Reading Response

“When you control the mail, you control information!”
—Newman, the character from Seinfeld

Boyle noted that most people (by 1997) agreed they were living in the Information Age. He acknowledged that the statement “ownership and control of information is one of the most important forms of power and contemporary society” had been so immersed in that culture that it was not credited to any one person. Boyle approached the challenge of governing intellectual property by attempting to define it, construct it, appropriate it, and compare it to concepts and ideas that were concrete to society then.

It is important to remember that this was written and published ten years ago, and not much research was done on the information society, so people had to look to the creators of this area, the “cyberpunks.” Cyberpunk fiction was an introduction into cyberspace for many, and though people could relate to the virtues and vices of the fictitious characters, they could not wrap their brains around the concept of mixing computers and genetics together in the same space.

So much of the information age was linked to cyber-indecency (i.e., Web porn), so most people did not see a real need for governing intellectual property or protecting it. Eventually, the subject of intellectual property was no longer viewed as a special or unique interest to a small minority, it was soon seen as the power behind the digital age, and it was valued at billions of dollars.

The argument for privacy rights in genetic information cases was very similar to the argument for privacy in electronic information cases. Boyle showed how society tried to make electronic and genetic information akin. Most people could justify owning the rights to computer code, but some could not agree that owning genetic code rights fell into the same justifiable category. Others saw the DNA code analogous to computer codes and tried to show the similarities between computers and genetic code processes, specifically, the “natural selection” process of genetic code compared to the “survival” process of computer code. Once similarities were established between genes and computers, attention moved from devoting resources to the message to devoting them to the medium. Companies began protecting their content and placing the value of the content over the value of how the content was delivered.

This power struggle between the message and the medium spilled over into a battle for information access. Regulations were badly needed to avoid granting access to one body or group over another. Each group had a need for information technology, and each group looked to its own advantages of having and disadvantages of being denied access. Everyone wanted a piece of the digital pie.

Boyle’s case study showed that Clinton’s White Papers did not address many issues such as the possibilities that some people will benefit from higher level intellectual property rights while others could still profit well from lower level rights. He believed that the report should have considered the benefits that intellectual property rights have for both the public and the individual. Boyle also pointed out that the press failed to do an accurate job by not contacting sources beyond the well-known “players.” The press needed to talk with those who would be negatively affected by the proposed regulations in Clinton’s White Papers.

Boyle ended his article by taking a look back at how Environmentalists were able to get past the brick wall to the place where they eventually had a voice and a system for engaging in conversations that lead them to policies. He believed that advocates of intellectual property will be able to achieve the same goal, i.e., politics, if they have theories to base the arguments upon.