Mike the Musicologist asked me over the weekend if I read Daring Fireball. The answer is “Yes, spottily.” More specifically, I pick up Gruber on the Alltop “Egos” tab, when I remember to check that. Sometimes I go a week or more without checking.
So I missed this Emily Brill piece when Gruber first linked to it. That’s a shame, because I think it merits some discussion.
Here’s the basic summary: Harvard Law has something called the “Berkman Center for Internet & Society”, founded by a guy named Jonathan Zittrain. Zittrain and the Center are generally pro what might be called “open culture”. (I’m using “open culture” to refer to a general mindset that includes open source software, Creative Commons licensing, and a generally skeptical position towards intellectual property rights.) For example, Zittrain has been highly critical of Apple and the iPhone’s closed ecology.
Apparently, though, what Zittrain and the Center aren’t telling students is where their money for the Center comes from. That money comes from large players in the pro-open culture field and Apple competitors, such as Google (the largest single corporate contributor, according to Brill). (Microsoft is also a significant contributor, but I hate to lump them into the open culture field.)
Apple, on the other hand, hasn’t given any money to the Center. AT&T apparently gave a small amount of money to fund one project in the past, but may or may not be a current contributor; the situation seems murky. (See Brill’s article for details.)
No one has alleged that anyone at Harvard Law School has formulated opinions because he or she was paid to. But Berkman and Zittrain, due in no small part to the force of Harvard’s branding, have become increasingly important players in Internet policy and media circles. The appearance of conflicts matter; even if such conflicts are not the stuff of life and death, as they might be in medical research, they do impact legislation, stock prices, and consumer choices.
I generally think of myself as being pro-open culture, more so than MtM, and not a blind Apple fanboy. (My professional life is mostly Windows on servers; my personal life is Macs and an iPod; my current portable machine is the Project e machine, an Asus eeePC 1005HA running Ubuntu 10.04.) I will say that I don’t get as worked up about Apple products as some people I could name.
But it seems to me that no matter what side you take on the open culture debate, it’s difficult to argue that there’s not a moral and ethical obligation to reveal your sources of funding, especially if you are an academic. As Brill points out, Lawrence Lessig, another leading open culture advocate, has a detailed disclosure policy posted on his website. (At the time of this writing, though, Lessig’s website appears to be down.)
Do I practice what I preach? I think so. Any conflicts I may have are noted in my “About” page, or within posts when relevant. (Speaking of conflicts: Mike Godwin, who is mentioned in passing in Brill’s article, is someone I was well acquainted with at one point in my life. But that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.)
Thoughtful responses in the comments are welcome.
, they could settle this.)
, which I’ve been reading for the past few days. Hanson (and, for that matter, Cowen, too) sounds like one of those people I’d really like to meet and have a few drinks with. (With Cowen, probably 
.