Point of view
The World Split in Two. In Search of Ethics and a political Economy for the Information Society
On the one hand, there exists the Utopian, idealized image of a global Internet planet, a place where everyone can exchange images, sounds, ideas and knowledge with everyone else, on the Napster model. On the other, there exists the reality that powerful economic forces are seeking to transform the world to their advantage, by exploiting their technical, legal and political assets.
The systemic risk of such a development is that information and knowledge could be transformed into monopolies, with “public” networks being privatized behind new “fences”.
So anyone who wants to play an active part in the Information Society, or rather in Information Societies, must seek to understand what these new societies are actually based on. There is a need to make the effort to analyse situations based on political economics, and their principal economic, legal, ethical and ultimately political components.
We therefore call for a political economy of information societies on a worldwide scale.
This is about protecting “the general interest of humanity” through more equitable information policies. It is, for example, about being able to define in political terms the concept of “universal access” to information. But what exactly does this term “universal access” mean? Physical access to networks? Does it include the question of national and international price structures, which make possible cross-subsidies for rural or disadvantaged areas?
Does it include access to actual content, for example public-domain information of interest to citizens (governmental information )? What rights can consumers have with respect to electronic trade? To what extent are consumers’ rights convergent with, or contradictory to citizens’ rights? What about freedom of expression and the protection of private life on the Internet? How can access to material or immaterial public resources be controlled (e.g. access to and price of transmission frequencies, access to dial-up connections)?
How should access to naturally limited resources such as Internet domain names, satellite orbital positions or radio frequencies be regulated? How should competition among Internet service suppliers be regulated? What is being done to develop globally applicable anti-monopoly laws covering in particular the field of telecommunications, software and electronic trade?
The Internet, public or private?
It is clear that the concept of the Internet corresponds to a basic need, which is set to grow both quantitatively and qualitatively. The IP protocol itself will of course evolve towards more powerful techniques (Ipv6). Internet-carried telephony (Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP), a major revolution for telecommunications operators, will make the Internet paradigm a reference solution, and further accentuate the tendency of private networks towards relatively faster development, which may correspondingly result in the “public” Internet’s losing its precedence. Should this worry us, in the present context of deregulation and globalization? Will developments like these bring comparable benefits to all the actors involved? Could it change the balance of power? How might it affect the relative weights of large world regions, in the present era of globalization?
These are technical developments, but from a geo-economic and geopolitical point of view their consequences are significant. In terms of industrial, competition and cultural policy, it is fundamental to be able to measure, while there is still time, the inevitable consequences of current trends. IP telephony, for example, a significant technical innovation, also has a social, economic and political impact in that it poses a direct threat to the ability to provide universal telephone service, since itself it escapes this legal obligation. It is likely to harm telecommunications operators in developing countries which are unprepared for its devastating effects on old economic models.
Access to content
The issue of access to content is crucial in a society which claims to be one based on information or knowledge. The key question becomes: who controls this content, this information, this knowledge? Who ensures that “good use” is made of it? According to what political philosophy, and for which purposes? It will not come as any particular surprise that these truly crucial questions are left to extremely narrow circles of specialists, who prepare legislation likely to impact on the entire world, concerning intellectual property rights for example, yet without any real democratic debate.
From the point of view of the developing countries the question can be broken down into several aspects.
Most of the content available on the Internet answers first and foremost the needs of rich populations in developed countries. Endogenous content of local origin is particularly under-represented on the Internet.
Internet content is accessible only in a small number of languages – therefore there is an absence of linguistic diversity. A large number of languages are hardly even represented on the Internet, if at all, in addition to which there is the crucial question of modes of access (search engines, metadata, indexes, catalogues, site directories, etc…)
The cost of content: many types of informative content (e.g. databases, on-line scientific or medical journals) are available only at very high prices in terms of the GNPs of these countries (it should be remembered that nearly 50% of the world’s population has an income of less than 2 dollars per day).
The knowledge economy is growing strongly. But on an international scale it is markedly out of balance. This results in massive phenomena of concentration and new forms of inequality of access to knowledge by virtue of its increasing commercialization. This phenomenon
is even more marked when one considers cognitive content: 97% of all patents are held by industrialized countries.
The commercialization of knowledge
The role of intellectual property in this context is clearly a central one. Yet it is very often questioned. From its beginnings, the protection of intellectual property has been conceived of as a way of balancing the interests of “owners” and “users” of information. Several sensitive issues such as the duration of protection or legal exceptions (such as "copying for private use", or the fair use exception) deserve finer analysis, at a time when the balances of earlier times are being called in question.
By definition, duration of protection determines what constitutes the “public domain”. If one extends duration of protection to 70 years after death, as has just been done in Europe or the United States, the extent of the freely accessible public domain is diminished by as much. Is this in the public interest? Or is it in the interests of those who seek to reduce the worldwide split in people’s ability to access content?
Today, in the context of the worldwide Information Society, we must develop a policy of “public cyberspace”. This public space consists of:
the public domain: information, documents, data, software, protocols, standards and content which belong to the common inheritance of humanity, and which will gradually come to constitute an immense worldwide public library of documents and software;
global public goods, which may be material or immaterial, natural or artificial, over-used or under-used, and whose defence and promotion raise specific regulatory problems;
public sector institutions: the economic role of public sector institutions such as libraries, archives, schools, public resource centres and government departments, is considerable. Their influence as specifiers and their ability to network internationally via the “public authorities” can help to support persuasive public policies, and to define concretely the concepts of “essential worldwide services” and services of “worldwide public benefit", within the framework of the worldwide Information Society.
This idea is akin to one of UNESCO’s fundamental missions, as described in Article 1 of its constitution: to “initiat[e] methods of international co-operation calculated to give the people of all countries access to the printed and published materials produced by any of them.”
The strategic importance of free, universal access to the “worldwide public domain” must be stressed here. If we really want to reduce the differences between rich and poor, who are also the information-rich and the information-poor, it is absolutely necessary to understand that it is of crucial importance to introduce a policy of universal access to public information.
UNESCO has as an "absolute priority" the promotion and development of a worldwide public domain of information. More generally, UNESCO seeks to promote universal access to cyberspace; its draft recommendation on multilingualism and universal access to cyberspace are testimony to this.
Conclusion
A new concept is gradually emerging, that of the “paramount interest of the world community”. This concept transcends traditional international law. It deserves to be widely debated, in particular within the framework of those institutions entrusted with the task of controlling globalization, such as the so-called “world” trade and intellectual property organizations.
One fundamental issue at stake is the need to define positively the concept of “universal public service”, particularly as regards telecommunications. We must globalize our thinking about the concept of public benefit and the concept of services of general economic interest, so as to arrive at a positive definition of the concept of worldwide public benefit.
The logic of building Europe has made possible a progressive transition from free trade area to economic community, then from economic community to economic regulation (anti-monopoly laws, the Treaty of Rome), and finally from economic regulation to the emergence of a political power able to frame the purposes of regulation. We need to start thinking in similar terms on a worldwide level, and the United Nations system is one of the possible places where this thinking could begin. Just as in European Community legislation, the concept of European public service is defined as represented by “companies - public or private – which are responsible for the management of economic services of general interest”, surely one could similarly progress towards a definition of worldwide public benefit, to be constituted by companies managing economic services of worldwide interest.
Philippe Quéau is Director of UNESCO's Information Society Division
_______________________________________
The views expressed in this "Point of View" are not necessarily those of UNESCO
So anyone who wants to play an active part in the Information Society, or rather in Information Societies, must seek to understand what these new societies are actually based on. There is a need to make the effort to analyse situations based on political economics, and their principal economic, legal, ethical and ultimately political components.
We therefore call for a political economy of information societies on a worldwide scale.
This is about protecting “the general interest of humanity” through more equitable information policies. It is, for example, about being able to define in political terms the concept of “universal access” to information. But what exactly does this term “universal access” mean? Physical access to networks? Does it include the question of national and international price structures, which make possible cross-subsidies for rural or disadvantaged areas?
Does it include access to actual content, for example public-domain information of interest to citizens (governmental information )? What rights can consumers have with respect to electronic trade? To what extent are consumers’ rights convergent with, or contradictory to citizens’ rights? What about freedom of expression and the protection of private life on the Internet? How can access to material or immaterial public resources be controlled (e.g. access to and price of transmission frequencies, access to dial-up connections)?
How should access to naturally limited resources such as Internet domain names, satellite orbital positions or radio frequencies be regulated? How should competition among Internet service suppliers be regulated? What is being done to develop globally applicable anti-monopoly laws covering in particular the field of telecommunications, software and electronic trade?
The Internet, public or private?
It is clear that the concept of the Internet corresponds to a basic need, which is set to grow both quantitatively and qualitatively. The IP protocol itself will of course evolve towards more powerful techniques (Ipv6). Internet-carried telephony (Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP), a major revolution for telecommunications operators, will make the Internet paradigm a reference solution, and further accentuate the tendency of private networks towards relatively faster development, which may correspondingly result in the “public” Internet’s losing its precedence. Should this worry us, in the present context of deregulation and globalization? Will developments like these bring comparable benefits to all the actors involved? Could it change the balance of power? How might it affect the relative weights of large world regions, in the present era of globalization?
These are technical developments, but from a geo-economic and geopolitical point of view their consequences are significant. In terms of industrial, competition and cultural policy, it is fundamental to be able to measure, while there is still time, the inevitable consequences of current trends. IP telephony, for example, a significant technical innovation, also has a social, economic and political impact in that it poses a direct threat to the ability to provide universal telephone service, since itself it escapes this legal obligation. It is likely to harm telecommunications operators in developing countries which are unprepared for its devastating effects on old economic models.
Access to content
The issue of access to content is crucial in a society which claims to be one based on information or knowledge. The key question becomes: who controls this content, this information, this knowledge? Who ensures that “good use” is made of it? According to what political philosophy, and for which purposes? It will not come as any particular surprise that these truly crucial questions are left to extremely narrow circles of specialists, who prepare legislation likely to impact on the entire world, concerning intellectual property rights for example, yet without any real democratic debate.
From the point of view of the developing countries the question can be broken down into several aspects.
The knowledge economy is growing strongly. But on an international scale it is markedly out of balance. This results in massive phenomena of concentration and new forms of inequality of access to knowledge by virtue of its increasing commercialization. This phenomenon
is even more marked when one considers cognitive content: 97% of all patents are held by industrialized countries.
The commercialization of knowledge
The role of intellectual property in this context is clearly a central one. Yet it is very often questioned. From its beginnings, the protection of intellectual property has been conceived of as a way of balancing the interests of “owners” and “users” of information. Several sensitive issues such as the duration of protection or legal exceptions (such as "copying for private use", or the fair use exception) deserve finer analysis, at a time when the balances of earlier times are being called in question.
By definition, duration of protection determines what constitutes the “public domain”. If one extends duration of protection to 70 years after death, as has just been done in Europe or the United States, the extent of the freely accessible public domain is diminished by as much. Is this in the public interest? Or is it in the interests of those who seek to reduce the worldwide split in people’s ability to access content?
Today, in the context of the worldwide Information Society, we must develop a policy of “public cyberspace”. This public space consists of:
This idea is akin to one of UNESCO’s fundamental missions, as described in Article 1 of its constitution: to “initiat[e] methods of international co-operation calculated to give the people of all countries access to the printed and published materials produced by any of them.”
The strategic importance of free, universal access to the “worldwide public domain” must be stressed here. If we really want to reduce the differences between rich and poor, who are also the information-rich and the information-poor, it is absolutely necessary to understand that it is of crucial importance to introduce a policy of universal access to public information.
UNESCO has as an "absolute priority" the promotion and development of a worldwide public domain of information. More generally, UNESCO seeks to promote universal access to cyberspace; its draft recommendation on multilingualism and universal access to cyberspace are testimony to this.
Conclusion
A new concept is gradually emerging, that of the “paramount interest of the world community”. This concept transcends traditional international law. It deserves to be widely debated, in particular within the framework of those institutions entrusted with the task of controlling globalization, such as the so-called “world” trade and intellectual property organizations.
One fundamental issue at stake is the need to define positively the concept of “universal public service”, particularly as regards telecommunications. We must globalize our thinking about the concept of public benefit and the concept of services of general economic interest, so as to arrive at a positive definition of the concept of worldwide public benefit.
The logic of building Europe has made possible a progressive transition from free trade area to economic community, then from economic community to economic regulation (anti-monopoly laws, the Treaty of Rome), and finally from economic regulation to the emergence of a political power able to frame the purposes of regulation. We need to start thinking in similar terms on a worldwide level, and the United Nations system is one of the possible places where this thinking could begin. Just as in European Community legislation, the concept of European public service is defined as represented by “companies - public or private – which are responsible for the management of economic services of general interest”, surely one could similarly progress towards a definition of worldwide public benefit, to be constituted by companies managing economic services of worldwide interest.
Philippe Quéau is Director of UNESCO's Information Society Division
_______________________________________
The views expressed in this "Point of View" are not necessarily those of UNESCO
| Author | Philippe Quéau |
| Author's affiliation | UNESCO |