Sometimes it happens to a traditional publisher or studio or label and sometimes we go one around. Theres a bunch of an bunch of and deeds that have gone in their own and if pieced together all the functions of a publisher from these little pieces laying around on the internet. Independent publishing services. Some of them started off in the mainstream. People like trent risner or Amanda Palmer who walk out of the record label system and walks off in two independent land and were able to leverage success theyve had with the old Media Companies and a newer way. Some of them went the other direction. People like hugh howley became an extremely successful independent writer and then Simon Schuster one of the big publishers offered him a publishing deal. The amazing name was simply been so successful he was able to dictate its terms to Simon Schuster. His Simon Schuster. Fiona Simon Schuster writer who got the ibo price. Simon schuster like all the other big five have an ironclad nonnegotiable absolutely universal policy that if you sell a book through them you have to let them also do your ebook rights. But not if you are hugh howley. They need you more than you need them. So he was able to get the exception to the rule that had no exceptions and as a consequence was able to retain more earnings from his art than it would have otherwise. And then theres people who start off like Jonathon Colton who became an independent is supposed success and state and independent musical success by touring and doing his gigs as an nda. All of those companies, all of those individuals represent a kind of existence proof to be a success of your independent. That matters a lot because not independent architect or come major publishing world has been subject to the same 20 the same 21st century mergers and acquisition concentration that every other sector has been subject to weather that is automaking or energy or logistics or retail or finance, we are at down now to five feet publishers, for big labels and five big studios. We are effectively out of competition. Dont have to be a radical economist observed fewer buyers, the sellers get a worse deal. You see that reflected now in the kinds of deals that major publishers studio tables offer to creators to sell into them. If you are a musician and you are one of the very lucky, very few musicians who manages to get a record deal, your record deal includes a standard Accounting Practice that detects six percentage from every royalty for breakage. Breakage is a line item that dates back to the area of physical records and it represents the statistically likely percentage above the records made that will be broken on the way to the record store and attacked it from your mp3 royalties. What is the underlying message of that he attacked it from your royalty . If you ever see the lily tomlin sketch on saturday night live, we dont have to care. Where the phone company. The message is theres only four labels. If you dont like it, hit the bricks. The worse deal you can be offered by a major financing organization, publisher, studio, label, so even if you or someone like me who goes through the traditional publishing channels, your deal gets better as a function of how many independents are out there. In print publishing, now if you sell a novel to a publisher, not only will they take your rights, but by a march they are all asking for your international rights. They wanted throughout territories, Foreign Language rights. Also increasingly a graphic novel in audio book raised which are wrought in retain historically and been paid for separately for each one of those. But the independent sector has been under attack from the publishers, studios and labels to the whole history for the last 15 years. The major corporations that make up the attainment industry have had lawmakers and regulators add enormous regulatory burdens to the business as being one of these independent platforms and the name of fighting piracy. In the name of stopping the independent musicians and filmmakers in being ripped off by youtube, youtube now have to have this multihundred Million Dollars instead by which they check to see whether or not the upload has previously been registered and if it has it wont let you post the work to youtube. Youtube was started by three people in a grudging silicon alley. If you want to start a competitor today, if you not only did three people in a grudge community couple hundred 9 to become the de facto standard for operating a video platform which means the only competitors will see to youtube in the future will look just like youtube. Giant corporations that will have exactly the same approach to their supply chain i saw the giant corporations do. The new boss becomes the same as the old boss. We see that with youtube. Youtube created a competitor to spot a find pandora, a streaming Music Company or service and to inaugurate it, they brought in the four major record labels and negotiated terms on which they would like all of their work to google, and to youtube to make available as a streaming music service. After they struck video they went to all of the independent record labels and say he will take the term that we negotiated with the four majors. You will take those terms or you are no longer allowed to use youtube to make your videos available to promote your music. You have to basically surrender your commercial autonomy to majors who end up speaking on your behalf, even when the interests at the same is your interest. Viacom in a recent failed state to get the Supreme Court to bring youtube to see you on terms that they favored want to go much further than this. Youve got the 100 hours of video every minute. Viacom argued unless you to pay the lawyer to review all of the video as it was coming in that they should be held liable for any infringement that showed up even give any multihundred Million Dollars system. There are not enough lawyer hours between now and the universe to make any kind of dent in youtubes video vote but viacom was prepared to do it and its basically unwillingness of the Supreme Court there but for the grace of the clerks of the Supreme Court who decided it wasnt interesting enough case to have their bosses write opinions about by which they would read the opinions of their bosses put their names on. It was only by their caprice that we didnt end up with this as the regime. What wouldve happened if viacom had been successful with it and the rule for the internet now is that everything that goes live on the internet has to be reviewed by a copyright lawyer before it can be seen by the public. Well, it is cable television. That is how cabletelevision works. Before you make work available on Cable Tv Company pay a lawyer to review it or the cable operator pays a lawyer to you the way. You have radically fewer channels. You may remember we went site cable tv universe is 500 channels would be incredible glory and unbelievable variety. Imagine 500 websites on it and how that would be by our contemporary standards. Either you get vastly restricted availability or vastly restrict it available channel to read and interpret the only people who get their work on cable tv or people who pay a lawyer and im not sure which is the same thing to guarantee their work is infringed copyright. So that is a world in which we effectively wiki the gatekeeper and new media by racing the viability and expense of operating these things. But we honest artists is to have lots and lots of chaos. We Want Companies popping up so they can see that gives us the best deal to lure us in an even competitor. The services to this factor has contracted radically largely aims to offers on behalf of creators. That is the second law. It doesnt matter how famous you are. You wont necessarily become rich but by the same token if no one has heard of you, no one is giving you any money. Those are the first two laws. The third lot is the most part 1 of fall and its that information doesnt want to be free. You may have heard this bandied about as half of a famous thing that everyone forgets the other half of. Stewart brand at the first hackers conference said to Steve Wozniak on stage, information wants to be free but it wants to be expensive. It is like enormous accrual thoughtprovoking miss, but over the years its lost its futility because these days when people talk about advocating for a fair and free information infrastructure, and they say this about whether whether or not information wants to be free. Ive never done anything because i wanted make sure information fulfilled its destiny. I heard this so many times i thought it would appear investigative. Last spring i rented a cabin in the Lake District and i invited information up for a kind of a threeday weekend and we built like a sweat lodge and they cried about her. Seeded syndrome main. We drank a lot of chardonnay. When it was over, information took bandit long, soulful hug and a felted stumble down my cheek and whispered in my ear inside i dont want to be free. I want is for people to stop anthropomorphizing the. Because information doesnt want anything and if it did who would care. The desires are of no concern to us. Theres no reason to get out of bed in the morning. People want to be free. The way you make people free in a world where effectively Information Technology has colonized everything we do this by having open information infrastructure. So the internet is not a glorified cable service. It is not a better way of doing video on demand. Its not the worlds most distribution system. It is not a way of cdg hotties. Everything we do today and everything tomorrow will require it. It is true they have a negative impact on consumer expect haitians the incomes of artists. They alienate their rifle share of publishers and studios in favor of Companies Like apple and google and thats a problem. That is not a real problem with Digital Rights management. The real problem is in order to make them safe and secure, in order to get them some longevity, we make it a crime to break them. The crimes of copyright act to tell people about flaws in a device that has a tisza lock that protects a copyright. They can be used to remove the digital file. If you jailbreak your iphone celebrant software that apple didnt last you have to find a mistake that the programmers made and leverage it to trick the iphone into thinking that some day and that it wants to have been or that it doesnt want to happen is happening. You are in fact presented with legitimate software from apple and a third party. You have to break into the device. A flaw in device is not very useful for people who want to jailbreak for people who have suffered an attack via is. Supercomputer that you keep in your pocket to make the occasional phone call. Your iphone as a supercomputer you keep in your pocket as a camera and microphone that knows who all of your friends are who knows what you talked to them about and never where you go it has a location sensor. You take it to the toilet with you your bedroom if you come you address in front of it. Thats what you typed your lawyer about, how to Access Medical details and has every secret about you. Not knowing the flaws in your iphone has consequences much more great and whether or not you were watching tv in a way that wasnt counted by the people have made the tv program. It is a much more significant safe. The world we live in is now made out of computers. Not a building a modern building fresh out of the wrapper that is being knocked up in a new complex today. That building will be a computer you would have because the computers that govern its humidity control those computers because it has such high installation, those are critical to the livid ability, habitability. They immediately become uninhabitable because when you leave, they become permanently uninhabitable. In florida when they turned off they had to scrape into the ground because the black mold with the Climate Control, computer control, Climate Control was knocked out of them. A car is a computer that rockets down the road at 70 miles an hour with you trapped inside as they and every year it is like devcon and ccc. People get up in demo attacks on where they go to the bluetooth for making handsfree phone calls. The most salient fact about your car is how secure the computer is. I live in the United Kingdom. I flew here. That boeing 747 is connected to some tragically badly secure data controllers. Its not just that we keep our bodies inside of computers. We increasingly Keep Computers inside of her body. If you dont like either with a walkman or m3 three players, you will and if you live long enough and you are killed, some data to be hearing it and that is almost certainly not going to be an analog transistor hearing aid. It would be a computer you put inside your body. Depending how its configured it will either tell you but if they are rather people what you are hearing or make you hear things that arent there or not like you hear things that are there. All of those things are possible depending how the computer is designed. This may sound like Science Fiction, but this is the reality on the ground today. Part of a sadly deceased Security Research in 2012 download and wireless attack on to for attack on to for preleaders from 30 feet away to it mr. Heart attack. Dick cheney plan to differ villager had a wireless interface turned off was implanted. The university of michigan has a chilling, thrilling Youtube Video where they hope to a bluetooth enabled pacemaker to a piece of raw bacon and by compromising it through its badly secure bluetooth interface, they were able to cook that piece of bacon. I was in an airport. I travel a lot. The first rule of the frequent flyer is abc. Always be charging. When you get an airport lounges you scan for plugs. I got into an airport last time and i snagged the only plug. I was working on my laptop with the only plug charging the battery. A man came up and very cheaply said to you mind if i use that plug . I said im charging my laptop before the flight. People that is people that is the leg and showed me the robotic prostatic leg and he said i need to charge my leg before the flight. [laughter] i said yes you can have the plug. Stacking the deck against disclosure of the flaws in the devices that we depend on for everything. I mean, everything isnt insanely bad idea. You should be allowed to know about the flaws in your iphone even your xbox and your thermostat, everything you use should be allowed to know about the flaws even if it compromises someone Business Model and making sure every time you buy intended game, nintendo gets 30 . When it comes to the rules that we have for the people or provide services to independence, the Youtube Facebook and twitter of the world come the world coming to major impact of increasing liability is in on the arts although the impact of the art is great. Youtube gets 100 hours of video every minute. All of the copyrighted professionally produced video is uploaded to youtube Everything Else is Everything Else we have to say to each other. When you make rules, so you can send there anything on the internet by pointing at it and say that infringes the copyright with no effective penalties for lying and no burden of proof for you. When you agree to not accountable system of censorship, it would be heartbreakingly naive to assume it wouldnt be used to commit acts of unaccountable censorship. That is how its used. Everyone from the king of thailand to british neoniceties to the scientology routinely abusing copyrights claims to make things disappear. Most of what is on youtube is not Police Academy clips or music videos uploaded without the permission. Most of what is on youtube is Everything Else. [inaudible] cat videos. I will come to cat videos in a minute because they are important, too. Every moment of the umbrella revolution every moment on the ferguson, every moment out of the uprising and to rear square inch in the show that made their way onto youtube are far more important and deserve protection and shouldnt be taken down on the sayso of someone who decides they just dont want them there and have a consequence free way of making it disappear or because they are different to what happened when they make a mistake in sending of censorship notices. A novel homeland was taken on for many websites even though it authorized its distribution to state that it might be their tv show homeland. Not because they wanted to censor my book but they just didnt give a ship if they ended up censoring my book would never algorithm when the homeland appears and sent a legal notice and that infringes your copyright. So yeah it is absolutely in our social interest collective interest to allow people to make them available. I want to talk about cat ideas. The thing youre supposed to say when you talk about the value of this independently produced vernacular communicative stuff that goes on the web, the thing youre supposed to say is there a lot that hardly matters at all. All the Youtube Videos youtube comments cat videos. Why do we care about those . We care about those because we have no way of constructing a legal regime that would want to videos to show up on the internet was still loving trivial material not making any posts about trivial material. I want to speak in defense of trivial material. There is a reason. So i think that vernacular stuff that seems to have no moment seems like people saying things about me to one another. You are not part of their conversation. The meeting is contextual. When my wife comes down to breakfast in the morning i asked her how she slept. I dont ask her how she because i dont know. I know how my wife slept because i sleep next to her. When she is a bad night i know to an extremely precise degree however night ways. What ive done when i ask her how she slept his eyes in favored admission for the world to decipher and that message is i love you. Im thinking about you. I care about you. Im here you are here we are having a moment together. Other things on the internet they dont compare it to you although things have very someone. Everything on the internet free say unequivocally that has two be preserved its cancer, not cancer, im pregnant, i lost a baby, i got a job, lost the job got into university, they kicked me out. Hello dad im in jail. Everyone of those messages, the reason they have any is because they are broke in a soil composted idowu million. It is the height of arrogance to say that in the name of making sure that people do as they are told when are told when they are Given Entertainment products we are willing to sacrifice all of that. That it should be obviously unacceptable to any artist. To understand the extent to which this is a struggle not about whether or not information wants to be free but whether people want to be free. A given example for the country of the day now, the United Kingdom. The last parliament that we had on the last day of the last parliament, there is something extraordinary happening. When there is an election in the United Kingdom the United Kingdom they have one more sitting of parliament and they have bills that are voted on that could keep the light on while they are gone. On the appropriations, everything that keeps things running for elected officials go campaign for reelection and that is called the wash. It only lasts for a couple of hours. Usually barely have a quarry because they have gone back to their can situate these to see if they could get reelected and keep their jobs. By tradition, only noncontroversial, nontechnical legislation is introduced. In the last wash up five years ago exactly because were about to have a new election u. K. The introduced the Digital Economy bill which is not the act that passed. Tom watson a veteran labor called it the most complicated technical abilities ever been asked to consider. It was not giving any debate and it included a clause that said if you refuse to Copyright Infringement, you would be disconnected from the internet and no one would be allowed to reconnect you for a year. This was like not primary legislation. Of secondary legislation. They would be empowered. Its like giving tom willett of the chairman of the ftc to make it whenever he feels like it giving him the statutory authority. The amazing thing about this is not just that they voted. They did this in a context for a month earlier theyve got this amazing reporting. Theres a woman in the u. K. Who has not just one but two of the coolest job titles ive ever heard of. The current job title is supposed very necessary foe. They have a totally awesome weird thing to be. Before she was very nice, she was a champion for digital inclusion. They figure out how to get the whole country on broadband. She wanted to know what would happen if you gave people access to highspeed internet service. So she hired Price Waterhouse cooper and there is a Housing Project in the north were they connected a few years earlier for a Free Internet pie forever but he got Free Internet. It wasnt because they opted in. That wasnt a Housing Project full of nerds, they were the closest ones to wherever they bring the wire frame. It was a really cool experiment because you had a group of people like demographically super similar to their neighbors but this one difference for a couple years looking at the difference between their lives you could derive theories and so they went in thinking their kids could be Getting Better grades. Theyre also more likely to get an juice post education and they were more socially mobile. They have more disposable income. Undernutrition Better Health outcomes. More specifically engaged. More politically engaged more included on the news. They knew more about Current Events and were more likely to measure the quality of life in a Civilized Society that improves when you give people the internet. What part of that did that day with this backroom shenanigans with saddam if you live in the same house as a piece of networking equipment is someone who may or may not be with you, may or may not have used to be obtained in an unauthorized way, you will no longer have access to the free press, freedom of assembly, access to education of a good income, good job Better Health outcomes, civic and Political Engagement to everything we care about. If theres ever any doubt in your mind that this is not about whether information wants to be free inside the lid. In the United States they never pass a three strikes rule. Instead under Barack Obama Kreider six strikes rule because of the Net Neutrality situation where most people have one or two places from which they can have their internet. They were able to gather around a single table to companies that provide Internet Access to everybody in the country and get them to voluntarily agree to accept complaints about Copyright Infringement to disconnect people from the internet. No statute necessary because they were forced to do it. They did it on their own. So when we as a society are prepared to punish people collect debris over what they do with information dniester conan weighs, it tells you or prerelease have become awfully terribly skewed. I make their living in the arts as i said at the start of this talk and that is a weird and wonderful thing. Read a Science Fiction writer is the least probable job i could imagine. It is like painting stripes on bumblebees for a living. It is a thing i wanted to do since i was a small child and every morning i get up amazed i get to do this for a living. I happen to think that i can earn a living doing this without requiring censorship cover surveillance and control added to the internet. Even if i didnt, i would sooner go out and get a real job and demanded the name of my artistic creativity that the thing that wires together our whole world the distorted and denise grotesque ways because as much as i would like to bequeath to my daughter you know the income from a copyright, and way more interested in bequeathing to hurt a world she can be free where she has a pushing back the forces of reaction and unfairness and organizing in the magic hate it with your peers and colleagues around the world using a free and fair and open infrastructure. There are millions of ways to earn a living in the art than a billion of ways to fail an artist can and should try everything they can to earn a living and our policies can and should be structurestructure d so that when money arises from our creative and diverse that it slows preferentially to the artist. But if youre artistic Business Model requires surveillance from the u. N. About business. It should always be opposed to censorship and surveillance. When youre a Science Fiction writer people thank you for the future. Those who predicted future electric tiller said sample their own product. They never end well. People ask me whether of optimistic or pessimistic. The truth if it doesnt matter. If i were optimistic about Technology Possibilities for liberation instead of oppression i would do everything i could to make sure that technology was liberating us instead of oppressing a weird if i was pessimistic about it i would do exactly the same thing. Rather than optimism or pessimism for predicting and assuming the future will rise to matter what we do, i will ask instead you have hope. Hope is why if your ship sinks in the middle of the open sea you tread water. Not because he is no expectation to be picked up by another ship, but because everyone whos ever treaded water until it arrived. If your ship sinking or with a friend who could kick for themselves, you would put their arms around her neck and kicked twice as hard because that is what we do. The earth has everything we love and care about on it and we need to take very hard. Dont destroy the earth. Is where i keep all my stuff. There are organizations that work and do the kicking. You can support this organization. Those groups like the Electronic Foundation here in d. C. Area. We have public knowledge. Theres the aclu the new american foundation. Demand progress. Theres creative common, the Free Software foundation. So Many Organizations work on these issues from so many different angles than they are all converging because every issue is being fought on the internet. It isnt the most important fight we have. I sober climate, racial and gender justice, Economic Justice are far more important than the fight over the internet. The internet is a foundational fight he cares we thought or whether lost on the internet and the characteristic will determine who gets to win or lose them. So ive not going to ask you to only do things with technology to make the world a better place. Its very hard to be a beacon, much less safer variant. Every month you find yourself cutting a check or make you check or making a nonimmediate data to a company like comcast that has sent itself to destroy a network tetralogy and ensuring the giant Cable Companies get to decide who can speak and who could be heard in the Global Networks and maybe you have a fruit flavored boat you are enamored of even though the company has made Digital Rights management to all of our tools and has in fact just filed a patent for a system that doesnt allow Law Enforcement to remotely operate your camera and microphone. And maybe you find yourself watching a lot of netflix because they have great movies even though they built the World Wide Web consortium for browsers turning the browsers the web runs on into longlived reservoirs of vulnerabilities legal to report and i can screw you in every conceivable way for apple to appetite. It may be that you find yourself giving me two companies that do things that arent very good. Its hard to realize the 21st century and not do that. The reason we get the money to those companies if they give us things that we want or need here but am going to ask you to maybe two a budget. Adequate you spend every month on Companies Whose mission in life is to destroy everything we hold dear. Think of a fair percentage. In church they say ted are sent. Maybe it is 10 of jimmy strippers Free Software applicants and you should give a hundred . The same budgie get to comcast you should give to an organization. Pick an amount, pick an organization or two or three and see if you can hedge your bet a little. Although he did the benefit of those companies, see if you can maybe offset some of the things they take away from our future. And that is my message. Have hope keep kicking and do what you care because the future is up to us to make. And now i will invite your questions. I find them a q a session tend to be a bit of a sausage fest so ive been alternating jen ayres. So if you are male and im female and well go back and forth. A long rambling statement followed by what you think is technically a question, but not a good one. [applause] is that you have questions this questions, theres a bigger microphone for which you asked the question. Please line up behind it. You will be videotaped, so that makes you uncomfortable this is not the question session for you. Make an orderly line right here and everybody has got a question. Hi. Hide. Sell your book is a tutorial which is an imprint [inaudible] excuse me. I know a few years ago you did your own book yourself, correct . I was wondering if you could speak about that next area and that there was liberating or if there was horrible. How did you deal with that quiet that is a good question. That. All of those were stories id written and sold somewhere else. On the other hand, it was a tremendous amount of work like just a huge amount of work that wasnt writing. At the end of it i looked back and there were parts i really enjoyed by doing the limitededition hardcovers was super fun. Isolate this and some writer friends of mine i could use. Kathy sent me her great to report card upgrading her from being too and punctures. They were bound individual book but i will do more limitededition hardcovers but for me having done it, all i wanted to do is earn money and i could go get a job. What it did was it took a bunch of time i wouldve spent riding and put into tasks i didnt buy nearly as interesting as writing. They are of the people find publishing so incredibly interesting and i think they should do it. Thank you. Are there any women who would like to step forward . Thank you. I would like to go back to your rule number one about the locks, and youre talking about i think the point where if you selfpublishself publish or if you publish on amazon and theres this check box you can check, you bought youryour product, do what you were protected. So theres an option there, and you can choose not to have drm on your work. Is that something you would recommend and to what effect is that given your scheme of information doesnt want to be very . I think that choosing not to lock your work is beneficial as a financial matter, that gives you more negotiating leverage with these Tech Companies and so its a good idea on its face but i think it also produces a positive outcome which is that your work now dont poison the devices they touch. You can read your work on a phone or tablet or settop box without mandating that box be decisive people are not allowed to report vulnerabilities in the. So theres a good moral case but i think as a purely utilitariutilitari utilitarian matter if care but your financial destiny as an artist you want to make sure of all the money being generated by your work that as much of it is posix landing in your pocket, that adding the digital lock is a superb added in the long run because it takes away your power to walk away from that company and walk over to another company that might give you a better deal. So thats a real concrete thing you can do other than just hope. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. So in bad in advocating the presumed that means you dont presume barack obama has completely delegitimize that aspiration but im curious and achingly so maybe i missed this, but where do you think of what sort of impact he made i may not have had in all of this spill what impact i admit that no, obama. Gosh, thats hard to answer. I have been noodling around with the idea of doing a reading list of people who were hopeful about obama called no judgment no. Called nope. Obama has been a mixed bag on the stuff. I think that obama has been proved that neoliberal goes all the way around to just plain old conservatives in like european slashed canadian terms that basically neoliberalism is interesting which will add the margin from your basic kind of randian super conservative approach. I had a friend who was an exhill rat who sing it doesnt matter who you vote for because their policies are all effectively the same. He did point out that the Administrator Branch is at least filled with appointees pretend to be from the more extreme wing of the party so that you get some of those exgreenpeace running the epa under immigrant president and get some of those like an oilman running the epa under republican president. But under obama in all a place in what seems to matter, it hasnt mattered. We have an excable lobbyist running the fcc and a bunch of Goldman Sachs face sucking vampire squids running the finance industry. So it seems not to make much difference. The part its hard to say but im not sure on the right guy to ask to like evaluate obamas legacy. Before you ask it, are there any women who like to ask a question next . Go on. Im a student in special and jennings did not have been asked to pay over 300 for a single book unlike an extra 100 just for online access. Whats your opinion on adding it to education ago . I am against it. [laughter] i think the textbook publishing racket has become really intense, and a portion of publishers or professor often complicit in it. There was actually a good many be so miserably so what they characterize it like an example of the principle agent problem the people who buy people say which project but dont have to pay for them. You profess to get the call from a Sales Representatives we got the fifth edition coming out and it has all this glorious features in it and we provide you a little Supplementary Material and they never even mentioned what its going to cost. Your professors is that some great to me, maybe they go out for like a three martini lunch and you then have to pay for the 300 tax. I dont think that breaking the law, although as a means of civil disputes might be useful i dont think the breaking osh sustainable solution to. What we have, the problem with making an argument about how much it costs is that it acted as guides the real reason we should objective textbooks be made this would which is it doesnt produce the best textbook. The best would be produced by educational institutions forming cooperatives that paid to produce the textbook and bought paid authors or creators a reasonable amount of money to produce them that within freely reusable and freely improvable. When we get bogged down in how much it cost me miss the real reasons we should be using open learning materials, which is that the way the scholarship works is on openness. Scholarship that openness is no scholarship. Before science existed where thing that looked a lot like science called alchemy and alchemy, all the alchemists have a simple they wanted to turn lead into gold begins to whoever got the first would turn all the lead into gold and would be very rich. Each one you did the others as competitors but they guard their discoveries very jealously. Every alchemists discovered because of the infinite Human Capacity for self succession discovered that drinking merger was a bad idea but as a result for five and years what we thought of as science stagnated and it was only when we published an invited the process, the adversary of the review process where people got to do all the ways in which he made mistakes that we actually got science out of it. We wouldnt this comes up a lot in the context of free and open software where we argue would cost more or less. Peace you are building hospitals and you hired indians to build a new wing on your hospital and they said absolutely will would do it but will not tell you what maps were used to get to avoid stress, thats a proprietary thing i will not say where in the walls we put the conduit you can just have us come in and new electrical sockets whenever you needed. We would say that is unfit. It would be illegal to build a hospital that way. They have to tell you how it is me. They have to show you the source so that you know its not shoddily bill. The informational infrastructure, you can have a big firm of accountants and consultants to build you the information infrastructure and they could say its all a secret how we built it. You get to treat it like a black box and if you need improvements you can tell us. The right model for this we are seeing information infrastructure is to form ineffectively cooperative ventures where you pay people to make this this stuff. Digital paid intermediaries whose only job is to sit around and collect rent on the stump after it is me. In the uk where they had this tremendous the catastrophic collapse of health i. T. Programs to the National Health service out of the rubble of that a bunch of different hospitals have built opensource, free opensource alternatives. Open eyes which is not the best glaucoma patient record tracking software in the world. They build it free and open. Every eye hospital in the world uses. When you need new features whatever hospital that needs it pays but everybody gets to use it. People are paid to produce to do the labor. You just dont get the intermediary that gets to collect a wage fortune selling the labor that someone else put into it. Thats how our textbooks should be made. Thats the right way to make textbooks. Thank you very much. Thank you. Whats your opinion about the right to be forgotten, in light of the internet . The right to be forgotten i think the privacy question is an important one, but i think we have to be really wary of what i call the security soul ism which goes something must be done ive done something, there something has been done, right . That way lies the tsa. [laughter] i think the eu look at an actual problem and came up with a nonactual solution and we actually see it now playing out in ways that it can vary disasters. People are mass filing to be forgotten request and theres no penalty for filing city is ones, and material that is germane to the Public Record is being removed from the Public Record for no good reason, because of vanity often because people are out and out fraudsters dont want the victims to google their name and find that they can help bunch of acts of fraud. Your solution has to do come a solution that does nothing is actually worse than no solution at all because it imposes a cost and it leaves all the people who were wronged by the problem to begin with still out in the cold. And so i think the eu got it very wrong on this. So before you ask a question are there any women who would like to ask next . Thanks. I consider myself to have an average level of tech savviness. Im a molecular biologist and they use a computer. I have a computer i use it all the time for everything, but i find it so complicated to figure things out. I dont want 50 sports channel. I want a few things i want to watch, i want to watch them. So i thought i would watch it over the computer and get a comcast but now i cant get Comedy Central through my tv. How do they do that . How do they i can watch on the computer but now i cant well, think that what you discover is that google has done a deal with it agreed to abide by flags and the broadcasting material or in the webcast and material where if its webcast with of like this is dont allow this to be comcast it to your tv set, then they honor it. Theres not really any reason why technically it cant be done. Obviously, if youre comcast can move pixels one set of pixels from your screen here to your screen there again with a different set of pixels. Theres no magic pixel, you know, that is immovable where one is in one isnt. Pixels is pixels. I think we found is that in the absence or in the presence of a rule that says its a felony to add legal, otherwise legal features to your device, features a should be legal and get a reasonable basis to expect, dont show up in your device. Actually theres much grosser, more easily discerned examples of this. So dvds have digital locks and some dont otherwise theyre pretty much function identical in terms of how theyre made and how they are read and how data is encoded on them. So if you buy cds and to decide what to listen to them on your phone you just rip them using illegal products but if you buy dvds and watch them on your phone have to buy them again. You have to buy them as videos from the itunes store or the amazon store. Its effectively a way of transferring value that was latent in your purchase, you the dvd, digital in the very best no technical barrier to you watching it where ever you want and taking that value from you and transferring it to the companies that made the dvd, i call it the urinary tract infection Business Model. So with a cd like all the value flows in a healthy gush and with dvds it comes in painful dribbles, you know . [laughter] in the absence of the rule that says its a felony to that otherwise legal features to dvds youd expect someone which is coming to make that product, right . But no one has made that product because its a felony to make the product even though the way that you would use the product wouldnt be illegal. Its bizarre. They also good value for my cd because i realized that i can put my cds turned them into mp3s and put them wherever i want except i cant say them onto the cloud but i can only Say Something i bought on itunes onto the cloud and carried it around for ever. Thats just the way thats just the deal they made. Thank you. I think the internet is shown like piracy, you cant exactly get the movie under wraps. Once its on the internet basically anyone can get it i think of the fact that theres some information that might actually be dangerous like smallpox works in the. I was wondering if you think surveillance has any useful utility in mitigating that at all, or what are your thoughts on surveillance for dangerous information . I agree that in the wrong hands and with the wrong technology, smallpox genomes could be risky but i think theres a lot of problems that computers can give rise to that are general lee scary. This committee listen england im not much of again presses a 3d printer guns give me some trepidation. Thugism worries about that but i think we dont know how, like if theres one thing that copyright taught us its that making extraordinarily broad laws were we dont give a damn about the Collateral Damage doesnt actually stop the information from spreading to places where we want it to spread. Arent we dont want it to spread. I think we need, a going back to the security, we probably need things like surveillance in the sense that Public Health experts use it. Health surveillance where you are trying to gather data about the state of Public Health in realtime. I dislike faceting presentation on the outbreak of the hiv pandemic, and one of the huge structural barriers to the outbreak to limiting the spread of hiv was that people from the gay bathhouse scenes were incredibly mistrustful of the state for really good reasons. They had lived through stonewall and they felt like going to the state and a defined as those as hivpositive or just outing themselves as gay was a hugely risky activity. And so the lack of legitimacy in the state actually compounded Health Surveillance but our best hope of preventing pandemic is not merely stopping people from knowing the smallpox genome because in if you purposely prevent people from knowing the smallpox genome there could be another age one and one mutation next week that could in theory be very dangerous to us. We need Health Surveillance in a positive sense in a way that you get Public Health surveillance is by having a state that is democratic legitimacy. Thats the opposite of the surveillance we have now. I think when you look at the epidemiology of ebola you see that the more legitimate the state is, its not just a matter of like how many rubber gloves you have. Itself a metaphor than the people trust you. One of the biggest problems in library was that those there was a belief the state had made up the epidemic as a form of social control. And that is actually prevented a number of easy prophylaxis from being used because the state had no legitimacy. I was wondering if you had some specific thoughts on twodimensional or visual in particulaparticula r because we talk to music and writers in the digital age that visual artists i think get bones sometimes come you know . Where the system is obsolete that visual images are easily shared without recognition or the post on facebook at all been any sort of promotion for yourself, you can neatly on the rights to the image. If you have more specific thoughts about the function of visual art as compared to digital art . Thats a great question. I want to slightly cracked the facebook thing which is i mean come on a huge fan of facebook but i think its a design to undervalue private entity Mark Zuckerberg is a creep. The whole, i think their license language has been misread. License agreements tend to be bold but in this case with this is when you give us an image you let us display the image. Then you dont get to sue us for having making the image available that youve given us. It doesnt say you are not allowed to it that you cant exclusively, he surrendered some exclusivity but you have it transferred the rights of the image to facebook. I think it is a doubleedged sword. The our visual artists about the fact that they can discover an audience on the internet, and sell the work either as physical instances or as digital instances. They found enormous value in it. There are other artists who found it difficult to make a go of it. In the book i talk about the six ways that people have ever made money from the arts theres really only half a dozen. If you would like, you sell stuff, like you sell flags, use of physical instances of you are picky so performances or displays of the art. You take in patronage to let people pay you to make things that dont exist yet or commissions. You sell ads. And i forget forget what the 61 but there are six in the book and have not changed substantially. I mean how and who gets to do them has changed but like we havent added any new one in 600 years but i dont think were going to. I want to go back to the coin flipping thing. Like most Vision Artists have failed to earn a living through most of time and continue to do so, but then again so have most artists of every description, right . And so the thing that im very interested in to be very specific, the thing im interested in is not which way to visual artist make income, but how do we make sure when this income be made from official arches were that she gets to keep as much of it as possible . I think that like the fallacy of big data has been if you take things that really were, if you take it giant data set and take things that are were, whatever they have in common is a positive factor. Like if you only buy one car every 20 years or 10 years, the thing that people do just before they buy cars is they all have in common is the one true signifier of carbine, and if we can find that we can always advertise to people just before theyre about to buy a car. In reality buying cars is so red that it may just be that like whatever people have in common is coincidental. This is a commonly understood fiscal problem that you get correlations when your datasets are big and the thing youre measuring happens rarely. I dont know how artists, how any given individual artists will make a living and it may be their coin landed on the edge. Had to make sure with our earning a living at the money is going to them . Thats the important question. Im going to take how many of you are in the queue . Three . Im going to take all three of the questions and answer them all at once and then i will displace anyones book that they would let. If all it takes is three or six accusation of Copyright Infringement to get someone some kicked off the internet, can six people just write songs and digital in parliament and Congress Intel they stop . Thats a good question. Next one. Im running programming in part because it can be done through free online courses but i wonder if you had any thoughts about the longterm viability of free Online Education . Right. We are finally in this country, and in the uk after about 100 years starting to begin with the war on drugs was a bad idea. Im wondering how bad do you think the war on copying, the war on sharing to be . T. Think it is as bad as the war on drugs is been . To enter those i dont think it would work sending notice to parliament because the law isnt equally applied, and so i think that people who are rich and powerful tend to be able to skirt the law. In fact, you may remember that during the height of the water lawsuits against 19,000 American College kids for using napster admitted that his kid downloaded using and he said i thought he was suitably disciplined, he learned his lesson. The other 19,000 kids at his company sued lost their life savings and his kids coming in i dont know what happened, assembly you get a stern talking to. I dont think it would work. And i think thats a lesson there is that we inhabit a society where there are problems that are much more important than our computer problems as i said before which has to do with corruption more broadly, but the way we regulate our computers will impact our ability to fight corruption. The question by free Online Education. I think that credentialed education is going to continue to have a relationship with the internet but if you are learning from what to do something to do all that more than i do and so i ask you for some help i think that that is a model that has been alive and well on the internet since the earliest days and continues to thrive in part because theres something innate to what we do. Its very satisfying to help someone else do something that you and all of it more. Its a great way to expand your own expertise. It seems like a natural impulse and i think the thing that distinguishes making any kind of contemporary 21st century magazine from the postwar Popular Mechanics kind of making is that making today often consists of like theres a think i would like to do i found some on the internet who spent 80 of the, i will find a forum and ask about on the other 20 and that forum will form a guidelines are some who wants to do what i just had and extended some 20 for the. And then a question about the war on drugs, it will be worse than the war on drugs inasmuch as when you undermine the integrity of the internet, it doesnt just create the endless horrors of the war on drugs, the mass incarceration, the super racialized and classbased discrimination that the war on the ability to control your state of mind. All of those are enormous problems of what it does is it undermines our ability to organize at all in order to resist all of these things. When i was an activist in the 80s, 98 of my time with stuffing invalids and writing addresses into and writing addresses and to present what they got what when indian votes. Now we get the envelopes for free. If we who are activists lose internet the people who we are resisting self access to all that coordinated technology and this enormous multiplier for them to which they can extend their power a million fold, and we dont. So its pretty substantial. All right. Thank you all very much for coming. Thank you again to red emmas. [applause] anything youd like me to sign come except blank checks and body parts i will happily make your books nonreturnable. [inaudible conversations] this is booktv on cspan2 television for serious readers. Heres our primetime lineup look for these in bookstores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv. Org. Next on booktv, military historian Patrick Odonnell recounts the origins of u. S. Navy seals first formed in 1942 and known as the maritime unit. This program from the United States navy memorial