 In addition to what Sid offered you about it, I'm also the co-chair with Charles Ogletree, who is a fellow member of our law school faculty, of the Internet Society conference that's coming up at the end of this year. The subject of that conference, the question that's on the table, is what is the place of university in cyberspace? There's a question that when people hear it, many immediately think that it's about online education and think university of females. But that's a very dismissive view of the question. It's a question about the place of university in cyberspace, with university conceived not just as Harvard University, but as something that's equal in the cyber environment to government, to for-profit, corporate. University is a player in that space. It's a conference that offers a symmetry as its core idea, a symmetry between university and cyberspace. In some sense, its conception is that each is foundational to the other, each in its way as the environment of the other. In a sense, the cyber environment was an expression of university. And I feel so strongly, having seen it come out of nowhere, that it doesn't exist until you build it. And we're still very much in the process of building. And university, to me, is an abstraction, it's a word, it's a concept. It's something that offers the essence of all of the set of universities that it covers. It has, at its core, values of openness, of sharing. One can dispute it. One can say over history, it hasn't always been so, and yet I would say the trajectory of university has been to be as open as its environment permits. And to me, one of the real excitements of the internet environment is that it offers an inflection point in communications, environments. It's a point at which it becomes possible for willing energies to aggregate and to produce quite remarkable results. And so to me, the two, university and cyberspace, very much go together, and in some sense, thinking about them together is a key to protecting and developing each one of them. So all right, I founded the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Internet. This thing that's mutable, this thing that's amazing as we've seen it develop, is vulnerable. It's vulnerable to very large forces, forces of government, forces of for-profit corporate government into filtering, into regulating, for-profit into creating impediments, toll booths, places at which people have to stop and pay a transactional fee, slow it down. So when I look to the future of the net, and I see these massive institutional forces becoming increasingly sophisticated about the net, I worry for it. I worry that as that sophistication grows, those institutions will figure out ways to encroach and make their values the ones expressed in the net. And so when I ask strategically, what would be the best possible protection for the net into the future? To me, the answer is university. If university came to see the net as its environment and began to pour out its content into the net and see it as an expression of itself, then there would be truly a body of usage under the net that would be global, totally respected, and that I think would have the muscle to stand up in ways that I worry about if university doesn't galvanize. So then I turn around and look at university. What is the library of university? To me, the library of university is the net. The future library of university is net. And so the idea of being able to come and speak to this group of librarians at a time when we're looking forward to putting this conference together with a new president of Harvard just having been named and with one of her first and most major duties being to select a new librarian for a university, it seems just an awesomely propitious time, a time of great potential opportunity and responsibility, fear of good. I want to nod to Sid Verbe. I want to celebrate Sid as a hero for having led Harvard into this digital environment when I think of how difficult Harvard is to move and how frightened so many people are at Harvard about the digital future. The fact that Sid was able to move us into a partnership with Google. I say partnership. That's what it is. It's clear we're just at the beginning of a relationship with an immensely powerful lord of this space. I think it's just a remarkable accomplishment that Sid produced. Amazing. This deal that we made, I need to tell it to you in a narrative form. I taught a course this fall called Cyber One, Law in the Court of Public Opinion. It kind of built to the open access issue at the end. And we, very close to the end, had a panel discussion at which Sid was present. Laura DeBonis from Google. Anne Margolies, Executive Director of MIT's Open Courseware. And Stuart Schrader, excuse me, Sheba, Chairman of the Provost's Committee on Scholarly Publication. I think of it now as the open access committee because the committee has come to conclusion that open access is a way to go. That was really the first time when I found myself thinking about this Google deal. Take you through my thought. Be Google for a moment, all right? I'm Google. I'm on a personified Google. Google, Google. I'm smart. I'm two guys who invented this algorithm, who committed themselves to a corporate strategy, who made its motto, Zoom. What's the motto? Don't do evil. I mean, what extraordinary thing for these kids to do, seeing what they had and going into the for-profit world. So there I am. I'm now through my public offering. I'm sitting on more money than any poker player has ever had in front of him in this game before. And I've got this algorithm that is just hot as hell. What have I got to fear? What's my fear? There you are. Come on, B-School question. What's my fear? The next smart guy exactly. I'm worried about two guys in the garage who come up with a better, faster, slicker algorithm and suddenly I'm history. How can I garden myself against that possibility? Gee, if I could get some sort, any sort of head start on the greatest collections of knowledge in the world so that no matter how smart little David's algorithm is, no matter how fast he can't get to this great stuff better than us, then in the time it takes him to try and make his algorithm move ahead, I can buy him out. That's Microsoft. What is that? The money I've got that allows me to buy any kind of head start is absolutely rock solid insurance in the competitive non-profit world that says, I'm the lord of this surf space and I want to stay here. So yes, Google's stock jumped, Sid just told me. How much? $1 billion when the Harvard contract was announced. Why was that? Why was that? I'll tell you what. I had occasion to talk to the general counsel of Reed Elsevier about the Google deal. I said, Henry, what did you think when you saw the announcement? He said, game over. Game over. Henry, why game over? You're not in the search business. He said, right now, Google is churning through the advertising business. They have an advertising algorithm which beats anything. That resonated with me because just that morning, I had sent email about meeting somebody for breakfast using my Gmail account. Email about meeting somebody for breakfast in Harvard Square. And on the right-hand side, what comes up but Pete's coffee. Just think about that. That dollar that Pete spent on advertising was amazingly well targeted. And so Google is sucking advertising dollars out of every advertising budget there is. And Henry says to me, all right, they're making their 15% on this huge nut that they've got to make the return on each year. And they'll chew through the advertising dollars, but they're finite. That comes to an end. Then where do they go for their 15%? And his answer was content. He's saying, we have a content competitor in Google, and we very well know it. So I asked him, Henry, would you set me up in a conversation with the strategist for Elsevier? And he did. So Stu Schieber and I went to New York and sat in the office of Vice Chairman Y.S. Cheap, the guy in Elsevier who's charged with thinking strategically. I asked him, what is your business? He said, our business is in selling authenticated final versions of peer reviewed scholarly work. Oh, that's a very interesting answer. It's a good answer for a strategist. It's got nothing to do with paper. It's a conceptual answer. And I can dispute with him authenticated. He's telling me Elsevier is authenticating things. I'm not thinking Elsevier is really the authenticator. There are some Elsevier journals that aren't so great, and there are some great journals that aren't Elsevier. And the authentication comes from the credentials of the peer reviewed structure that's underneath it. But nonetheless, what he's saying to me is, our business has to do, if I would modify it, with making available, giving access to credential final version. Not that's the business as it is, but it needn't be in the future. But some kind of reliable, citable version of peer reviewed scholarly work. All right, now, Stu Schieber is there, and Stu conducts a cross-examination of YS. You understand that going in, what we're thinking is this current system that we have doesn't make a lot of sense. Right now, scholars at the university produce knowledge and then send it to a for-profit publisher who sends it out to scholars who do peer review, voluntarily, who send it back to the for-profit publisher, who sell it back to our library for a huge amount of money, and then require us to ask their permission if we want to make any kind of use of it beyond marginal fair use. And they'll charge us extra for that, starting from scratch in a world where it costs a ton of money to print paper. And that's the only way to get the message out. You can understand this, maybe. But it obviously doesn't make any sense in a world of bits. Nonetheless, what emerges from that conversation with YSG is that university and the for-profit publishing world have a huge common interest in exploring, well, what does university need? What is the essential algorithm of university? When I think about NET as the university library, it seems to me it's lacking in some essential features. What I would like to see, and I would love to be able to enlist you in the process of thinking this sort of thing through, what are the specs for the library of the future university? What is it that we actually need the library to do for us? To me, it seems at least a start is it needs to provide access to peer-reviewed scholarly work in some form that's permanently citable. None of this last visited on April 20, and God knows whether it's there. It needs to carry credential. It would be great if it could be versioned. So it wasn't just one version we look at, but a version that was final at the time, but also capable of being trapped into the future. That would be a place to start. So the conversation was, why has she went on? Are we to be afraid of it? How are we to deal with it? Where is Google's competition going to come from? Is there some way in which the for-profit world of scholarly publication can live with some new relationship with university in way that actually redresses the inefficiencies of the past? How should other content companies be relating to Google? What would YSG have to say to us if we were to ask, what do we have to fear from Google? Now, you are the one group that I could speak to at Harvard that spans the university. You are in touch with the scholars of every school. There's no one else like you. In terms of focusing issues that relate to the production, the preservation, the propagation, access to scholarly work, that's you. And when you think about university in the abstract, it is essential to university that we have a quality control structure of selecting how we perpetuate ourselves. If you say, what is university? It's a knowledge-producing machine. It's a process. It's a program. It's got an algorithm. It's got multiple algorithms to it. Surely the algorithm that drives the quality control of faculty and student selection is at its core. And internet needs to be built in a way that responds to our need. So I would love to open this conversation up on the question of, what do we have to fear from Google? I want to say, before I do it, we have a huge opportunity with Google. You think about the danger in the for-profit world. You put yourself in the mind of Larry Brin. He's thinking about this motto, don't do evil. Why is that their motto? It's their motto because they knew what to be afraid of. They know that a corporation is a legal entity. It has only one morality. That's to make a profit. It's not a human entity. There are humans in it, but the entity itself is fiduciarily obliged to make money for the shareholders. That is its ethic. So yes, he's facing a problem of how do we have a corporation that is the lord of this search space, the richest domain in cyberspace, now locked into the future in its position, at least not locked, solid maybe, but sure with a leg up as a result of the contracts with great libraries of the world, how do they do not know evil? Well, we can be partners with them in that. If we can partner with Google so that Google continues to be proud into the future of its relationship to university, that would be a huge help to them. But how would we do that? All right, we made a deal with Google. I applaud Sid for going into it. I had the opportunity to ask Larry Summers about the deal and realized that Summers didn't understand it. I'm sorry to say. I had the opportunity to party. I said, tell me, Larry, tell me, can competitors of Google search the golden disks that they give back to us with all our bits on it? That's the key element in the contract. That's the edge that Google has. Yes, other companies can come along and could pay Harvard a huge amount of money and recopy our bits. That's possible. But think about David trying to do that. David hasn't got the money to do that. And the other people that are trying to do it haven't got the algorithm as good as Google. So Google's out in front. And the money that Google spends is against a huge stack like this, whereas the money other people spend is against a much smaller stack. Google is in great shape. What do we have to fear from Google? Say it louder. Corporate change. Corporate change. Google decides we can't be nice to Harvard anymore. They're stockholders now. Stockholders, yeah. They might get rid of them. Let me come out a slightly different way. Harvard negotiates this deal. For whom does Harvard speak? Does Harvard see itself at the negotiating table as representing just the best interests of Harvard? Or does Harvard see itself at the table as representing university? If we're thinking the Google world in which the opposing elements that will actually shape the space are of the dimension of for-profit, corporate, government, university, who speaks for university, if not the leading universities? If I had any one proposition to try and put across in the internet and society conference to a listening president designated, thinking about the future, it would be the message you represent university. And in representing university as your client, you have huge opportunity and responsibility. The one thing I really don't like about the Harvard deal? It's secret. I don't know what the Harvard deal is. I ask and I'm told it's secret. For whose benefit is the Harvard deal secret? Who insisted that the Harvard deal be secret? Who is it secret from? Who is on the inside and who is on the outside? On the inside is Harvard and Google. On the outside is all the rest of the universities of the world. That deal was not negotiated for the benefit of university. And if I had any recommendation to make or any request for librarians to consider joining me in recommending, it would be that Harvard work to make that deal not secret and to see its relationship to Google, which could go bad, could go well. I'm so eager for it to go well. But I'm eager for it to go well by Google coming to understand how important it is for university to go well. In the monopoly environment of network, where one player tends to come to the top, be the king, when you say, what will compete with Google? I believe Google needs to subsidize its own competition. And its own competition will come from open access environment, an open domain. I would love to persuade Google to finance the open domain. One more. I'm trying to imagine the library that I want in the future. I want, when I go to my library, to get to anything I want. Some of it will be in the public domain. Some of it will be copyrighted. Just the way the library is now. I can go and get copyrighted work out of the library. When I go to the net, I am going to want to get that copyrighted work. Now, my philosophy, Berkman Center Philosophy is one of balance. The idea is not, we want everything open. It's a view that you need both open and closed. You take the question of open access within Harvard. I'm confronting it now with respect to courses. I've taught a course, cameras in the room, up on the nest. Question raised, should Harvard classes be on the net? Well, if you think business school, where the business school runs on a case method, each year totally dependent on an in-class environment, which is dialogic, back and forth, with students who are not familiar with the case. And you see how vulnerable that is to somebody being able to check out the case on the net from the students' notes from the last year, and boom, it's dead. You can see that the core of the business school teaching method is a closed environment. That's not bad. It works great for them. And what it says is, there are good reasons to have closed environments. At Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Warren, one of my colleagues, absolutely magnificent classroom teacher. She doesn't want net in the room. She doesn't want outsider. She wants the classroom to be just student and her. When I talk to faculty, I get a ton of it. You know, I started teaching. It was just me and the students. Yeah, they took notes, pencil and paper, then the laptops came in. And the first thing I know, my wife comes to class, and she does on occasion when I'm doing something good. She's sitting in the back of the room, and after which, she devastates me by saying, all the kids are playing solitaire. And then after solitaire, it's emailed, but in the wireless. Then it's cameras coming in. I mean, what is happening in this? So yes, there's fear. But there's also opportunity. And so the idea of balance being expressed in all the levels of this open, closed, open access, closed access debate seems completely sensible to me. So back to library. There, I want to get the copyrighted book out of the university library. I'm willing to pay a fee. Who makes money on that transaction? Who runs the store of knowledge? Will the library of the university in big letters be like an iTunes store where in its all the public domain work and all the copyrighted work? And if there's a transaction involved, sure, we'll do it. And we'll take our rake, we'll take our commission, we'll run the store. And is it conceivable that the proceeds from running the copyright side of the library could actually subsidize the open environment of the remaining library? So back to Y.S. in the strategy of lead Elsevier. He says, we run on subscription strategy. It's getting tougher. It's getting so the subscriptions are so big that even we're seeing things shrinking. We see author models trying to make progress as the public library of science. But even they haven't really broken into the block yet. They're still grant supported. And then Stuart Sheeper is over saying yes, yes, but the PLOS model is like the nature model where they have an editorial staff. They've got big overhead. If we can run a journal that's just totally tight, we can make it pay because we've got so few expenses. And maybe so. Proof is in the pudding. Y.S. says, is there any further model? Well, if peer review is so important to university, which it seems to me obviously it is, then it's worth university supporting. And if one imagined university as a collective entity could one imagine models for supporting peer review that didn't involve paying out in subscription fee, but still there's some money going out? Yes, I think one could. I think one could. And so the possibility of exploring what it is we need, how we're going to get it, who's going to pay for it, how we can actually have a balanced relationship with Google, where we actually understand ourselves how valuable we are to them and make them understand it so that they offer real value back to us. Then I think there's a huge future. So let me conclude this by asking for your help on the internet society conference. Press the button here. Look after them. You just have to have a sleep. Somehow we lost. You saw it before. You saw it before. It's a lovely website. But if you look at it, you'll see it's brand new. We haven't even filled in the blanks yet. At the core of this, Microsoft, what are you doing to me? You worried about Google? At the core of this is something called the question tool. The question tool is a very interesting thing. It's simple, like a lot of these classroom tools are. One of the tools we developed at the Birken Center. If you've got a class of students that's online and you want to wean them off solitaire and email, you have to give them something interesting to do. Well, one of the interesting things that we've given them to do is the question tool where everyone in a room online can ask a question. So instead of having to raise your hand and become a gunner and all the rest of that, you can put your question up here and everyone else looks at it and if they like it, they add their vote to it. And the ones with the most votes float to the top. And so you have a good basis for understanding and coming to understand what the key questions are that people want to ask. It just works in a number of different situations. We've put this at the core of our internet and society conference. Our thought with this conference is we want the questions of greatest interest to float to the top. And then we will put the conference together in ways that address them. This is very interesting, potentially very interesting website, but as a promotion for understanding that important issues relating to the future of university and cyberspace and the future of cyberspace in response to university are on the table. We need to get the word out. So I come back to this idea librarians are the one group that spans the university. And I feel like this is your subject. And so what I'm very eager to do, if we just go with the website, we might catch people on the web. I would very much like to do the sort of thing that is been suggested by the open access movement in numbers of places where actual pieces of paper in some way get used in a library context to focus. Now here at MIT they're putting red price stickers on each journal so that every user understands just how expensive the journal is. And the journal banks look like a sea of red, you know, it's got a nice kind of graphic quality to it. I'm eager in passing out postcards which have interesting questions on them. And the URL for the website. I would like to have them passed out in the libraries of the schools. I love questions that were of interest to the schools. For example, for the divinity school, I love the question, is there divinity in the net? I think there is. I actually believe that the net is a unique environment for collecting willing energy. And for the most part, willing energy only collects because people want to do something good together. Now it's not altogether true, there could be mobs and very bad uses of it. But when you see things like Wikipedia and what's been developing with that, when you see instances of large groups of people forming quickly to produce quite remarkable results, it's impressive. I hesitate, but I'm gonna go forward. I speak now as an individual, all right? This is Charlie Neston. I'm a child of the 60s. I smoked a lot of weed back then. Never really quit. I'm a great believer in we the people. I think the net is an invitation to we the people. When I formed the Berkman Center, the idea in mind was could internet somehow be employed to bridge the gaps that had so ribboned the society? My own start came Harvard Law School, went to clerk on the Supreme Court of the United States. My first published work was on earnings and profits discontinuities in the 1954 Revenue Code, upstream and downstream mergers. I was gonna be an international tax lawyer. I went to the Supreme Court, clerk for a judge, worked on a case called Swain versus Alabama, a story of a black man convicted of rape sentenced to death by an all white jury in Talladega County. And he demonstrated to the Supreme Court and to the courts below that although there had been black men in the Vaniris for years, no black man had ever served on a Talladega County jury. They'd used peremptory challenges to challenge them all. And the Supreme Court affirmed his death penalty in a judgment that just turned my stomach, saying, well, it may be true that no black man had ever served and that that had been produced by peremptory challenges, but you didn't demonstrate that it wasn't the black defendants who didn't challenge off the black members of the jury. You'll have to prove that it was the prosecution who did it and of course the records didn't show that. I went down literally, left the Supreme Court, walked down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Justice Department and asked for a job in the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. I was special assistant to John Doar. 1966, Mississippi March, the end of the Selma March, bunch of school desegregation stuff. Came to teach, but boy I had been stuck with this idea that this racial problem was just horrendous. I've been moved by Stokely Carmichael, I don't know if that name means anything to you. Stokely Carmichael, he actually founded the Black Panther Party in Lowndes County, Alabama. Beautiful man, became radicalized later on in a way that kinda took him off, but in terms of courage, just unbelievable. And when we started the Berkman Center, part of the idea was to see if somehow one couldn't use internet to address the problems of racial inequality. That's the society in internet and society. The first conference we did is co-chaired by Charles Ogletree, who's the founder of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice. Charles is my co-chair here in this. I have here two guests from Jamaica in a project that we've been working with for seven years together, Tree and I, that's along these sorts of lines. So let me finish by coming back to university. University is an ideal, it's an idea. You have this concept of learning and we see as teachers how excited kids are to learn. We see the structures of education. Turning many kids off, it's almost like the kids that come through are the ones that survive. School teaches you what you're not good at. You hope you get through being good at something and if you're not good at anything, you drop out and go find something else. Discipline has been part of the enterprise from the beginning. The environment has opened to a point where universities have gotten used to the idea of taking people from all over. But the idea of what they produce being accessible all over, that's come slower. But now we clearly are at a point at which it's possible. The idea of universities pouring output into a creative commons that's accessible to everyone is clearly in front of us. So to me at core, this concept of university is open access. It's open access to learn, it's open access to create. The fears that we see in it and their large and real need to be addressed. I actually think the best way forward is not by touting the beauties of the potential future, but by instead talking directly to the fears of people who don't want to listen to the future because they see the present being upset. And of all of the institutions that to me seem challenged, the library seems the greatest. When I think about what your situation has been here at Harvard, when I started, you were sitting on the biggest, most valuable pile of rotting paper in the world. That was your library. And now this environment comes along and you not only have to deal with the transition of that, but you have to spec the future and make it deliver. I can't imagine any part of the university that is more challenged to be flexible and forward thinking and where more budget of the university is invested and where it's easier to lose by making bad choices. I feel strong that in the cyber world, it well behooves Harvard to look to MIT for leadership. I know this may seem tough, but if I'm looking around for people who are savvy in the digital world who are likely to have thought of stuff before I got there, MIT is a pretty good place to start. We can go further. We don't need to see ourselves competitively. And Mark Lee's at this event at which Sid was present described open courseware. The thing she said that was most striking to me that stuck with me longest is that the MIT open courseware project has been taken up by many universities around the world, many, internationally a great success, but only six within the United States. Why? Why because we see ourselves as competitors. We cringe at the idea that we should follow MIT's leadership. And yet the possibility of thinking of university as the client offers us a way to transcend. All right, so I invite you to the Internet and Society Conference. I hope that there's some way I could be in touch with you by like an email list to solicit your willingness to pass out postcards for Internet and Society, somehow place them in the libraries of the university, make it visible and draw people to the site. I invite you to participate in the formulation of the questions on which we focus. I invite you to participate in the actual discussion that unfolds and hopefully in the process of putting our new president in the best possible position to choose the best possible person with best possible vision for the library of university for the future. Thank you. We should have questions now, but I have a feeling I should say something first since I've been one working very hard on this Google project and I just wanted to make a few short comments. I understand fully the complexity of Google as a we will do no evil, but no organization that says that could make that much money that quickly. It's always been my view that they believe in doing no evil, but as long as it doesn't necessarily hurt their competitive position. So I know, and I think in fact, you underestimate Google's ambitions. It's not to digitize all the books and all the libraries. It's to digitize everything that has ever been written, said or thought by humanity since the birth of language. So I'm very aware of the complexities, the dangers, the problems of monopoly and the people working with Google have been very concerned about that as I sometimes tell people, my hair was dark brown before I started negotiating with Google. I just want to make a few points where I think might use some clarity. One is you moved easily back and forth between the library and its writing paper which still may be rotting and Elsevier as the publisher of peer-reviewed contemporary journals. At least thus far, what we have been doing with Google and the other libraries have been doing with Google has nothing to do with contemporary peer-reviewed scientific journals. It has to do with what is in wider library and books on the shelves in paper. And from that perspective, the thing that makes me happy about the Google project, despite all kinds of worries, is it serves exactly what you are talking about. That is, if you talk about university and the university has to be open, when we in this room, we privilege few talk about university, we think about Harvard and maybe a few other universities and we think about our libraries which are fantastic and they're sort of open but they're not. We have the world's greatest collection of privately owned books as it were that are locked inside our buildings. They're available to our students, you and me and to other people who are part of Harvard, because we're part of Harvard and one of the most important things in our society to serve the kinds of values you're talking about is the nature of a higher education system in general and the tremendous pressure by people around the country, kids especially, this time of year beginning to think about that they generally begin to apply to college to get into the best possible college as possible, the top 10 in US news and world reports. My professional career has been working on issues of equality in the United States and the great engine of equality in the United States as higher education is how people from disadvantaged backgrounds get ahead. The great engine of inequality in the United States as higher education as well because it's the way in which people who are have resources can get faster ahead than other people and one of the things that's wrong with our system or that people misunderstand about our system is you need a good education in lots of places. You've got smart students, good faculty. The one thing that most of the colleges and universities in this country don't have what we have here at Harvard that's locked in the library and one of the purposes of the Google project is to unlock that stuff, to make it available for free, downloadable and printable through the Google digitization process and one of the things that I think is most interesting and valuable about the Google process is not that it is only available to students all over the country, it's available to everybody and one of the things about the Google display of a book that you find either through the snippets or through the full text is even if you're not at a university or any place, there's a little button there that takes you to a find it in the library button and people can, which I think is terribly important, go to the internet where many people think all wisdom lies and find that if you press that button, you may be taken into a library where there are books and I think that's a major breakthrough. I have many, many reservations about the fact that Google is a private company and we in the library have been working very hard to try to curb its monopolistic tendencies. I've been told at many meetings that this is not something that Google should be doing, it's a real public good, the government should be doing and I as kind of a social democrat believe the government should be doing it, although if they were the kind of government I want, I wouldn't tell them that the first thing they should do is make all these books available to all people. I would say something about maybe making healthcare available to all people, but all I can say to that is don't hold your breath. So there's a lot to be said for this project that I think serves your goals and that there may be no other way to do it at least in the middle of the short run. So that's at least the defense of what we're doing because I do think it is a very valuable thing with the incredible dangers and uncertainties that I wish were not there. I think said that I would let me open it to questions or to... Well, I want to make myself completely clear. I think what you're doing is wonderful. And if anything, I would be urging more of it, not less. I regret that Harvard is timid with respect to the legal position it's willing to take. Not going beyond at the moment public domain and waiting for other people to try and figure those problems out. That seems exactly the kind of problems that I would like to see Harvard as a leader in the university space working out with the leader in the search space. The whole idea, to me, government's not the answer. University needs money and the money's got to come from somewhere and the money comes from the business engine of the economy. And so the idea that we have relationships with for-profit companies and with government on matters, that's the name of the game, working those out so that they're transparent, so that they really serve public interest as well as our interest, those are the challenges. Yes, I don't want to be misunderstood. I think you've done fantastically, Sid. And I really totally admire the fact that we're engaging in these problems. I'd like to see us engaging in more aggressive. Questions? I do a blog on the platform that the Berkman Center provides and I just wanted to thank you all for providing that. And I wanted to ask, suggest that maybe you wanted to make a sales pitch to the room about the availability of that platform and hopefully some people will take a look on it. Well, actually, I can broaden it on it. The Berkman Center started at Harvard Law School. We are in the process this year of becoming a center of the university so that we are not the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School. We are a Berkman Center at Harvard University. And this conference itself is very much a part of the process of us seeing university as the client, so to speak. Where it comes to things like the blog, one of the things that I found out at Harvard Law School, I'm sure it's true in other schools as well, is you're in these institutional structures which are tough to move and yet internet space, it calls for trying something. And so Berkman has been a place where it's been possible to try out tech stuff, to build tools, to have blogs, to do bunches of things. The blog space is a perfectly wonderful example. It's open to the university and if it gets crowded, the university is there to put in the resources to make it more open within the university. These tools likewise, to me the way to approach teachers who are scared of the digital environment is, first of all, tell them it's perfectly okay to say close your laptops, it's actually okay. It turns out a lot of students even applaud when that happens. It's also perfectly okay to figure out that part of your classes with laptops closed and other parts of your classes with laptops open that works really well too. And it's definitely part of the process to model to people how you can teach in this environment and make it pay off for you rather than have it detract from you. And so to me, when we think of university in this new space, we need to think of it in many, many different dimensions. One of the dimensions is how do you teach in this space? What does it mean to teach in this space? The class that I was doing this fall is explicitly focused, supported I should say by a lovely grant from the provost, specifically focused on the idea of seeing if you could create a completely satisfactory face-to-face class environment that would also serve as an effective stimulus for a remote environment. So we had a face-to-face class in the law school, a joint part of the class through the Harvard Extension School that was taught in Second Life, which is a virtual environment. And the prospect, and that's work that works, and the prospect of going from a Second Life environment to an open net environment so that when we think of education, it's not just teacher in a classroom and it's closed, but teacher in a classroom and that works and the classroom actually uses the fact and learns about the fact that it's relating in a larger world as part of the class environment so that this payoff and lo and behold, the relating to the outside world is itself an effective form of teaching. And whoop, suddenly we're open. And so when I look to MIT, I say, yeah, they led the way with open coursework. But when you look at it, it's basically dry syllabus. Yeah, you can work like hell and get an education from it, but wouldn't it be so much nicer and better if there was more like real teaching on the net? Yes, that would be great. And so I would love to see Harvard willing to adventure into the space and find what's really good and learn what's good and teach what's good at the same time being really careful about the closed spaces that need to be preserved, the intimacies that need to be preserved. I've been told that you wanted a hard close out of here at 130, and it is now 143. And so thank you all very much. Thank you.