Web protests over piracy bills while China slaps Internet curbs

Legislation in Congress aims to curb Web theft of intellectual property while Beijing cracks down on bloggers. Both nations must weigh the cost to creativity that leads to innovation.

AP Photo/Eric Risberg
An employee works at Wikipedia in San Francisco on Jan. 18, a day of protest over anti-piracy bills in Congress. Wikipedia used a 24-hour blackout of its English-language articles to make it point.

The Internet is not only one of humanity’s greatest inventions but is itself a tool for creativity. Yet in the world’s two largest economies, China and the United States, government is trying to curb its use.

In Congress, two bills due for a vote soon aim to block Internet piracy of cultural goods such as movies. The legislation serves the interests of the entertainment industry, which loses income in the theft of copyrighted material.

But the bills have ignited a Web-wide protest by Google, Wikipedia, and others that fear the effect of weeding out stolen content on their sites.

In China, the Communist Party has tightened its control over the Web even further in hopes of heading off a Chinese Arab Spring. It now requires microbloggers to register their names.

While actions in both countries differ in their motives and goals, they raise a common issue: Can a nation spur innovation and stay competitive if it stifles freedom on the Internet?

The antipiracy bills in the US simply aim to enforce existing laws protecting intellectual property. Such laws attempt to encourage inventors, artists, and others by promising a monopoly in the selling of their ideas. The “patent system ... added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius,” said Abraham Lincoln, the only US president to be awarded a patent.

Many Internet experts, however, argue for less legal protection of new ideas. They point to the fashion industry, which flourishes despite few curbs on knockoffs. Creative genius will happen more often in a freer environment, not necessarily because of the profit motive, they argue. “Curiosity has its own reason for existing,” said Albert Einstein.

In its curtailing of the Internet, China puts at risk its drive for home-grown innovation. The economic giant has risen due in large part to its imitation of industrial inventions from the West and Japan.

Yet, a 2011 survey known as the Global Creativity Index ranks China as 58th in a mix of measures such as openness to fresh thinking and an ability to draw talent. (The US is second, behind Sweden.) The survey notes that “progress and prosperity depend not just on the efforts of a privileged knowledge elite but on how well we can unleash the creativity of each and every human being.”

The traditional notion of elite inventors driving the discovery of new ideas has given way to a nurturing creativity in more people and across institutions and academic disciplines. The real source of wealth has always been new ideas. Their discovery cannot always be driven by government or money. About one-fifth of today’s Fortune 500 companies – the Amazons and Googles– didn’t exist 30 years ago.

“Physical factors alone no longer determine progress in today’s modern, advanced economies,” says the Global Creativity Index report. Creativity “is not a stock of things that can be depleted or worn out, but an infinitely renewable resource that can be constantly improved. Everyone is potentially creative.”

Both the US and China, like so many countries, keep trying new ways to spur innovation. China is ahead in producing engineers but fails in fostering freedom for its people to create. The US is far ahead in spending on research but falling behind in helping Americans become scientists and engineers. In 2009, 57 percent of US doctoral degrees in engineering went to foreigners, most of them from Asia.

Creative thinking that leads to new ideas, whether in the arts or business, requires more than a degree. It requires a sense of play, an environment of trust, a tolerance for mistakes, a readiness to take risks, and a patience for long-term gestation of ideas.

External inducements for inventiveness, such as patent rights, must compete with other motives, such as the sheer joy and interest in the challenge of solving a problem or uncovering a new idea.

The question of keeping the Internet free is really one of how best to foster creativity. The Internet itself is dissolving old ways of promoting creativity. China and the US are struggling to know what the new ways should be.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.