The first day of the Yale A2K conference saw a great many interesting presentations. Luckily, most of them are summarised in the conference wiki, thanks to the thrifty students doing this important legwork.

For example, Jack Balkin gave an overview of the many different topics that the slogan "A2K" refers to.  Davinia Ovett showed how Access to Knowledge relates to human rights - and why the protection of intellectual monopoly powers (IMPs) is not a human right.

The following panel I attended was about measuring Access to Knowledge. This is an important one: You can't manage what you can't measure.

The upshot is that presently there is a lack of economic theory upon which to build research. This is being worked out. Researchers will need to focus on a micro-level perspective. It's no use to describe the situation of access to knowledge on  a country-by-country basis, when there are enormous differences and inequalities within each country.

 While the Yale Law school with its great resources provides great organisation, there is one thing I am sort of missing: As far as I can tell, there is noone attending from the conservative side of the debate.  This usually livens the discussion even more.

But then, there's no lack of opposition in the world outside the conference venue.

The second day of TACD's conference is in full swing. There have been several interesting presentations, and I can't possibly keep up with all of them. So I'll just raise the points that seemed most interesting to me. Forgive my liberal omissions.

Mark Cooper of Stanford University gave a passionate presentation, talking about how digital technology, especially networks, enables collaborative production - and how inadequate monopoly powers stifle innovation. In a digitally networked environment, "less property gives me more innovation." He called into doubt the view that the current system of copyrights and patents is absolute: "We write and re-write the rules of property throughout history to fit the way in which we live."

The dense presentation summed up two of Mark's papers, to be found here and here.

On the morning's first panel, Leonardo Cervera Navas of the European Commission's DG Internal Market dedicated part of his talks to the way in which his departement considers the impact of the directives and policies they implement. An example was the the evaluation report for the Database directive, which creates a sui generis monopoly power over databases in the EU.

The evaluation report said that the directive had been basically useless, which led Jamie Boyle to describe it as "faith-based intellectual property policy". Navas and his departement, though, seem in no special hurry to do anything about this irrational measure which is hurting the European economy: They're considering all options, from keeping the directive as it is to abolishing it. My guess is that abolishment is not high on their agenda.

An interesting note is that he also talked about an upcoming discussion about extending the term of copyright protection. This is urgently needed, since the current 70 years after the author's death certainly do not suffice to guarantee the revenue of the rightsholders. Mind you that "rightsholder" and "creator" are rarely identical today.

Thus, an extension of the copyright term would benefit rightsholders, but hurt creators by reducing their access to the existing works they need to build upon. I asked Navas if the discussion in his departement would also include the possibility of a shortening of the term. He answered that such a thing is politically unthinkable.

Prepare for soon having copyrighted works protected well into the 23rd century. Or do something about it. Navas mentioned that stakeholders would have a voice in the process. So let's get it to them loud and clear: An extension of the copyright terms is counterproductive. Instead of putting Zombie business models on life support, let's prepare the ground for new kinds of value creation.

If you've stuck with me this far, I'll reward you with two external links: There is an article - spotless, as usual - by IP Watch. Stefan Krempl of Heise is reporting in German.