archive/freeculture.nb.html

   1 <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific American's 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
   2 og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id3022126"></a><p>
   3      <span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
   4    </p><p>
   5 Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensiert med en
   6 Creative Commons-lisens.  Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
   7 utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt.  For mer
   8 informasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
   9    </p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
  10 Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor i juss
  11 og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School,
  12 er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i
  13 Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
  14 Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code:
  15 And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i
  16 Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public
  17 Knowledge.  Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the
  18 Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's
  19 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>&#8221;</span> og omtalt som en av Scientific American's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">50
  20 visjonærer</span>&#8221;</span>.  Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania,
  21 Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard
  22 Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  23   </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="salespoints"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  24 Du kan kjøpe et eksemplar av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene
  25 nedenfor:
  26 </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&amp;N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  27 Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
  28 </p><p>
  29 The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
  30 </p><p>
  31 Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
  32 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontpublisher"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  33 The Penguin Press, New York
  34 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontbookinfo"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  35 Fri Kultur
  36 </p><p>
  37 Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
  38 og kontrollere kreativiteten
  39 </p><p>
  40 Lawrence Lessig
  41 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3011490"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  42 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  43 hvem saken fortsetter.
  44 </p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Pirater</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id3084892">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id3000220"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
  45 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  46 New York, New York
  47 </p><p>
  48 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  49 </p><p>
  50 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
  51 Perpetuity,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
  52 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with
  53 permission.
  54 </p><p>
  55 Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
  56 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  57 </p><p>
  58 Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
  59 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
  60 </p><p>
  61 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  62 </p><p>
  63 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  64 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  65 </p><p>
  66 p. cm.
  67 </p><p>
  68 Includes index.
  69 </p><p>
  70 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  71 </p><p>
  72 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  73 States.
  74 </p><p>
  75 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  76 States. I. Title.
  77 </p><p>
  78 KF2979.L47
  79 </p><p>
  80 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  81 </p><p>
  82 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  83 </p><p>
  84 Printed in the United States of America
  85 </p><p>
  86 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  87 </p><p>
  88 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  89 </p><p>
  90 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  91 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  92 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  93 </p><p>
  94 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  95 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  96 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  97 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  98 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
  99 </p><p>
 100 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
 101 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
 102 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
 103 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
 104 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
 105 </p></div><div class="preface" title="Forord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
 106 <span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
 107 første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
 108 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 109 datarelaterte tekster, dette:
 110 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 111 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 112 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 113 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 114 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 115 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 116 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 117 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken &#8212; at
 118 programvaren, eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">koden</span>&#8221;</span>, fungerte som en slags lov &#8212;
 119 og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
 120 gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
 121 komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
 122 problemer som finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
 123 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">påvirke</span>&#8221;</span> oss mer.
 124 </p><p>
 125
 126 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 &#8212; jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
 127 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
 128 nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
 129 selv etter at modemet er slått av.  Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
 130 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">folk som
 131 er ikke pålogget.</span>&#8221;</span>  Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
 132 internettets effekt.
 133 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2999554"></a><p>
 134 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 135 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 136 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 137 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 138 </p><p>
 139 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på.  Som jeg vil forklare i
 140 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri
 141 kultur</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;ikke <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri</span>&#8221;</span> som i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri bar</span>&#8221;</span>
 142 (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
 143 programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2999600" href="#ftn.id2999600" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
 144 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri</span>&#8221;</span> som i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">talefrihet</span>&#8221;</span>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fritt
 145 marked</span>&#8221;</span>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">frihandel</span>&#8221;</span>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>&#8221;</span>,
 146 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri vilje</span>&#8221;</span> og <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">frie valg</span>&#8221;</span>.  En fri kultur støtter
 147 og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.  Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele
 148 immaterielle rettigheter.  Men det gjør den indirekte ved å begrense
 149 rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å garantere at neste generasjon
 150 skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri som mulig</em></span> fra
 151 kontroll fra fortiden.  En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
 152 lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis.  Det motsatte av
 153 fri kultur er <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;en kultur der skapere
 154 kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
 155 fortiden.
 156 </p><p>
 157 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den.  Ikke
 158 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vi</span>&#8221;</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">dere</span>&#8221;</span> på høyresiden,
 159 men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
 160 definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
 161 du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi
 162 deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider
 163 av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
 164 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2999680"></a><p>
 165 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
 166 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
 167 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
 168 mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen.  Mens William
 169 Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
 170 Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
 171 konservative Ted Stevens</span>&#8221;</span>, formulerte han  kanskje det enkleste
 172 uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt.  Så spurte han:
 173 <a class="indexterm" name="id2999709"></a>
 174 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 175 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 176 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 177 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 178 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 179 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2999733" href="#ftn.id2999733" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 180 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 181 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 182 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 183 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 184 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 185 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 186 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 187 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 188 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
 189 og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
 190 og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
 191 nytt, spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 192 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 193 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 194 dette verket <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kun</span>&#8221;</span> er et avledet verk.
 195 </p><p>
 196
 197 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 198 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 199 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 200 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 201 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 202 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 203 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 204 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 205 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 206 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 207 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 208 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 209 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 210 </p><p>
 211 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 212 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 213 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 214 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 215 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 216 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 217 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 218 denne boken er skrevet.
 219 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.preface01" href="#preface01" class="para">1</a>] </sup>
 220 David Pogue, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 221 York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
 222 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2999600" href="#id2999600" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 223 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
 224 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 225 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2999733" href="#id2999733" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
 226 Times</em>, 22. mai 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2999744"></a>
 227 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
 228 17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
 229 hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
 230 enn luft kunne fly.  Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
 231 forstått. Nesten umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye
 232 teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
 233 begynte å bygge videre på den.
 234 </p><p>
 235 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 236 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 237 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 238 bakken, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3056520" href="#ftn.id3056520" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
 239 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 240 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 241 manns eiendom?
 242 </p><p>
 243 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 244 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 245 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 246 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 247 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 248 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 249 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 250 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056540"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056565"></a><p>
 251 I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
 252 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
 253 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
 254 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
 255 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
 256 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
 257 strakk seg <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>&#8221;</span> så hadde regjeringen
 258 trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
 259 dette.
 260 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056591"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056597"></a><p>
 261 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
 262 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
 263 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
 264 grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ta</span>&#8221;</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
 265 Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
 266 rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>&#8221;</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
 267 tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner.  I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
 268 av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
 269 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 270 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 271 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 272 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 273 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 274 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 275 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 276 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 277 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id3056649" href="#ftn.id3056649" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 278 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 279 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>&#8221;</span>
 280 </p><p>
 281
 282 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 283 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 284 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 285 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 286 linje: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>&#8221;</span>.  Men uansett om
 287 det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
 288 et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
 289 aktuelle teknologiene.  Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den.  Idéer som
 290 var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
 291 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056734"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056741"></a><p>
 292 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
 293 av endringen.  Causbyene var bare bønder.  Og selv om det uten tvil var
 294 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
 295 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
 296 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
 297 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden.  Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
 298 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
 299 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">det
 300 synes rimelig</span>&#8221;</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
 301 De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
 302 knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville.  De kunne ringe sine
 303 representanter eller til og med saksøke.  Men når alt kom til alt, ville
 304 kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>&#8221;</span> for alle andre&#8212;makten
 305 til <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;ville vinne frem.  Deres
 306 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>&#8221;</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
 307 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
 308 </p><p>
 309 Edwin Howard Armstrong er en av USAs glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp
 310 på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham
 311 Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den
 312 viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i de første femti årene av radio.  Han
 313 var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday, som var bokbinderlærling da han
 314 oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men han hadde like god intuisjon om
 315 hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre anledninger, fant Armstrong opp
 316 svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
 317 <a class="indexterm" name="id3056804"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056814"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056820"></a>
 318 </p><p>
 319 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 320 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;FM-radio.  Inntil da hadde
 321 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio.  Tidens teoretikere
 322 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio.  De hadde rett når det gjelder
 323 et smalt bånd av spektrumet.  Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
 324 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
 325 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
 326 </p><p>
 327 Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
 328 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City.  Han vred
 329 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
 330 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna.  Radioen ble helt
 331 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
 332 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
 333 opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
 334 som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>&#8221;</span>
 335 </p><p>
 336 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 337 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 338 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
 339 et glass som ble fylt opp. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 340 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 341 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 342 utført. &#8230; Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
 343 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
 344 radio-<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3056898" href="#ftn.id3056898" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 345 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 346
 347 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 348 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 349 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 350 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 351 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 352
 353 </p><p>
 354 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
 355 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
 356 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
 357 støy fra <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radio.</span>&#8221;</span>.   Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
 358 oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3056942"></a>
 359 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 360 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 361 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 362 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id3056832" href="#ftn.id3056832" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 363 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 364 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 365 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 366 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 367 <a class="indexterm" name="id3056987"></a>
 368 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 369 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 370 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 371 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 372 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 373 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 374 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 375 makt.<sup>[<a name="id3057014" href="#ftn.id3057014" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 376 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 377 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 378 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 379 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 380 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 381 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 382 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 383 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 384 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 385 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 386 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 387 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 388 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 389 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 390 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 391 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id3057029" href="#ftn.id3057029" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 392 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3057069"></a><p>
 393 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 394 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 395 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 396 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 397 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 398 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 399 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 400 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 401 </p><p>
 402 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 403 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 404 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 405 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 406 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 407 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 408 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 409 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 410 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 411 </p><p>
 412
 413 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 414 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 415 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 416 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 417 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 418 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 419 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 420 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 421 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 422 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 423 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 424 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 425 </p><p>
 426 Det er ingen enkeltoppfinner av Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som
 427 kan brukes til å markere når det ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet
 428 av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew
 429 Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
 430 tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år
 431 tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2999006" href="#ftn.id2999006" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
 432 problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
 433 </p><p>
 434 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 435 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 436 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 437 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 438 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 439 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 440 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 441 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 442 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 443 </p><p>
 444 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 445 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 446 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 447 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 448 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 449 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 450 har introdusert.
 451 </p><p>
 452 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
 453 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
 454 Med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>&#8221;</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
 455 er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt.  Med
 456 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>&#8221;</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
 457 menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
 458 unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur.  Da Noah
 459 Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Reader</span>&#8221;</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
 460 så var det kommersiell kultur.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2999092"></a>
 461 <a class="indexterm" name="id2999102"></a>
 462 </p><p>
 463 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
 464 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert.  Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
 465 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
 466 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
 467 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri</span>&#8221;</span>.  Den
 468 vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
 469 kultur&#8212;historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
 470 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke
 471 styrt av lovverket.
 472 </p><p>
 473 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 474 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 475 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 476 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id3057425" href="#ftn.id3057425" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 477 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 478 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 479 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 480 </p><p>
 481 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 482 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id3057467" href="#ftn.id3057467" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 483 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 484 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 485 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 486 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 487 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 488 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 489 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 490 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 491 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 492 </p><p>
 493 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 494 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 495 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 496 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 497 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 498 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 499 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 500 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 501 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 502 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 503 drømmen til Causbyene.
 504 </p><p>
 505 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 506 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 507 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 508 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 509 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 510 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 511 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 512 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 513 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 514 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 515 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 516 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 517 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 518 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 519 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 520 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 521 </p><p>
 522 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 523 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 524 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 525 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 526 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 527 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 528 </p><p>
 529 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange.  Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
 530 internettet er fjernt for de fleste.  For de få som følger dem, virker de i
 531 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål&#8212;hvorvidt
 532 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
 533 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>&#8221;</span> vil bli beskyttet.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Krigen</span>&#8221;</span> som
 534 har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet&#8212;det presidenten for
 535 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
 536 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3057608" href="#ftn.id3057608" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
 537 respektere eiendomsretten.  For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
 538 krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
 539 eiendomsrett eller mot den.
 540 </p><p>
 541 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
 542 Valenti og innholdsindustrien.  Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
 543 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kreativ
 544 eiendomsrett</span>&#8221;</span>.  Jeg tror at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> er galt,
 545 og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span>,
 546 både på og utenfor internettet.
 547 </p><p>
 548 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
 549 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
 550 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
 551 internettets <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirater</span>&#8221;</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
 552 har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
 553 </p><p>
 554 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 555 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 556 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 557 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 558 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id3057687" href="#ftn.id3057687" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 559 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 560 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 561 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 562 </p><p>
 563 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 564 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 565 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 566 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 567 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 568 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 569 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 570 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 571 vår tradisjon.
 572 </p><p>
 573 Historien som følger er om denne krigen.  Er det ikke om <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">betydningen
 574 av teknologi</span>&#8221;</span> i vanlig liv.  Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
 575 eller andre typer.  Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
 576 individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
 577 eller på annen måte.  Det er ikke en moralsk historie.  Ei heller er det et
 578 rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
 579 </p><p>
 580 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 581 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 582 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 583 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 584 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 585 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 586 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 587 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057773"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057779"></a><p>
 588 Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om
 589 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>&#8221;</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke like håndfast
 590 som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så langt mistet
 591 livet.  Likevel er idéene rundt denne <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>&#8221;</span> like
 592 åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres
 593 bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav
 594 som eierne av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>&#8221;</span> nå hevder.  De fleste
 595 av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som åpenbare.  Og dermed
 596 protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper inn i denne
 597 eiendomsretten.  Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at de nye
 598 teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tar seg til rette</span>&#8221;</span> mot legitime
 599 krav til <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det er like klart for oss som det var
 600 for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen
 601 manns eiendom.
 602 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057831"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057837"></a><p>
 603
 604 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 605 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 606 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 607 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 608 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 609 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 610 </p><p>
 611 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre.  Jeg har blitt stadig mer
 612 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
 613 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
 614 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kultur</span>&#8221;</span>
 615 som har vært <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eid</span>&#8221;</span> enn det er nå.  Og likevel har aldri før
 616 konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av
 617 kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
 618 </p><p>
 619 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 620 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 621 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 622 feil?
 623 </p><p>
 624 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 625 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 626 intuisjon?
 627 </p><p>
 628 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 629 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 630 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 631 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 632 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 633 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 634 </p><p>
 635 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 636 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 637 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 638 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 639 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057935"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057941"></a><p>
 640
 641 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk.  Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
 642 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
 643 Causbyene.  Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
 644 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">immaterielle
 645 rettigheter</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
 646 om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
 647 eiendom.  Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
 648 dyptgripende.
 649
 650 </p><p>
 651 Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
 652 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> og <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendom</span>&#8221;</span>.  Mitt mål med
 653 denne bokens neste to deler er å utforske disse to idéene.
 654 </p><p>
 655 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 656 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 657 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 658 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 659 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 660 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 661 </p><p>
 662 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
 663 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
 664 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">noe
 665 nytt</span>&#8221;</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt.  I stedet for å forstå
 666 endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
 667 som trengs for å la <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>&#8221;</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
 668 på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
 669 til å endre loven&#8212;og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
 670 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
 671 </p><p>
 672 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 673 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 674 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 675 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 676 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 677 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 678 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056520" href="#id3056520" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 679 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 680 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 681 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056649" href="#id3056649" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 682 USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
 683 å <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ta</span>&#8221;</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
 684 ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby.  Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
 685 meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
 686 Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>&#8221;</span>,
 687 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
 688 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
 689 Foundation Press (1984)), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3056688"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056683"></a>
 690 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056898" href="#id3056898" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 691 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 692 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056832" href="#id3056832" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>&#8221;</span>
 694 første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
 695 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 696 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057014" href="#id3057014" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 697 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057029" href="#id3057029" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 698 Lessing, 256.
 699 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2999006" href="#id2999006" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 700 Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 701 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>&#8221;</span> Pew Internet and American
 702 Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 703 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057425" href="#id3057425" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 704 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
 705 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
 706 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
 707 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser.  Ved
 708 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
 709 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
 710 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to
 711 Privacy</span>&#8221;</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.
 712 <a class="indexterm" name="id3056871"></a>
 713 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057467" href="#id3057467" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 714 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 715 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3057475"></a>
 716 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057608" href="#id3057608" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 717 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
 718 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 719 York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
 720 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057687" href="#id3057687" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 721 Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>&#8221;</span>
 722 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3057698"></a>
 723 </p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del I. &#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
 724 Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
 725 en krig mot <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span>.  De presise konturene av dette
 726 konseptet, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp,
 727 men bildet av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive.  Som Lord Mansfield skrev
 728 i en sak som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere
 729 noteark,
 730 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 731 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 732 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 733 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id3058105" href="#ftn.id3058105" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 734 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3058120"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 735
 736 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">krig</span>&#8221;</span> mot
 737 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
 738 Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold.  Peer-to-peer (p2p)
 739 fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
 740 internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
 741 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
 742 for en generasjon siden.
 743
 744 </p><p>
 745 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
 746 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
 747 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
 748 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold.  Denne
 749 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
 750 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
 751 overskuddet.</span>&#8221;</span>
 752 </p><p>
 753 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
 754 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendom</span>&#8221;</span> mot denne
 755 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>&#8221;</span>.  En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
 756 krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendom</span>&#8221;</span> skal være
 757 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gratis</span>&#8221;</span>.  Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
 758 kroppspiercing&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 759 </p><p>
 760 Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> er galt, og at
 761 pirater bør straffes.  Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
 762 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>&#8221;</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng.  For mens begrepet
 763 blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
 764 helt sikkert er feil.
 765 </p><p>
 766 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 767 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 768 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 769 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 770 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 771 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 772 piratvirksomhet.
 773 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3058242"></a><p>
 774 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene.  Det er hva jussprofessor
 775 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
 776 rettighet</span>&#8221;</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id3058258" href="#ftn.id3058258" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
 777 rettigheten til denne verdien.  Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
 778 rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
 779 betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
 780 leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id3058281" href="#ftn.id3058281" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
 781 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">verdi</span>&#8221;</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
 782 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rettighet</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 783 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3058326"></a><p>
 784
 785 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
 786 eierrettigheter bør virke.  Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
 787 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter.  Men teorien om
 788 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>&#8221;</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
 789 aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter.  It har aldri stått rot
 790 i vårt lovverk.
 791 </p><p>
 792 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 793 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 794 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 795 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 796 syne.
 797 </p><p>
 798 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 799 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 800 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 801 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 802 </p><p>
 803 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 804 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 805 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 806 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 807 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 808 ved å drive forretning.
 809 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3058382"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3058388"></a><p>
 810 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
 811 lovens virkeområde.  Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
 812 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
 813 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
 814 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kopiering</span>&#8221;</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
 815 bredt og obskurt som den gjør.  Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
 816 fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt&#8212;helt klart slik den påvirker
 817 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
 818 kommersiell kreativitet.  Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
 819 følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
 820 å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse.  Akkurat på tidspunktet da
 821 digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
 822 og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
 823 sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
 824 straffer.  Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fremveksten
 825 av den kreative klasse</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3058427" href="#ftn.id3058427" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
 826 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
 827 kreative klassen.
 828 </p><p>
 829 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon.  Vi bør begynne med å forstå
 830 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
 831 merkelappen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
 832 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058105" href="#id3058105" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 833
 834
 835 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 836 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 837 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058258" href="#id3058258" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 838
 839
 840 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
 841 in the Pepsi Generation,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
 842 Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
 843 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058281" href="#id3058281" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 844
 845 Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
 846 Up,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
 847 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
 848 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
 849 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
 850 Globe</em>, 24. november 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3058306"></a>
 851 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058427" href="#id3058427" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 852
 853 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 854 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 855 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 856 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 857 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 858 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 859 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3058469"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058478"></a>
 860 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><p>
 861 I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
 862 dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
 863 I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
 864 distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 865 Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 866 </p><p>
 867 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 868 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 869 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 870 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 871 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 872 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 873 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 874
 875 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 876 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 877 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 878 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 879
 880 </p><p>
 881 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 882 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 883 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 884 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 885 </p><p>
 886 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 887 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 888 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 889 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id3058608" href="#ftn.id3058608" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 890 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 891 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
 892 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
 893 begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
 894 bra.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058634"></a>
 895 </p><p>
 896 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 897 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 898 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 899 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 900 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 901 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 902 </p><p>
 903 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 904 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 905 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 906 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 907 </p><p>
 908 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 909 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 910 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 911 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 912 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 913 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 914 </p><p>
 915 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
 916 Steamboat Willie.  Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
 917 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
 918 Bill,<sup>[<a name="id3058705" href="#ftn.id3058705" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
 919 som kilde.  Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
 920 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 921 Willie</em>.  Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
 922 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>&#8221;</span>,
 923 at vi får Steamboat Willie.  Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
 924 </p><p>
 925 Denne <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">låningen</span>&#8221;</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
 926 industrien.  Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
 927 ham.<sup>[<a name="id3058778" href="#ftn.id3058778" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 928 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;små variasjoner
 929 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt.  Nøkkelen til
 930 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene.  Med Disney var det lyden som ga
 931 gnisten til hans animasjoner.  Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
 932 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
 933 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
 934 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
 935 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
 936 </p><p>
 937 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 938 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 939 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 940 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 941 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 942 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 943 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 944 </p><p>
 945
 946 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 947 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 948 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 949 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 950 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 951 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 952 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 953 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 954 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 955 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 956 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 957 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 958 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 959 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 960 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 961 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 962 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 963 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 964 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 965 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 966 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 967 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 968 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3058909"></a><p>
 969 Dette er en type kreativitet.  Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
 970 feire.  Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
 971 denne typen.  Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
 972 Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>&#8221;</span>, selv om det vil være
 973 litt misvisende.  Det er mer presist <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt
 974 Disney-kreativitet</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
 975 kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
 976 </p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
 977 fersk.  Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
 978 levende.  Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
 979 år&#8212;for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
 980 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id3058935" href="#ftn.id3058935" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
 981 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
 982 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>&#8221;</span> til a
 983 kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket.  For å bruke disse
 984 opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
 985 opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
 986 </p><p>
 987 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
 988 allemannseie.  Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
 989 verket.  Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
 990 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
 991 århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
 992 1928.  Det var tilgjengelig for enhver&#8212;uansett om de hadde
 993 forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
 994 ikke&#8212;til å bruke og bygge videre på.
 995 </p><p>
 996
 997 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 998 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 999 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
1000 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
1001 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
1002 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
1003 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
1004 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
1005 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
1006 </p><p>
1007 Walt Disney hadde selvfølgelig ikke monopol på <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt
1008 Disney-kreativitet</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det har heller ikke USA.  Normen med fri kultur
1009 har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og
1010 svært universell.
1011 </p><p>
1012 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1013 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1014 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
1015 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1016 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
1017 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1018 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1019 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1020 </p><p>
1021 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
1022 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss.  Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
1023 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
1024 historiene i disse <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">grafiske historiene</span>&#8221;</span> forteller.  For en
1025 japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv.  For oss er
1026 tegneserier <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">menn i strømpebukser</span>&#8221;</span>.  Og uansett er det ikke
1027 slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway
1028 for den saks skyld.  Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig
1029 måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.
1030 </p><p>
1031 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1032 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1033 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1034 </p><p>
1035
1036 Dette er fenomenet <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>.  Doujinshi er også
1037 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier.  En rik etikk styrer
1038 de som skaper doujinshi.  Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1039 <span class="emphasis"><em>bare</em></span> er en kopi.  Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1040 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig.  En
1041 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1042 i en annen retning&#8212;med en annen historie-linje.  Eller tegneserien kan
1043 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet.  Det er ingen
1044 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig
1045 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>&#8221;</span>.  Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
1046 som ekte doujinshi.  Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
1047 å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1048 </p><p>
1049 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet.  Det
1050 er enorme.  Mer en 33 000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sirkler</span>&#8221;</span> av skapere over hele Japan
1051 som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet.  Mer en 450 000
1052 japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i
1053 langet, for å bytte og selge dem.  Dette markedet er parallelt med det
1054 kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet.  På noen måter konkurrerer det
1055 åpenbart med det markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som
1056 kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
1057 doujinshi-markedet.  Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
1058 for loven.
1059 </p><p>
1060 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1061 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1062 Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
1063 papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
1064 Doujinshi er helt klart <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">avledede verk</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det er ingen generell
1065 praksis hos doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos
1066 manga-skaperne.  I stedet er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre
1067 har laget, slik Walt Disney gjorde med <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
1068 Jr</em>.  For både japansk og USAs lov, er å <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ta</span>&#8221;</span> uten
1069 tillatelse fra den opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig.  Det er et
1070 brudd på opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et
1071 avledet verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1072 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1073 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1074 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1075 blomstrer.  Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I
1076 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1077 Japan i dag. &#8230; Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1078 hverandre. &#8230; Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne&#8212;ved å se i
1079 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
1080 dem</span>&#8221;</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id3059231" href="#ftn.id3059231" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1081 </p><p>
1082 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1083 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1084 får lov til.  Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">er det
1085 en rekke regler, og du må følge dem</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det er ting som Supermann
1086 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>&#8221;</span> gjøre.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
1087 frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
1088 gamle.</span>&#8221;</span>
1089 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059284"></a><p>
1090 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1091 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1092 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1093 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1094 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1095 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1096 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id3059310" href="#ftn.id3059310" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1097 </p><p>
1098 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1099 er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">hold hendene
1100 borte</span>&#8221;</span>-responsen ikke er forstått.  Det kan godt være at markedet som
1101 helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den,
1102 men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere
1103 ikke saksøker.  Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det
1104 finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
1105 doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
1106 blokkere denne <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">frie takingen</span>&#8221;</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1107 </p><p>
1108 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1109 som jeg kunne.  Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1110 større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater</span>&#8221;</span>,
1111 fortalte han meg en ettermiddag.  Det er <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
1112 å tiltale tilfeller som dette</span>&#8221;</span>.
1113 </p><p>
1114
1115 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1116 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1117 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1118 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1119 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1120 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1121 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1122 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1123 eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
1124 </p><p>
1125 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1126 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1127 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1128 </p><p>
1129 Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendom</span>&#8221;</span>.  Jeg er en av de som
1130 feierer.  Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
1131 verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
1132 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3059422" href="#ftn.id3059422" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
1133 stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
1134 samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1135 </p><p>
1136 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1137 verdi der ute som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendom</span>&#8221;</span> ikke dekker.  Jeg mener ikke
1138 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>&#8221;</span> men heller, at en verdi
1139 som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og
1140 ikke-kommersiell produksjon.  Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett
1141 med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme
1142 det som galt&#8212;selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir
1143 oppdaget.  Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at
1144 Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene.  Det var intet galt
1145 med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som
1146 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rimelig</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
1147 fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1148 </p><p>
1149
1150 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1151 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1152 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1153 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1154 bra.
1155 </p><p>
1156 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1157 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1158 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1159 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1160 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1161 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1162 </p><p>
1163 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1164 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stjeler</span>&#8221;</span>.  Denne formen for
1165 Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
1166 advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1167 </p><p>
1168 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1169 begynner å se etter dem.  Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1170 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
1171 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1172 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?</span>&#8221;</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
1173 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1174 (Er det <span class="emphasis"><em>noen</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1175 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1176 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1177 først?)  Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1178 astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.
1179 </p><p>
1180
1181 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1182 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1183 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1184 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1185 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1186 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1187 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1188 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1189 alle samfunn.
1190
1191 </p><p>
1192 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
1193 er fri.  Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1194 er i stedet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
1195 er?</span>&#8221;</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
1196 å ta, og bygge på?  Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer?  Til
1197 medlemmer av kongefamilien?  Til de ti største selskapene på New
1198 York-børsen?  Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt,
1199 uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke?  Til musikere
1200 generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt,
1201 uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1202 </p><p>
1203 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1204 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1205 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1206 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058608" href="#id3058608" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1207
1208
1209 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1210 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1211 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058705" href="#id3058705" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1212
1213
1214 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1215 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1216 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1217 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1218 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>&#8221;</span> (Delille),
1219 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>&#8221;</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
1220 No. 1</span>&#8221;</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>&#8221;</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1221 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>&#8221;</span> var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra
1222 David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1223 forfatteren.
1224 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058778" href="#id3058778" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1225
1226
1227 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Mouse
1228 that Ate the Public Domain,</span>&#8221;</span> Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
1229 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058935" href="#id3058935" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1230
1231
1232 Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1233 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode.  Jeg har beregnet
1234 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gjennomsnittlig</span>&#8221;</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
1235 de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger.  Hvis 100
1236 opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1237 fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2
1238 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1239 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1240 #6</a>.
1241 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059231" href="#id3059231" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1242
1243
1244 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1245 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1246 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059310" href="#id3059310" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1247
1248
1249 Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1250 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>&#8221;</span>
1251 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">det
1252 kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og
1253 anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at
1254 alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
1255 egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
1256 rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>&#8221;</span>
1257 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059422" href="#id3059422" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1258
1259 Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
1260 opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1261 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se
1262 også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1263 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
1264 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>&#8221;</span>-rettigheter&#8212;opphavsretter, patenter,
1265 varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter&#8212;men egenskapene til disse
1266 rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id3059443"></a>
1267 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
1268 I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
1269 produsere det vi ville kalle <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fotografier</span>&#8221;</span>.  Rimelig nok ble de
1270 kalt <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>&#8221;</span>.  Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
1271 feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
1272 velstående amatører.  (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
1273 som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
1274 ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)  <a class="indexterm" name="id3059702"></a>
1275 </p><p>
1276 Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
1277 sterk.  Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1278 lage <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">automatiske bilder</span>&#8221;</span>.  William Talbot oppdaget snart en
1279 prosess for å lage <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">negativer</span>&#8221;</span>.  Men da negativene var av
1280 glass, og måtte holdes fuktige, forble prosessen kostbar og tung.  På
1281 1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
1282 å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det.  Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
1283 dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
1284 fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id3059737"></a>
1285 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1286
1287 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1288 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1289 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1290 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1291 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1292 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1293 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1294 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1295 </p><p>
1296 Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
1297 dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken.  Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
1298 dens enkelhet. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
1299 resten.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3059787" href="#ftn.id3059787" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
1300 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id3059801"></a>
1301 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1302 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1303 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1304 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1305 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1306 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1307 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1308 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1309 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id3057076" href="#ftn.id3057076" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1310 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1311 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1312 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1313 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1314 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1315 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1316 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1317 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1318 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1319 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3059866" href="#ftn.id3059866" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1320 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3059875" href="#ftn.id3059875" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1321 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059884"></a><p>
1322
1323
1324 Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
1325 økonomisk.  Den var sosial.  Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
1326 glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
1327 muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
1328 stand til tidligere.  Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For første
1329 gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
1330 og dens aktiviteter. &#8230; For første gang i historien fantes det en
1331 autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
1332 laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3059817" href="#ftn.id3059817" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1333 </p><p>
1334 På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
1335 malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
1336 med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører.  Med
1337 Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere.  Barrièren for å uttrykke
1338 seg var senket.  Snobber ville fnyse over <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kvaliteten</span>&#8221;</span>,
1339 profesjonelle ville avvise den som irrelevant.  Men se et barn studere
1340 hvordan best velge bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags
1341 kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken muliggjorde.  Demokratiske verktøy ga
1342 vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy
1343 kunne ha gjort før.
1344 </p><p>
1345 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1346 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1347 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1348 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1349 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1350 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1351 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id3059969" href="#ftn.id3059969" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1352 </p><p>
1353
1354 Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
1355 ut.  Fotografen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tok</span>&#8221;</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
1356 fotografert&#8212;røvet til seg noe av verdi.  Noen trodde til og med at han
1357 tok målets sjel.  På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
1358 som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
1359 fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
1360 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059603"></a><p>
1361 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1362 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1363 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1364 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1365 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id3060039" href="#ftn.id3060039" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1366 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1367 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1368 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1369 </p><p>
1370 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1371 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1372 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1373 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1374 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1375 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1376 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1377 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id3060093" href="#ftn.id3060093" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1378 </p><p>
1379 Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
1380 hadde slått ut den andre veien.  Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
1381 ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass.  Kanskje
1382 Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
1383 utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på.  Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
1384 var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra
1385 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tyveriet</span>&#8221;</span> begått av fotografer.  På samme måte som Napster nøt
1386 fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak
1387 nytt fordeler fra <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bilde-rettighets</span>&#8221;</span>-brudd til deres
1388 fotografer.  Vi kan forestille oss at loven da krevede at en form for
1389 tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene.  Vi kan
1390 forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge frem slike tillatelser.
1391 </p><p>
1392
1393
1394
1395 Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
1396 svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
1397 gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
1398 Fotografering ville eksistert.  Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
1399 Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
1400 gjorde&#8212;siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
1401 av godkjenningssystemet.  Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
1402 villa aldri ha skjedd.  Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd.  Og det
1403 ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
1404 uttrykksteknologi.  Hvis du kjører gjennom området Presidio i San Francisco,
1405 kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med fargefulle og
1406 iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>&#8221;</span> i stedet for
1407 navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bare</span>&#8221;</span> mentalt i
1408 prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør.  Disse bussene er fylt med
1409 teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film.  Ikke filmen til Eastman.  Ikke
1410 en gang filmen i din videospiller.  I stedet er det snakk om
1411 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">filmen</span>&#8221;</span> til digitale kamera.  Just Think! er et prosjekt som
1412 gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere
1413 den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg.  Hvert år besøker
1414 disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
1415 barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media.  Ved å
1416 gjøre, så tenker de.  Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1417 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060221"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3060228"></a><p>
1418 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1419 og billigere.  Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1420 dramatisk.  Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
1421 godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000.  I dag kan du
1422 få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3060259" href="#ftn.id3060259" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
1423 hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden.  Og det er nå mulig å
1424 forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
1425 unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
1426 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">medie-skriveføre</span>&#8221;</span> eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>&#8221;</span>.
1427 </p><p>
1428
1429 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Media-skriveføre,</span>&#8221;</span> eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>&#8221;</span> som
1430 administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">er
1431 evnen til &#8230; å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
1432 er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
1433 er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker
1434 dem</span>&#8221;</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3060313"></a>
1435 </p><p>
1436 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
1437 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>&#8221;</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
1438 skrive. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>&#8221;</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
1439 og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1440 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060341"></a><p>
1441 Mulig det.  Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
1442 TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
1443 reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id3060355" href="#ftn.id3060355" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
1444 viktig å forstå <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>&#8221;</span> til media.  For på samme måte som
1445 det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media.  Og
1446 akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
1447 lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i
1448 begynnelsen) grusom media.
1449 </p><p>
1450 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1451 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1452 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1453 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1454 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1455 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1456 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1457 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1458 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1459 </p><p>
1460 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1461 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1462 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1463 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1464 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1465 reflektere over det en har laget.
1466 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060395"></a><p>
1467 Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg.  Da
1468 det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
1469 Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
1470 ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
1471 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, &#8230; rytme, skritt og
1472 tekstur</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3060454" href="#ftn.id3060454" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
1473 datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
1474 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">spillt</span>&#8221;</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg.  Den
1475 enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
1476 teknikker nødvendig.  Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret
1477 fortellerstemmen til science fiction.  Men da han forsøkte å lage et
1478 dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
1479 lære.  Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
1480 de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
1481 forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id3060498" href="#ftn.id3060498" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1482 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060525"></a><p>
1483 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1484 filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
1485 blir ledet gjennom en film.  Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
1486 å se det, så du aner det ikke.  Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du
1487 ikke at du har vært ledet.</span>&#8221;</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
1488 film, så har filmen feilet.
1489 </p><p>
1490 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1491 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1492 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1493 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1494 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1495 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1496 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1497 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1498 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1499 skrive.
1500 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1501 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ikke kunne skrive.</span>&#8221;</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
1502 andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1503 århundre.
1504 </p><p>
1505 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes.  Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1506 kan bli både lesing og skriving.  Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1507 forståelse for håndverket å skrive.  Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1508 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede.  Målet med
1509 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gi folket
1510 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1511 uttrykke</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3060611" href="#ftn.id3060611" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
1512 mulighet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
1513 århundret</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3060633" href="#ftn.id3060633" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1514 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060640"></a><p>
1515 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1516 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1517 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1518 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1519 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1520 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1521 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1522 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1523 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1524 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1525 </p><p>
1526 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1527 skolen.  Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1528 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ungene
1529 dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta</span>&#8221;</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
1530 hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle
1531 om&#8212;å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
1532 </p><p>
1533 Ved å bruke hva som helst av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
1534 finne</span>&#8221;</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
1535 blande <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bilde, lyd og tekst</span>&#8221;</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
1536 produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få
1537 ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse
1538 studentene.  Prosjektet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
1539 de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det</span>&#8221;</span>, forklarer
1540 Barish.  Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk&#8212;mye mer vellykket
1541 og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst.
1542 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
1543 tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe
1544 annet</span>&#8221;</span>, forklarer Barish.  Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1545 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1546 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> idéene godt.
1547 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1548 uttrykk.
1549 </p><p>
1550
1551
1552
1553 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?</span>&#8221;</span> spurte
1554 jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis.  Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive?
1555 Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å
1556 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">konstruere mening</span>&#8221;</span>.  Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
1557 si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å
1558 stave. Tekstforming er bare en del&#8212;og i større grad ikke den
1559 kraftigste delen&#8212;for å konstruere mening.  Som Daley forklarte i den
1560 mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
1561 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1562 Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
1563 du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
1564 Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
1565 han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
1566 din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting.  Men han kan ikke lese teksten
1567 din.  Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
1568 Ingenting du gjør betyr noe</span>&#8221;</span>.  Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
1569 avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv.  Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil
1570 han avvise deg.  Men hvis du i stedet sier, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Vel, med alle disse
1571 tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet.  Spill musikk til
1572 meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener
1573 reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere
1574 temaet</span>&#8221;</span>.  Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og &#8230; si
1575 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
1576 film</span>&#8221;</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
1577 forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.&#8230;
1578 </p><p>
1579 Dette bemyndiger enormt.  Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
1580 har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
1581 faktumet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
1582 skrive noe</span>&#8221;</span>.  Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
1583 om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
1584 </p><p>
1585
1586 Fordi de trengte det.  Det var en grunn til å gjøre det.  De trengte å si
1587 noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe.  De trengte faktisk å
1588 bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra.  Men de hadde begynt å
1589 forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
1590 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1591 Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
1592 et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
1593 til denne nyheten.  Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
1594 ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
1595 disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne
1596 forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
1597 perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1598 </p><p>
1599 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse.  Det var musikk
1600 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1601 over skjermen.  Det var en formel for intervjuer.  Det var
1602 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">balanse</span>&#8221;</span> og seriøsitet.  Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
1603 vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nyheter som
1604 underholdning</span>&#8221;</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
1605 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3060909"></a><p>
1606 Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tragedien
1607 11. september</span>&#8221;</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
1608 tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
1609 fortellinger om de samme hendelsene.  Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde
1610 en veldig annerledes smak.  Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget
1611 bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med
1612 tekst.  Noen tilbød åpne brev.  Det var lydopptak.  Det var sinne og
1613 frustrasjon.  Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng.  Det var, kort og
1614 godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin
1615 bruker begrepet i hans bok <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, rundt en
1616 nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden.  Det var
1617 ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet.
1618 </p><p>
1619
1620 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet&#8212;selv om
1621 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises.  Jeg
1622 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale.  For på
1623 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1624 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Just
1625 Think!</span>&#8221;</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1626 </p><p>
1627 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1628 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1629 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1630 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1631 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1632 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1633 </p><p>
1634 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1635 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1636 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1637 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1638 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1639 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1640 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1641 </p><p>
1642 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1643 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1644 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1645 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1646 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1647 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1648 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1649 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1650 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1651 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1652 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1653 </p><p>
1654
1655 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1656 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1657 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1658 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1659 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1660 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1661 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1662 </p><p>
1663 Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg.  Demokrati betyr at folket
1664 styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg.  I vår tradisjon betyr det
1665 også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning.  Dette var idéen som
1666 fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
1667 nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
1668 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">demokratiet i Amerika</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
1669 fascinerte han&#8212;det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk
1670 retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere.  Og det som fascinerte
1671 han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge
1672 frem.  De diskuterte.  Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var
1673 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">riktig</span>&#8221;</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
1674 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">riktig</span>&#8221;</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
1675 enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
1676 avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id3061085" href="#ftn.id3061085" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1677 </p><p>
1678 Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag.  Og i dets sted er det
1679 ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
1680 innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id3061107" href="#ftn.id3061107" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
1681 Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
1682 Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
1683 å gjennomføre <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>&#8221;</span>.
1684 </p><p>
1685 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1686 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1687 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1688 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1689 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1690 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id3061145" href="#ftn.id3061145" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1691 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1692 </p><p>
1693
1694 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1695 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1696 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1697 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1698 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1699 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1700 </p><p>
1701 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1702 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1703 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1704 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1705 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1706 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1707 det.
1708 </p><p>
1709 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1710 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1711 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1712 lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id3061201"></a>
1713 </p><p>
1714 En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
1715 store mediene.  Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel.  Da Logg <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sa
1716 feil</span>&#8221;</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
1717 segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at
1718 historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer.
1719 Det skjedde.  Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren.
1720 Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien.  Etter hvert dukket flere og
1721 flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>&#8221;</span> opp. Så dukket
1722 historien opp igjen hos de store mediene.  Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
1723 trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id3061236" href="#ftn.id3061236" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3061247"></a>
1724 </p><p>
1725 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1726 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1727 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1728 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1729 må de bevege seg videre.
1730 </p><p>
1731 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1732 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1733 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1734 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1735 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1736 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1737 likemanns-generert rangering.
1738 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1739
1740 Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
1741 mediene.  Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
1742 programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell
1743 fraværet av finansiell <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">interessekonflikt</span>&#8221;</span>.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jeg tror du
1744 må ta interessekonflikten</span>&#8221;</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
1745 meg. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
1746 eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
1747 rydde den av veien.</span>&#8221;</span>
1748 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3061329"></a><p>
1749 Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
1750 konsentert (mer om dette under).  Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
1751 offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan&#8212;slik CNN innrømte at de
1752 gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
1753 ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id3061063" href="#ftn.id3061063" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
1754 en mer konsistent rapportering.  (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
1755 melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
1756 satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq.  New York-hovedkvarteret ba
1757 reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte
1758 tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
1759 grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var <span class="emphasis"><em>dem</em></span> som
1760 skrev <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">historien</span>&#8221;</span>.)
1761 </p><p> Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
1762 debatten&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">amatør</span>&#8221;</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
1763 betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
1764 komme med deres rapport.  Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
1765 en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
1766 hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
1767 hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id3061392" href="#ftn.id3061392" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
1768 til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">triangulere</span>&#8221;</span>,
1769 som Winer formulerer det, sannheten.  Blogger, sier Winer,
1770 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
1771 fjernet</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
1772 </p><p>
1773
1774 Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av
1775 blogger.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet</span>&#8221;</span>, spår
1776 Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
1777 Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">journalismen</span>&#8221;</span> er glad for
1778 dette&#8212;noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
1779 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id3061429" href="#ftn.id3061429" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
1780 fortsatt er i en overgangsfase.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
1781 oppvarmingsøvelser</span>&#8221;</span>, fortalte Winer meg.  Det er mye som må modne før
1782 dette området har sin modne effekt.  Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
1783 dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa
1784 Wiener at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned</span>&#8221;</span>.
1785 </p><p>
1786 Slik tale påvirker demokratiet.  Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">du
1787 trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en
1788 portvokter</span>&#8221;</span>. Det er sant.  Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
1789 annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener,
1790 og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige
1791 temaer.  Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt.  Det er
1792 vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre.  Det
1793 er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å
1794 innse at han tok feil.  Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere
1795 at noen har bevist at han tok feil.  Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og
1796 kritikk forbedrer demokratiet.  I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
1797 blogger der det skrives på denne måten.  Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
1798 være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
1799 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3061553"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
1800 John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation.  Hans arbeid, i
1801 følge hans eget nettsted, er <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og &#8230; å skape
1802 kunnskapsøkologier for å skape &#8230; innovasjon</span>&#8221;</span>.
1803 </p><p>
1804 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1805 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1806 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1807 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1808 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1809 </p><p>
1810
1811 Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle.  Da <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mange av oss vokste opp</span>&#8221;</span>,
1812 forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
1813 gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre</span>&#8221;</span>.  Men digitale
1814 teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling&#8212;med abstrakte idéer i sin
1815 konkrete form.  Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et
1816 reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker.  Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan
1817 de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og
1818 se hvordan det blir gjort.  Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags
1819 *bricolage* eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling</span>&#8221;</span>, som
1820 Brown kaller det.  Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
1821 fiklingen til mange andre.
1822 </p><p>
1823 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1824 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1825 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1826 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1827 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1828 </p><p>
1829 Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>&#8221;</span>, i
1830 følge Brown.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så &#8230; slipper
1831 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1832 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1833 forbedre den</span>&#8221;</span>.  Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Åpen
1834 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>&#8221;</span>.
1835 </p><p>
1836 I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1837 er kildekode</span>&#8221;</span>.  Unger <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1838 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1839 gjør i garasjen din.  Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. &#8230; Du
1840 fikler med andre folks greier.  Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1841 du.</span>&#8221;</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1842 </p><p>
1843 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1844 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1845 formulerer det, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1846 til flere former for intelligens</span>&#8221;</span>.  Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1847 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet
1848 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1849 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1850 &#8230;da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan
1851 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>&#8221;</span>
1852 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3061737"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3061745"></a><p>
1853
1854 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1855 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1856 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1857 </p><p>
1858 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1859 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1860 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1861 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1862 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1863 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1864 </p><p>
1865 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1866 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>) har utviklet et
1867 kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>&#8221;</span> slik det
1868 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id3061796" href="#ftn.id3061796" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det
1869 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1870 loven.
1871 </p><p>
1872 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1873 på vei</span>&#8221;</span>, forklarer Brown.  Vi må <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1874 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>&#8221;</span>.
1875 </p><p>
1876 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Likevel</span>&#8221;</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1877 føre bevis for, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1878 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We
1879 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1880 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>&#8221;</span>.
1881 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3061855"></a><p>
1882 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1883 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1884 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1885 teknologien.
1886 </p><p>
1887 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>&#8221;</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1888 møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1889 nedstemthet.
1890 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059787" href="#id3059787" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1891
1892
1893 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1894 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1895 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057076" href="#id3057076" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1896
1897 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1898 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3059840"></a>
1899 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059866" href="#id3059866" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1900
1901
1902 Jenkins, 177.
1903 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059875" href="#id3059875" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1904
1905
1906 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1907 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059817" href="#id3059817" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1908
1909
1910 Coe, 58.
1911 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059969" href="#id3059969" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1912
1913
1914 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1915 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1916 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1917 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1918 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1919 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060039" href="#id3060039" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1920
1921 Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>&#8221;</span>,
1922 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3060050"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3060058"></a>
1923 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060093" href="#id3060093" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1924
1925
1926 Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
1927 and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
1928 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Privacy</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48
1929 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
1930 Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
1931 sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1932 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060259" href="#id3060259" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1933
1934
1935 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1936 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>&#8221;</span>
1937 cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1938 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060355" href="#id3060355" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1939
1940
1941 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1942 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Findings on
1943 Family and TV Study</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1944 1997, B6.
1945 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060454" href="#id3060454" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1946
1947 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1948 <a class="indexterm" name="id3060462"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3060470"></a>
1949 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060498" href="#id3060498" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1950
1951
1952 Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>&#8221;</span>, E!online,
1953 4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1954 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Timeline</span>&#8221;</span>, 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
1955 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060611" href="#id3060611" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1956
1957 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3060617"></a>
1958 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060633" href="#id3060633" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1959
1960
1961 ibid.
1962 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061085" href="#id3061085" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1963
1964
1965 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1966 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1967 2000), kap. 16.
1968 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061107" href="#id3061107" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1969
1970
1971 Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Deliberation Day</span>&#8221;</span>,
1972 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1973 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061145" href="#id3061145" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1974
1975
1976 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1977 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1978 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061236" href="#id3061236" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1979
1980
1981 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1982 Pot</span>&#8221;</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
1983 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061063" href="#id3061063" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1984
1985
1986 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1987 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061392" href="#id3061392" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1988
1989
1990 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1991 Information Online</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar
1992 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
1993 Strong Overall</span>&#8221;</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
1994 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1995 #10</a>.
1996 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061429" href="#id3061429" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
1997
1998 Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>&#8221;</span>
1999 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ikke
2000 alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like stor aksept for ansatte som
2001 blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i Irak som startet en blogg om
2002 sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å publisere 12 dager senere på
2003 forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve Olafson, en
2004 <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en
2005 personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av
2006 temaene og folkene som han dekket</span>&#8221;</span>)  <a class="indexterm" name="id3061487"></a>
2007 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061796" href="#id3061796" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
2008
2009
2010 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Technological Access
2011 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>&#8221;</span>
2012 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
2013 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
2014 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3061905"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
2015 Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
2016 førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
2017 Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var
2018 en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
2019 søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2020 </p><p>
2021 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2022 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2023 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
2024 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2025 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2026 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2027 nettverksalderen.
2028 </p><p>
2029 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2030 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2031 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
2032 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2033 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2034 </p><p>
2035
2036 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2037 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2038 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket.  Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2039 enda bedre.  Ideen med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intranett</span>&#8221;</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2040 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2041 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2042 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2043 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2044 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2045 </p><p>
2046 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2047 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2048 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2049 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2050 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2051 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2052 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2053 </p><p>
2054 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2055 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2056 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2057 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2058 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2059 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2060 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2061 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2062 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2063 </p><p>
2064 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2065 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2066 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2067 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2068 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2069 </p><p>
2070
2071 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2072 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2073 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2074 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2075 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2076 datamaskiner.
2077 </p><p>
2078 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2079 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2080 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2081 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2082 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2083 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2084 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2085 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2086 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2087 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2088 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2089 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2090 </p><p>
2091 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2092 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for innspillingsindustri i USA,
2093 RIAA, wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han
2094 ikke en gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere
2095 ble Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2096 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2097 forbauset.
2098 </p><p>
2099 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>&#8221;</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
2100 ikke gjorde noe galt. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2101 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; hva jeg hadde gjort med den.  Jeg
2102 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2103 arbeidet til pirater.  Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2104 bruke</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2105 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2106 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2107 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2108 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2109 </p><p>
2110
2111 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat.  De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2112 dermed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">med vilje</span>&#8221;</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene.  De krevde
2113 at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt.  I saker
2114 med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>&#8221;</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
2115 som advokater kaller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>&#8221;</span>.  Disse skadene
2116 tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
2117 Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
2118 opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
2119 $15 000 000.
2120 </p><p>
2121 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2122 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2123 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse.  Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2124 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2125 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">erstatning</span>&#8221;</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på.  Hvis du summerte
2126 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2127 saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>&#8212;seks ganger det
2128 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2129 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3062201" href="#ftn.id3062201" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2130 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3062218"></a><p>
2131 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2132 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2133 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2134 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2135 </p><p>
2136 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt.  Han
2137 nektet.  De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2138 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2139 hans liv.  Han nektet.  De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2140 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig.  (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2141 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Du ønsker
2142 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>&#8221;</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2143 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2144 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2145 </p><p>
2146
2147 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2148 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2149 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2150 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2151 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2152 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2153 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2154 konkurs.
2155 </p><p>
2156 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2157 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2158 </p><p>
2159 Innspillingsindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.
2160 La oss legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er
2161 moralen i et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er
2162 en spesielt mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer
2163 enn $1 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.
2164 Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id3062278" href="#ftn.id3062278" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2165 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2166 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id3062323" href="#ftn.id3062323" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2167 </p><p>
2168 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2169 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2170 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2171 aktivist:
2172 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2173 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2174 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2175 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2176 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2177 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2178 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2179 aktivist.  Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
2180 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. &#8230; Han er ingen
2181 treklemmer. &#8230; Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2182 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap.  Og han ønsker å
2183 korrigere rullebladet.</span>&#8221;</span>
2184 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062201" href="#id3062201" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2185
2186
2187
2188 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2189 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2190 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2191 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062278" href="#id3062278" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2192
2193
2194 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2195 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2196 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2197 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062323" href="#id3062323" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2198
2199
2200 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2201 Punishment,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
2202 10. september 2003, A24.
2203 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: &#8220;Pirater&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Pirater</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2204 Hvis <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen
2205 til andre uten deres tillatelse&#8212;hvis <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
2206 rettighet</span>&#8221;</span> er sant&#8212;da er historien om innholdsindustrien en
2207 historie om piratvirksomhet.  Hver eneste viktige sektor av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">store
2208 medier</span>&#8221;</span> i dag&#8212;film, plater, radio og kabel-TV&#8212;kom fra en
2209 slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen.  Den konsekvente fortellingen
2210 er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne generasjonens
2211 borgerskap&#8212;inntil nå.
2212 </p><div class="section" title="4.1. Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
2213
2214 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id3062435" href="#ftn.id3062435" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
2215 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2216 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2217 Edison.  Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2218 monopol-<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kartell</span>&#8221;</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2219 basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter&#8212;patenter. Edison
2220 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2221 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2222 </p><p>
2223 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2224 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2225 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2226 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2227 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2228 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2229 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2230 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2231 undergrunnsmarked.
2232 </p><p>
2233 With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
2234 nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
2235 forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company to block
2236 the entry of non-licensed independents. With coercive tactics that have
2237 become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment,
2238 discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
2239 effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
2240 exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
2241 defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id3062516" href="#ftn.id3062516" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3062548"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3062555"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3062561"></a>
2242 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2243 The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">independents,</span>&#8221;</span> were companies
2244 like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
2245 resisted.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
2246 `accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
2247 sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3062582" href="#ftn.id3062582" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to flee the East
2248 Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers
2249 there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And the leaders
2250 of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
2251 </p><p>
2252
2253 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2254 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2255 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">begrenset</span>&#8221;</span> monopol (kun sytten
2256 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2257 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2258 kreative rettigheter.
2259 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.2. Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
2260 Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2261 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2262 musikk.
2263 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3062658"></a><p>
2264 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2265 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2266 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2267 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2268 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2269 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>&#8221;</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2270 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2271 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2272 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3062686"></a><p>
2273 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>&#8221;</span> ved hjelp av
2274 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2275 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2276 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2277 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2278 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>&#8221;</span> hvis jeg
2279 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2280 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2281 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2282 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av opphavsrettsloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2283 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2284 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2285 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2286 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2287 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2288 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3062715"></a><p>
2289 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2290 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2291 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id3062751"></a>
2292 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2293 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2294 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2295 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2296 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2297 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2298 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3062778" href="#ftn.id3062778" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2299 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2300 The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
2301 were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of
2302 American composers,</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3062811" href="#ftn.id3062811" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the
2303 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>&#8221;</span> was thereby <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">at the complete
2304 mercy of this one pirate.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3062825" href="#ftn.id3062825" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As
2305 John Philip Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">When they
2306 make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3062839" href="#ftn.id3062839" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2307 </p><p>
2308 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2309 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2310 argued that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
2311 automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
2312 before their introduction.</span>&#8221;</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
2313 of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id3062860" href="#ftn.id3062860" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
2314 innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to consider first the
2315 interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
2316 are.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>&#8221;</span> the general counsel of
2317 the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
2318 there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
2319 defined by statute.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3062884" href="#ftn.id3062884" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2320 <a class="indexterm" name="id3062894"></a>
2321 </p><p>
2322
2323 The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
2324 <span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the law to
2325 make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mechanical
2326 reproductions</span>&#8221;</span> of their music. But rather than simply granting the
2327 composer complete control over the right to make mechanical reproductions,
2328 Congress gave recording artists a right to record the music, at a price set
2329 by Congress, once the composer allowed it to be recorded once. This is the
2330 part of copyright law that makes cover songs possible. Once a composer
2331 authorizes a recording of his song, others are free to record the same song,
2332 so long as they pay the original composer a fee set by the law.
2333 </p><p>
2334 American law ordinarily calls this a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">compulsory license,</span>&#8221;</span> but
2335 I will refer to it as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">statutory license.</span>&#8221;</span> A statutory
2336 license is a license whose key terms are set by law. After Congress's
2337 amendment of the Copyright Act in 1909, record companies were free to
2338 distribute copies of recordings so long as they paid the composer (or
2339 copyright holder)  the fee set by the statute.
2340 </p><p>
2341 This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham writes a
2342 novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham gives the
2343 publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
2344 for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham,
2345 and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's
2346 work except with permission of Grisham.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3062949"></a>
2347 </p><p>
2348 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2349 effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
2350 through a kind of piracy&#8212;by giving recording artists a weaker right
2351 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2352 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2353 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2354 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2355 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2356 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2357 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2358 follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id3062475" href="#ftn.id3062475" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3062990"></a>
2359 </p><p>
2360 While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
2361 historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
2362 records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary relates,
2363 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2364 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2365 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2366 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2367 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2368 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2369 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2370 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2371 recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2372 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2373 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2374 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2375 choice.<sup>[<a name="id3063022" href="#ftn.id3063022" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2376 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2377 By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
2378 work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
2379 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.3. Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
2380 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2381 </p><p>
2382 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
2383 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public performance</span>&#8221;</span> of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id3063062" href="#ftn.id3063062" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As I described above, the law gives the composer
2384 (or copyright holder)  an exclusive right to public performances of his
2385 work. The radio station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
2386 </p><p>
2387
2388 But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
2389 of the <span class="emphasis"><em>composer's</em></span> work. The radio station is also
2390 performing a copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>recording artist's</em></span> work. It's
2391 one thing to have <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> sung on the radio by the
2392 local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling
2393 Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the
2394 composition performed on the radio station.  And if the law were perfectly
2395 consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his
2396 work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063138"></a>
2397
2398
2399 </p><p>
2400 But it doesn't. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio
2401 station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need
2402 only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for
2403 nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist's work for free, even if it
2404 must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song.
2405 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2406 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2407 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2408 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2409 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2410 </p><p>
2411 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2412 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2413 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2414 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2415 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2416 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>&#8221;</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2417 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2418 betale henne noen ting.
2419 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3063207"></a><p>
2420 No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
2421 benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
2422 performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
2423 gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
2424 him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
2425 nothing.
2426 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
2427
2428 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2429 </p><p>
2430
2431 When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
2432 television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
2433 they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
2434 selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
2435 sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
2436 egregiously than anything Napster ever did&#8212; Napster never charged for
2437 the content it enabled others to give away.
2438 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3063243"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3063259"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3063265"></a><p>
2439 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.  Rosel
2440 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">unfair
2441 and potentially destructive competition.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3063279" href="#ftn.id3063279" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public interest</span>&#8221;</span> in spreading
2442 the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
2443 National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
2444 testimony, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
2445 property?</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3063306" href="#ftn.id3063306" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
2446 broadcaster put it,
2447 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2448 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2449 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2450 for.<sup>[<a name="id3063323" href="#ftn.id3063323" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2451 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2452 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2453 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2454 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2455 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2456 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2457 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id3063351" href="#ftn.id3063351" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2458 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3063362"></a><p>
2459 Disse var <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>&#8221;</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2460 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2461 skuespillerne</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3063378" href="#ftn.id3063378" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2462 </p><p>
2463 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2464 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2465 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2466 Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
2467 protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
2468 already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
2469 extend that monopoly. &#8230; The question here is how much compensation
2470 they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
2471 compensation.<sup>[<a name="id3062356" href="#ftn.id3062356" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063430"></a>
2472 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2473 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2474 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2475 </p><p>
2476 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
2477 whether cable companies had to pay for the content they
2478 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirated.</span>&#8221;</span> In the end, Congress resolved this question in the
2479 same way that it resolved the question about record players and player
2480 pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they
2481 broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
2482 owner.  The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise
2483 veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
2484 built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> of the value created
2485 by broadcasters' content.
2486 </p><p>
2487 These separate stories sing a common theme. If <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> means
2488 using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
2489 that creator&#8212;as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id3063419" href="#ftn.id3063419" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> &#8212; then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
2490 affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
2491 of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. &#8230; The list is long and
2492 could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
2493 last. Every generation&#8212;until now.
2494 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062435" href="#id3062435" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2495
2496 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2497 ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
2498 and Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2499 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eventyr</span>&#8221;</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id3062451"></a>
2500 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062516" href="#id3062516" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2501
2502
2503 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2504 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
2505 expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2506 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>&#8221;</span> available at
2507 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
2508 discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
2509 imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From Edison
2510 to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
2511 Propertization of Copyright</span>&#8221;</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
2512 Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
2513 No. 159.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062582" href="#id3062582" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2514
2515
2516 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2517 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2518 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062778" href="#id3062778" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2519
2520 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
2521 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
2522 sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2523 chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2524 Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2525 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3062791"></a>
2526 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062811" href="#id3062811" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2527
2528
2529 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2530 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2531 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062825" href="#id3062825" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2532
2533
2534 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2535 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2536 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062839" href="#id3062839" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2537
2538
2539 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2540 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2541 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062860" href="#id3062860" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2542
2543
2544
2545 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2546 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2547 Company of New York).
2548 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062884" href="#id3062884" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2549
2550
2551 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
2552 memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
2553 Graphophone Company Association).
2554 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062475" href="#id3062475" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2555
2556
2557
2558 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
2559 H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
2560 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2561 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
2562 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2563 Reprints, 1976).
2564 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063022" href="#id3063022" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2565
2566
2567 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2568 the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
2569 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063062" href="#id3063062" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2570
2571 See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
2572 the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
2573 Broadcast</span>&#8221;</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
2574 play a record on a radio station.  Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
2575 that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
2576 station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2577 Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2578 Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2579 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2580 Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2581 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063094"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063102"></a>
2582 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063279" href="#id3063279" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2583
2584 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
2585 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2586 on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)  (statement of Rosel
2587 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063250"></a>
2588 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063306" href="#id3063306" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2589
2590
2591 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2592 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2593 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063323" href="#id3063323" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2594
2595
2596 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2597 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2598 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063351" href="#id3063351" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2599
2600
2601 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.  Krim,
2602 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2603 Artists Television, Inc.).
2604 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063378" href="#id3063378" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2605
2606 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2607 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063356"></a>
2608 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062356" href="#id3062356" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2609
2610 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2611 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063382"></a>
2612 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063419" href="#id3063419" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2613
2614
2615 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2616 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2617 Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The threat of
2618 piracy&#8212;the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2619 compensation&#8212;has grown with the Internet.</span>&#8221;</span>
2620 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: &#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2621 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2622 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2623 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2624 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2625 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2626 </p><p>
2627
2628 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
2629 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
2630 taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
2631 we paint this taking <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> however, we should understand
2632 its nature a bit more.  For the harm of this taking is significantly more
2633 ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
2634 ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
2635
2636 </p><div class="section" title="5.1. Piratvirksomhet I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><p>
2637 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2638 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2639 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2640 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2641 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id3063410" href="#ftn.id3063410" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2642 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2643 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2644 </p><p>
2645 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2646 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2647 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2648 </p><p>
2649 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2650 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2651 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2652 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2653 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2654 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2655 treated as right.
2656 </p><p>
2657 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2658 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2659 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2660 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2661 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2662 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2663 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2664 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2665 legal wrong as well.
2666 </p><p>
2667 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2668 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2669
2670 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2671 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2672 </p><p>
2673 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2674 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2675 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2676 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id3063647" href="#ftn.id3063647" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2677 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2678 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2679 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2680 </p><p>
2681 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2682 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2683 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2684 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2685 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id3063711" href="#ftn.id3063711" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2686 </p><p>
2687 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2688 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2689 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2690 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
2691 Barnes &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2692 should it be any different with on-line music?</span>&#8221;</span> The difference is, of
2693 course, that when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less
2694 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2695 there is not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the
2696 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2697 </p><p>
2698
2699 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2700 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2701 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2702 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2703 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2704 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2705 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2706 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take</span>&#8221;</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2707 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2708 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2709 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2710 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2711 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
2712 means.
2713 </p><p>
2714 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2715 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2716 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2717 Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2718 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2719 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2720 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2721 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2722 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2723 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft.  Without
2724 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063816"></a>
2725 <a class="indexterm" name="id3063823"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063829"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063840"></a>
2726 </p><p>
2727 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2728 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2729 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2730 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2731 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2732 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2733 </p><p>
2734 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2735 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2736 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2737 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2738 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2739 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2740 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2741 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2742 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2743 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063567"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063865"></a>
2744 <a class="indexterm" name="id3063886"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063892"></a>
2745 </p><p>
2746
2747
2748 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2749 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2750 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2751 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2752 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2753 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2754 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2755 </p><p>
2756 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2757 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
2758 is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> is wrong if that term is
2759 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2760 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2761 content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our tradition nor any
2762 tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> in that sense of the
2763 term.
2764 </p><p>
2765 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2766 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2767 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2768 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2769 </p><p>
2770 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2771 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2772 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2773 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2774 </p><p>
2775 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2776 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2777 </p></div><div class="section" title="5.2. Piratvirksomhet II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piratvirksomhet II</h2></div></div></div><p>
2778
2779 The key to the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2780 that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3063976" href="#ftn.id3063976" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2781 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2782 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2783 </p><p>
2784 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2785 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2786 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2787 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id3064000" href="#ftn.id3064000" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2788 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2789 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3064030"></a>
2790 </p><p>
2791 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2792 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2793 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id3064044" href="#ftn.id3064044" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2794 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2795 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2796 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2797 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2798 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2799 or your 20,000 best friends.
2800 </p><p>
2801 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2802 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2803 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2804 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id3064093" href="#ftn.id3064093" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2805 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2806 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2807 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id3064121" href="#ftn.id3064121" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2808 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2809 being <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taken</span>&#8221;</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2810 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2811 they hadn't before.
2812 </p><p>
2813 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2814 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2815 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2816 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2817 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2818 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2819 </p><p>
2820
2821
2822 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2823 fire typer.
2824 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2825
2826 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2827 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2828 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2829 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2830 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2831 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2832 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3064181"></a>
2833 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2834
2835
2836 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2837 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2838 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2839 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2840 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2841 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2842 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2843 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2844
2845
2846 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2847 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2848 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2849 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2850 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2851 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2852 solid weekend <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">recalling</span>&#8221;</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2853 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2854 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2855 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2856 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2857 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2858 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2864 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2865 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2866 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2867 </p><p>
2868 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2869 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2870 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id3064251" href="#ftn.id3064251" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2871 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2872 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2873 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2874 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2875 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2876 </p><p>
2877 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2878 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2879 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2880 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2881 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft</span>&#8221;</span> that is
2882 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">devastating</span>&#8221;</span> the industry.
2883 </p><p>
2884 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2885 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2886 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2887 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2888 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2889 fought it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3064304" href="#ftn.id3064304" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2890 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2891 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2892 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2893 the answer.
2894 </p><p>
2895 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2896 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2897 turnaround. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the end,</span>&#8221;</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
2898 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2899 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2900 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3063722" href="#ftn.id3063722" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2901 </p><p>
2902 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2903 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2904 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2905 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2906 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2907 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2908 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2909 other types of sharing are.
2910 </p><p>
2911 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2912 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2913 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">net harm</span>&#8221;</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2914 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2915 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2916 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2917 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2918
2919 </p><p>
2920 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2921 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2922 it might be close.
2923 </p><p>
2924 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2925 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id3064410" href="#ftn.id3064410" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2926 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2927 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2928 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2929 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2930 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2931 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3064468" href="#ftn.id3064468" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2932 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2933 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2934 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2935 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3064505" href="#ftn.id3064505" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2936 </p><p>
2937
2938
2939
2940 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2941 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2942 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2943 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2944 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2945 percent.
2946 </p><p>
2947 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2948 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2949 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2950 song and stealing a CD?</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2951 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2952 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2953 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2954 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2955 [his] profit</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2956 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2957 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2958 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2959 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>&#8221;</span>
2960 </p><p>
2961 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2962 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2963 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2964 </p><p>
2965 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2966 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2967 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2968 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id3064554" href="#ftn.id3064554" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2969 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2970 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2971 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2972 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2973 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2974 </p><p>
2975 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2976 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2977 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id3064595" href="#ftn.id3064595" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2978 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2979 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2980 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2981 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2982 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2983 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2984 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3064645"></a><p>
2985 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2986 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2987 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
2988 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2989 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
2990 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>&#8221;</span> I still have it. That
2991 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
2992 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
2993 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
2994 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
2995 the market.
2996 </p><p>
2997 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
2998 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
2999 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
3000 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
3001 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
3002 well?
3003 </p><p>
3004
3005 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
3006 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
3007 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
3008 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
3009 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
3010 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
3011 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
3012 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">real</span>&#8221;</span> book. People
3013 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
3014 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
3015 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
3016 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
3017 great book!)
3018 </p><p>
3019 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3020 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3021 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3022 important in order to protect type A content.
3023 </p><p>
3024 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3025 says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>&#8221;</span> we must also ask,
3026 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3027 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3028 unavailable?</span>&#8221;</span>
3029 </p><p>
3030 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3031 of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3032 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: &#8220;Pirater&#8221;">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
3033 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3034 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3035 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3036 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3037 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3038 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3039 balance will be found only with time.
3040 </p><p>
3041 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling?  Er ikke
3042 angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>&#8221;</span>
3043 </p><p>
3044 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3045 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3046 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3047 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3048 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3049 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3050 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">down to
3051 zero.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3064775" href="#ftn.id3064775" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3052 </p><p>
3053 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3054 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3055 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3056 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3057 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3058 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3059 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3060 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3061 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3062 </p><p>
3063 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3064 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3065 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3066 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3067 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3068 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3069 less.
3070 </p><p>
3071 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>&#8221;</span> threatened
3072 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3073 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3074 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3075 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3076 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3077 that their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> was not being respected (since
3078 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3079 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3080 </p><p>
3081 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3082 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3083 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3084 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3085 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3086 </p><p>
3087
3088
3089
3090 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3091 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3092 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3093 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3094 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3095 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3096 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3097 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3098 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3099 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3100 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3101 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3102 control over the future (cable).
3103 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3064883"></a><p>
3104 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3105 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3106 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3107 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3108 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3109 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3110 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">record</span>&#8221;</span> button, the device could
3111 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3112 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3113 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3114 infringement.
3115 </p><p>
3116
3117 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3118 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3119 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3120 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3121 only if there were a special <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy me</span>&#8221;</span> signal on the line. It
3122 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3123 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3124 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3125 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3126 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3127 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3128 </p><p>
3129 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3130 called VCRs <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>&#8221;</span> He warned, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3131 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3132 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3133 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3064943" href="#ftn.id3064943" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3134 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>&#8221;</span> he told Congress,
3135 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3136 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3137 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3138 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3064964" href="#ftn.id3064964" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3139 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id3064974" href="#ftn.id3064974" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3140 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair.</span>&#8221;</span> By
3141 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3142 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3143 copyrightowners,</span>&#8221;</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take from
3144 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3145 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3146 from its reproduction.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3065002" href="#ftn.id3065002" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3147 </p><p>
3148 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3149 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3150 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3151 refers to it as the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3152 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3153 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3154 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3155 of the American film industry</span>&#8221;</span> (worse yet, it was a
3156 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3157 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id3065025" href="#ftn.id3065025" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3065049"></a>
3158 </p><p>
3159
3160 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3161 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3162 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3163 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3164 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3165 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3166 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3167 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3168 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3169 technology.<sup>[<a name="id3065074" href="#ftn.id3065074" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3170 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3171 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3172 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3173 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3174 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3175 pattern is clear:
3176 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char">Tilfelle</th><th align="char">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">røvet</span>&#8221;</span></th><th align="char">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="char">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Innspillinger</td><td align="char">Komponister</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Radio</td><td align="char">Innspillingsartister</td><td align="char">N/A</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Kabel-TV</td><td align="char">Kringkastere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">VCR</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
3177 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3178 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id3065206" href="#ftn.id3065206" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3179 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
3180 ride</span>&#8221;</span> on someone else's work.
3181 </p><p>
3182
3183 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3184 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3185 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3186 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3187 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy.</span>&#8221;</span> In every
3188 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3189 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3190 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3191 stake.
3192
3193 </p><p>
3194 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3195 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3196 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3197 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3198 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3199 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3200 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3201 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3202 </p><p>
3203 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3204 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3205 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3206 possible uses of his work.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3065307" href="#ftn.id3065307" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3207 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3208 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3209 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3210 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3211 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3212 </p><p>
3213 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3214 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3215 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3216 become a tool for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing</span>&#8221;</span> from artists. But neither should
3217 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3218 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3219 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3220 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3221 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3222 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3223 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3224 </p><p>
3225
3226
3227 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3228 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3229 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3230 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3231 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>&#8221;</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3232 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3233 P2P fight.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3065367" href="#ftn.id3065367" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
3234 begins to talk about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">balance,</span>&#8221;</span> the copyright warriors raise a
3235 different argument. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
3236 incentives,</span>&#8221;</span> they say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
3237 content,</span>&#8221;</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is our
3238 <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
3239 `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
3240 police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
3241 all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
3242 good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>&#8221;</span>
3243 </p><p>
3244 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>&#8221;</span> insisterer
3245 krigerne. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
3246 eiendom er beskyttet.</span>&#8221;</span>
3247 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063410" href="#id3063410" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3248
3249
3250 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3251 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3252 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3253 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3254 Risk,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3255 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063647" href="#id3063647" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3256
3257 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3258 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3259 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3260 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3261 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3262 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3263 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3264 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3265 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3266 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3267 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3268 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3269 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3270 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3062867"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063692"></a>
3271 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063711" href="#id3063711" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3272
3273 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3274 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3275 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3276 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3277 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3278 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3279 pirating were not an option.</span>&#8221;</span> Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063728"></a>
3280 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063976" href="#id3063976" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3281
3282
3283 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3284 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3285 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064000" href="#id3064000" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3286
3287 See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
3288 Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
3289 Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen
3290 examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
3291 frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
3292 for their own products.  This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
3293 reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
3294 Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
3295 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3063720"></a>
3296 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064044" href="#id3064044" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3297
3298
3299 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3300 Nightmare,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3301 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3302 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Napster
3303 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3304 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3305 Call,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3306 Naughton, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>&#8221;</span> (London)
3307 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3308 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064093" href="#id3064093" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3309
3310
3311
3312 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3313 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3314 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3315 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3316 computers.
3317 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064121" href="#id3064121" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3318
3319
3320 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>&#8221;</span>
3321 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
3322 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064251" href="#id3064251" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3323
3324 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3325 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3064019"></a>
3326 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064304" href="#id3064304" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3327
3328
3329 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3330 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3331 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3332 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3333 cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
3334 music.</span>&#8221;</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3335 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
3336 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3337 format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3338 <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3339 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3340 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063722" href="#id3063722" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3341
3342
3343 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3344 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064410" href="#id3064410" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3345
3346
3347 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3348 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3349 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3350 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3351 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3352 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3353 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3354 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3355 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3356 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3357 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3358 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>&#8221;</span>
3359 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064468" href="#id3064468" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3360 Jane Black, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>&#8221;</span>, BusinessWeek online,
3361 13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3064484"></a>
3362 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064505" href="#id3064505" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3363
3364
3365 ibid.
3366 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064554" href="#id3064554" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3367
3368
3369 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3370 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3371 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3372 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3373 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3374 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064595" href="#id3064595" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3375
3376
3377 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3378 existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
3379 an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
3380 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
3381 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3382 #19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
3383 National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
3384 Results,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3385 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064775" href="#id3064775" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3386
3387
3388 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3389 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3390 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3391 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3392 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3393 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3394 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064943" href="#id3064943" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3395
3396
3397 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3398 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3399 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3400 of America, Inc.).
3401 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064964" href="#id3064964" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3402
3403
3404 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3405 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064974" href="#id3064974" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3406
3407
3408 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3409 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3410 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065002" href="#id3065002" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3411
3412
3413 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3414 Valenti).
3415 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065025" href="#id3065025" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3416
3417
3418 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3419 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3420 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065074" href="#id3065074" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3421
3422
3423 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3424 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3425 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065206" href="#id3065206" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3426
3427 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3428 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3429 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3430 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3431 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3432 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3433 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3434 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3435 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From
3436 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3437 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3064797"></a>
3438 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065307" href="#id3065307" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3439
3440
3441 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3442 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3443 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065367" href="#id3065367" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3444
3445
3446 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3447 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22
3448 September 2003, C3.
3449 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del II. &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Del II. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>&#8221;</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="&#8220;Eiendom&#8221;"><div></div><p>
3450
3451
3452
3453 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3454 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3455 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder
3456 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3457 kan få.
3458 </p><p>
3459 Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
3460 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>&#8221;</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
3461 er en merkelig type eiendom.  Selve ideen om eienrettigheter til en ide
3462 eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig.  Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
3463 tar en picnic-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage.  Jeg tar en ting,
3464 picnic-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det.  Men hva tar jeg
3465 når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>ideen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
3466 picnic-bordet i bakhagen&#8212;ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
3467 kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
3468 </p><p>
3469 The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas,
3470 though that's an important difference. The point instead is that in the
3471 ordinary case&#8212;indeed, in practically every case except for a narrow
3472 range of exceptions&#8212;ideas released to the world are free. I don't take
3473 anything from you when I copy the way you dress&#8212;though I might seem
3474 weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a
3475 woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
3476 copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">He who receives an idea from me,
3477 receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
3478 taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3065490" href="#ftn.id3065490" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3479 </p><p>
3480 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3481 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3482 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min ide eller uttrykk uten
3483 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det flyktige til eiendom.
3484 </p><p>
3485 But how, and to what extent, and in what form&#8212;the details, in other
3486 words&#8212;matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
3487 intangible into property emerged, we need to place this
3488 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> in its proper context.<sup>[<a name="id3065542" href="#ftn.id3065542" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3489 </p><p>
3490 My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding
3491 part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright material
3492 is property</span>&#8221;</span> in context. Where did the idea come from? What are its
3493 limits? How does it function in practice? After these stories, the
3494 significance of this true statement&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright material is
3495 property</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; will be a bit more clear, and its implications will
3496 be revealed as quite different from the implications that the copyright
3497 warriors would have us draw.
3498 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065490" href="#id3065490" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3499
3500
3501 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3502 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3503 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3504 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065542" href="#id3065542" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3505
3506
3507 As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
3508 intangible.  A property right is simply a right that an individual has
3509 against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not attach
3510 to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to
3511 which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff,
3512 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>&#8221;</span>
3513 <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
3514 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3065595"></a><p>
3515 William Shakespeare skrev <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i
3516 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store
3517 skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
3518 til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
3519 kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
3520 vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
3521 som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men
3522 Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer.</span>&#8221;</span>
3523 </p><p>
3524
3525 I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
3526 skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>&#8221;</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
3527 utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id3065638" href="#ftn.id3065638" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
3528 var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
3529 Conger</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3065674" href="#ftn.id3065674" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
3530 boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
3531 en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kopier</span>&#8221;</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
3532 forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
3533 kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
3534 konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3535 </p><p>
3536 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
3537 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
3538 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3539 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
3540 beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
3541 forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
3542 en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id3065721" href="#ftn.id3065721" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
3543 grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt
3544 i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
3545 1774?
3546 </p><p>
3547 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3548 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3549 engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>, var det ingen annen
3550 lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
3551 lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
3552 over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
3553 ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
3554 at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3065775"></a>
3555 </p><p>
3556 At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3557 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3558 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3559 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3560 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3561 dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Common law</span>&#8221;</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
3562 lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
3563 bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
3564 det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
3565 beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3566 </p><p>
3567
3568 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>&#8221;</span>,
3569 som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
3570 Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
3571 hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The
3572 Conger</span>&#8221;</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
3573 for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
3574 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>.
3575 </p><p>
3576 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eieren</span>&#8221;</span> av
3577 en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
3578 bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
3579 retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
3580 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
3581 hadde tenkt.
3582 </p><p>
3583 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3584 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3585 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3586 </p><p>
3587 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3588 krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3589 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3590 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3591 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3592 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3593 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3594 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3595 finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stjeler</span>&#8221;</span> Shakespeares verk?
3596 </p><p>
3597 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3598 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span> ble
3599 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3600 </p><p>
3601
3602 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3603 begrepet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
3604 det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
3605 født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
3606 reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>&#8221;</span> en rett til å bruke
3607 en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
3608 dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
3609 verk kunne <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
3610 samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
3611 rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
3612 fremføre, og så videre.
3613 </p><p>
3614 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3615 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3616 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3617 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3618 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3619 lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>&#8221;</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
3620 til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3621 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3065975"></a><p>
3622 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3623 en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>&#8221;</span>,
3624 spesielt <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">enerett</span>&#8221;</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
3625 utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
3626 monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
3627 VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
3628 spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
3629 makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>&#8221;</span> vedtatt
3630 for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var
3631 parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
3632 </p><p>
3633 Dermed ble <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>&#8221;</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
3634 en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
3635 om at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>&#8221;</span> prøv
3636 hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
3637 skal ha det for alltid.</span>&#8221;</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
3638 så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
3639 skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3640 </p><p>
3641 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3642 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3643 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3644 England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Conger</span>&#8221;</span> ble av en voksende mengde
3645 sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
3646 undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
3647 monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
3648 som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>&#8221;</span>;
3649 de var <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde  et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
3650 nødvendig.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3066073" href="#ftn.id3066073" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3651 </p><p>
3652 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3653 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3654 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3655 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3656 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3657 </p><p>
3658 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3659 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3660 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3661 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3662 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3663 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3664 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3665 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3666 </p><p>
3667 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3668 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3669 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>, og
3670 fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
3671 1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
3672 år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3673 </p><p>
3674 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3675 idag,
3676 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3677 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3678 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3679 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3680 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3681 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3682 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id3066156" href="#ftn.id3066156" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3683 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3684 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3685 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>
3686 ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3687 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3688 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3689 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute
3690 of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
3691 betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>
3692 utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
3693 de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
3694 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
3695 var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
3696 </p><p>
3697 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3698 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3699 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">var utgiverne &#8230; like
3700 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3064350" href="#ftn.id3064350" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3701 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3702 forfatterens verk ga.
3703 </p><p>
3704 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3705 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id3066263" href="#ftn.id3066263" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3706 </p><p>
3707 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Conger</span>&#8221;</span>. Han startet
3708 in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
3709 standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of
3710 Anne</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3066290" href="#ftn.id3066290" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
3711 og ble <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Blant
3712 dem,</span>&#8221;</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
3713 som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
3714 skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3066320" href="#ftn.id3066320" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066329"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066335"></a>
3715 </p><p>
3716 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3717 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">de
3718 mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3719 eiendom.</span>&#8221;</span> <sup>[<a name="id3066356" href="#ftn.id3066356" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
3720 mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Conger</span>&#8221;</span>s, og han baserte
3721 sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of
3722 Anne</span>&#8221;</span>, var falt i det fri.
3723 </p><p>
3724 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirater</span>&#8221;</span> som
3725 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3726 i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
3727 <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3728 </p><p>
3729 Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3730 Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>&#8221;</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
3731 gjennom <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
3732 uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
3733 sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
3734 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id3066417" href="#ftn.id3066417" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3735 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3736 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3737 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3738 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span> gav
3739 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3740 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3741 mot <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirater</span>&#8221;</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
3742 Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
3743 sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3744 </p><p>
3745
3746 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3747 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3748 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3749 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3750 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3751 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3752 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3753 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3754 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3755 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3066500"></a><p>
3756 Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>s begrensninger sluttet
3757 uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3758 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3066518"></a><p>
3759 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3760 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3761 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id3066531" href="#ftn.id3066531" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3762 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3763 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3764 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3765 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3766 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3767 </p><p>
3768 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3769 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3770 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3771 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of
3772 Anne</span>&#8221;</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span> var blitt vedtatt,
3773 skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
3774 mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>&#8221;</span>, falle i det
3775 fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3776 </p><p>
3777 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3778 huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">juslorder</span>&#8221;</span>, medlemmer av
3779 enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3780 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">juslordene</span>&#8221;</span> hadde stemt,
3781 stemte resten av Overhuset.
3782 </p><p>
3783
3784 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3785 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3786 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3787 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3788 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3789 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3790 </p><p>
3791 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>&#8221;</span>. Før rettssaken
3792 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
3793 ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
3794 en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble
3795 Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
3796 lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
3797 historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
3798 frie.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3066644"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066650"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066656"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066663"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066669"></a>
3799 </p><p>
3800 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3801 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3802 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3803 <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
3804 noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
3805 prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>&#8221;</span>
3806 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
3807 *illuminations*.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3066703" href="#ftn.id3066703" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3808 </p><p>
3809 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3810 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3811 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3812 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3813 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3814 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3815 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3816 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3817 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id3066232" href="#ftn.id3066232" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3818 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3819
3820
3821 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>&#8221;</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
3822 si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
3823 ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
3824 utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
3825 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
3826 for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
3827 ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
3828 falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i
3829 betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
3830 liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
3831 utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
3832 formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
3833 valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og
3834 beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der
3835 hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
3836 og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
3837 ønsker.
3838 </p><p>
3839 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3840 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3841 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3842 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065638" href="#id3065638" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3843
3844
3845 Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære
3846 storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ferdige
3847 versjoner</span>&#8221;</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
3848 Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
3849 hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
3850 Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
3851 Bookseller</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
3852 424-31.
3853 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065674" href="#id3065674" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3854
3855
3856 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3857 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3858 151&#8211;52.
3859 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065721" href="#id3065721" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3860
3861 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3862 en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>&#8221;</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
3863 and Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3065734"></a>
3864 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066073" href="#id3066073" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3865
3866
3867
3868 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3869 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3870 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066156" href="#id3066156" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3871
3872
3873 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3874 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3875 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3876 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3877 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3878 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3879 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3880 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064350" href="#id3064350" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3881
3882 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>&#8221;</span>,
3883 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
3884 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3885 <a class="indexterm" name="id3065684"></a>
3886 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066263" href="#id3066263" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3887
3888
3889 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3890 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3891 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066290" href="#id3066290" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3892
3893 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3894 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3066298"></a>
3895 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066320" href="#id3066320" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3896
3897
3898 Ibid., 93.
3899 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066356" href="#id3066356" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3900
3901
3902 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3903 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3904 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066417" href="#id3066417" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3905
3906
3907 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3908 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3909 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3910 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066531" href="#id3066531" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3911
3912
3913 Ibid., 1156.
3914 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066703" href="#id3066703" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3915
3916
3917 Rose, 97.
3918 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066232" href="#id3066232" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3919
3920
3921 ibid.
3922 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3923 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3924 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3925 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3926 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3927 Gud.)
3928 </p><p>
3929 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3930 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3931 </p><p>
3932 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3933 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3934 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3935 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3936 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id3066857"></a>
3937 </p><p>
3938
3939 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3940 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3941 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3942 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3943 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3944 </p><p>
3945 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3946 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3947 med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3948 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3949 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>&#8221;</span> eller
3950 det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3951 </p><p>
3952 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3953 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3954 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3955 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3956 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3957 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id3066921"></a>
3958 </p><p>
3959 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3960 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3961 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3962 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3963 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id3066941"></a>
3964 </p><p>
3965 Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi &#8230;
3966 at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk &#8212; ihvertfall at noen [hos
3967 Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>&#8221;</span> Som det andre krevde
3968 Fox <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
3969 sekundene med &#8230; fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
3970 som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>&#8221;</span>
3971 </p><p>
3972 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3973 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3974 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">det må være en feil her &#8230; Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
3975 dette.</span>&#8221;</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
3976 etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
3977 </p><p>
3978
3979 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
3980 meg</span>&#8221;</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>&#8221;</span>, sa
3981 hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The
3982 Simpson</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
3983 om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
3984 å si <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>&#8221;</span> En
3985 av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
3986 heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>&#8221;</span>
3987 </p><p>
3988 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3989 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3990 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3991 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
3992 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id3067038"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3067045"></a>
3993 </p><p>
3994 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
3995 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
3996 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
3997 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
3998 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
3999 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
4000 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
4001 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
4002 </p><p>
4003 For eksempel <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>&#8221;</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
4004 Simpson</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
4005 kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
4006 selger billetter til <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mine
4007 <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>&#8221;</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
4008 fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
4009 det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
4010 loven.
4011 </p><p>
4012 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
4013 første tanke <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3067110" href="#ftn.id3067110" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
4014 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
4015 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>&#8221;</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>&#8212; og
4016 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>&#8221;</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
4017 </p><p>
4018
4019
4020 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
4021 use</span>&#8221;</span>. Og her er hans svar:
4022 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4023 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
4024 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
4025 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
4026 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rimelig
4027 bruk</span>&#8221;</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
4028 dette er grunnen:
4029 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4030
4031
4032 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
4033 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>&#8221;</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
4034 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>&#8221;</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
4035 scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span>, og å påstå
4036 at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
4037 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4038
4039 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4040 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4041 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4042 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4043 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4044 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4045 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4046 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4047 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4048 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4049
4050
4051
4052 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School &#8230;
4053 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
4054 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>&#8221;</span>,
4055 uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
4056 ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
4057
4058 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4059
4060
4061 Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
4062 av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4063 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4064 I teorien betyr <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> at du ikke trenger
4065 tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
4066 tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> helt
4067 annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
4068 konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
4069 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4070 ikke fulgt opp.
4071 </p><p>
4072 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4073 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4074 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4075 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4076 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3067110" href="#id3067110" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4077
4078
4079 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
4080 use</span>&#8221;</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
4081 A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
4082 Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>&#8221;</span> (utkast arkivert hos
4083 forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
4084 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3067337"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3067343"></a><p>
4085 In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an
4086 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
4087 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
4088 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
4089 anticipation of the power of networks.
4090 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067358"></a><p>
4091 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4092 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
4093 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
4094 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4095 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4096 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4097 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4098 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067366"></a><p>
4099 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4100 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4101 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4102 include them on the CD.
4103 </p><p>
4104
4105
4106 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4107 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4108 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4109 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4110 permission for that content.
4111 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067401"></a><p>
4112 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Our
4113 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4114 films,</span>&#8221;</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No
4115 one had ever really done this before,</span>&#8221;</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No one
4116 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4117 career.</span>&#8221;</span>
4118 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067426"></a><p>
4119 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4120 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>&#8221;</span>
4121 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067440"></a><p>
4122 Alben replied, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4123 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4124 we want to use in these film clips.</span>&#8221;</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Great! Go for
4125 it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3067456" href="#ftn.id3067456" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4126 </p><p>
4127 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4128 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4129 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4130 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4131 Starwave was to do.
4132 </p><p>
4133 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4134 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4135 recounted just what they did:
4136 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4137 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4138 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4139 going to use the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Make my day</span>&#8221;</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4140 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4141 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4142 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4143 </p><p>
4144
4145
4146 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4147 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4148 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4149 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4150 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4151 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4152 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4153 just started calling people.
4154 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3067523"></a><p>
4155 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4156 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4157 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
4158 you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>&#8221;</span> And
4159 they would say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4160 $1,200.</span>&#8221;</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4161 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4162 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4163 </p><p>
4164 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">and even then we
4165 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>&#8221;</span>
4166 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067570"></a><p>
4167 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4168 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4169 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4170 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4171 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4172 and said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4173 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4174 actors.</span>&#8221;</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4175 constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4176 directors, &#8230; this many musicians,</span>&#8221;</span> and we just went at it very
4177 systematically and cleared the rights.
4178 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4179
4180
4181
4182 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4183 and it sold very well.
4184 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067611"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3067617"></a><p>
4185 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4186 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4187 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There is
4188 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4189 all.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3067633" href="#ftn.id3067633" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4190 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4191 </p><p>
4192 For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">very few &#8230; have the time and
4193 resources, and the will to do this,</span>&#8221;</span> and thus, very few such works
4194 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4195 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4196 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4197 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4198 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4199 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4200 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4201 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4202 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4203 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4204 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4205 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4206 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4207 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4208 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4209 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4210 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4211
4212 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4213 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4214 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4215 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4216 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4217 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4218 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4219 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4220 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4221 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4222 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4223 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh,
4224 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4225 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4226 money,</span>&#8221;</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4227 together.
4228 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3067735"></a><p>
4229 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4230 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4231 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4232 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4233 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high? These costs are the
4234 burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat for a moment, and
4235 get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of these rights, and
4236 the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost to negotiate
4237 them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and imagine the
4238 pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from Los Angeles
4239 to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made sense; but as
4240 circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a
4241 well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and
4242 ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>&#8221;</span>
4243 </p><p>
4244
4245 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4246 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4247 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4248 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4249 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4250 Fairbank, had produced.
4251 </p><p>
4252 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4253 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4254 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4255 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4256 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067790"></a><p>
4257 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4258 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4259 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4260 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4261 tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
4262 brutt i dette rommet?</span>&#8221;</span>
4263 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067816"></a><p>
4264 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4265 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4266 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4267 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4268 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4269 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4270 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4271 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4272 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4273 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4274 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4275 couldn't easily do them legally.
4276 </p><p>
4277 We live in a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span> culture enabled by
4278 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4279 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a
4280 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4281 can have it planted in your presentation.
4282 </p><p>
4283 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4284 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4285 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4286 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4287 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4288 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4289 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4290 and music.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3067862"></a>
4291 </p><p>
4292 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4293 to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">legal,</span>&#8221;</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4294 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4295 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4296 rules, it doesn't get released.
4297 </p><p>
4298 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4299 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4300 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4301 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> use be free as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free beer.</span>&#8221;</span> Instead,
4302 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4303 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4304 example, that says <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4305 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
4306 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4307 owner.</span>&#8221;</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4308 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4309 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4310 </p><p>
4311 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4312 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4313 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4314 would anyone have to oppose it?
4315 </p><p>
4316
4317 In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4318 the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
4319 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4320 together to form a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>&#8221;</span> Under the
4321 agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
4322 picture hits and classics, write new storylines and&#8212;with the use of
4323 stateof-the-art digital technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into
4324 the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>&#8221;</span>
4325 </p><p>
4326 The announcement called this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>&#8221;</span> As Myers
4327 explained, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4328 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4329 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4330 take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>&#8221;</span> Steven Spielberg is
4331 quoted as saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4332 new audiences, it is Mike.</span>&#8221;</span>
4333 </p><p>
4334 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4335 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4336 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4337 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4338 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4339 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4340 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4341 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4342 </p><p>
4343 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4344 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
4345 use.</span>&#8221;</span> Much of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling</span>&#8221;</span> should be considered
4346 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4347 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4348 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4349 content are astronomically high.  These costs mirror the costs with fair
4350 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4351 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4352 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4353 lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4354 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3067456" href="#id3067456" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4355
4356 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4357 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4358 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>&#8221;</span>
4359 creativity, as this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3067468"></a>
4360 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3067633" href="#id3067633" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4361
4362
4363 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4364 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4365 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4366 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
4367 In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bots</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;computer codes designed
4368 to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">spider,</span>&#8221;</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
4369 content&#8212;began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
4370 Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
4371 basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
4372 the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
4373 months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
4374 </p><p>
4375 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4376 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4377 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4378 technology called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>&#8221;</span> you could enter a Web
4379 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4380 pages changed.
4381 </p><p>
4382 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4383 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4384 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4385 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4386 </p><p>
4387
4388
4389 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4390 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4391 printed on the date published on the paper.
4392 </p><p>
4393 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4394 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4395 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4396 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4397 updated, without any reliable memory.
4398 </p><p>
4399 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4400 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4401 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4402 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4403 forget.<sup>[<a name="id3068065" href="#ftn.id3068065" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4404 </p><p>
4405 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4406 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4407 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
4408 water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4409 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4410 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4411 and remember&#8212;not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4412 something close to the truth.
4413 </p><p>
4414 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4415 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4416 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4417 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4418 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4419 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4420 knowedge.
4421 </p><p>
4422
4423 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4424 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4425 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4426 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4427 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4428 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4429 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4430 </p><p>
4431 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4432 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4433 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4434 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4435 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4436 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4437 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4438 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4439 </p><p>
4440 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4441 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4442 of material</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4443 of Congress.</span>&#8221;</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4444 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4445 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4446 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4447 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4448 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4449 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4450 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4451 very low fee. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4452 unavailable,</span>&#8221;</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4453 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4454 student?</span>&#8221;</span> As Kahle put it,
4455 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3068192"></a><p>
4456
4457 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4458 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4459 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4460 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4461 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4462 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4463 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4464 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4465 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4466 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4467 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4468 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4469 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4470 media on twentieth-century America?
4471 </p><p>
4472 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4473 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4474 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4475 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4476 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4477 </p><p>
4478 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4479 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4480 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4481 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4482 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>&#8221;</span> Thus, when
4483 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4484 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4485 film company.<sup>[<a name="id3068240" href="#ftn.id3068240" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4486 </p><p>
4487 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4488 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4489 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft.</span>&#8221;</span> But as technology enabled
4490 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4491 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4492 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>&#8221;</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4493 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4494 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4495 to anyone who would look.
4496 </p><p>
4497
4498 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4499 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4500 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4501 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4502 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4503 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4504 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4505 </p><p>
4506 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4507 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>&#8221;</span>
4508 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4509 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4510 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4511 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4512 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4513 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4514 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4515 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4516 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4517 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4518 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>&#8221;</span> film that instructed children how to save
4519 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4520 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3068275"></a>
4521 </p><p>
4522 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4523 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4524 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4525 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4526 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4527 </p><p>
4528 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4529 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4530 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4531 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4532 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4533 </p><p>
4534
4535 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4536 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lives.</span>&#8221;</span> In its first
4537 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4538 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4539 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4540 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4541 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4542 </p><p>
4543 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4544 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4545 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4546 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4547 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4548 even if that information is no longer sold.
4549 </p><p>
4550 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4551 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id3068390" href="#ftn.id3068390" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4552 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4553 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4554 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4555 the spread and stability of culture.
4556 </p><p>
4557 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4558 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4559 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4560 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4561 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4562 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4563 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4564 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4565 </p><p>
4566
4567 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4568 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4569 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4570 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4571 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4572 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4573 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4574 </p><p>
4575 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4576 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4577 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4578 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4579 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4580 moving images and sound.
4581 </p><p>
4582 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4583 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4584 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4585 describes,
4586 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4587 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4588 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4589 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4590 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4591 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4592 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4593 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4594 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4595 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4596 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4597 press.
4598 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4599
4600 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4601 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4602 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4603 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4604 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4605 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4606 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4607 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4608 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4609 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4610 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4611 </p><p>
4612 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4613 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4614 these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">archives,</span>&#8221;</span> as warm as the idea of a
4615 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">library</span>&#8221;</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">content</span>&#8221;</span> that is
4616 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span>
4617 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4618 exercise.
4619 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068065" href="#id3068065" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4620
4621
4622 The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
4623 changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003, press release
4624 stated, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>&#8221;</span> That was later
4625 changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have
4626 Ended.</span>&#8221;</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4627 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068240" href="#id3068240" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4628
4629
4630 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4631 the Library of Congress,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4632 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4633 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4634 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4635 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068390" href="#id3068390" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4636
4637
4638 Dave Barns, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
4639 Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>&#8221;</span>
4640 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake
4641 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print
4642 in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
4643 Digital Networks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
4644 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4645 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
4646 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4647 America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4648 administration&#8212;literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4649 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4650 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4651 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4652 Washington.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3068506"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068566"></a>
4653 </p><p>
4654 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4655 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4656 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4657 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4658 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4659 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4660 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4661 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4662 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3068585"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068591"></a>
4663 <a class="indexterm" name="id3068597"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068604"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068610"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068616"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068622"></a>
4664 </p><p>
4665
4666
4667 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4668 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4669 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4670 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4671 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4672 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4673 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4674 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4675 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4676 </p><p>
4677 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4678 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4679 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4680 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4681 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4682 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4683 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span>
4684 </p><p>
4685 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4686 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4687 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4688 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4689 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4690 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4691 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4692 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4693 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4694 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id3068681" href="#ftn.id3068681" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4695 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4696
4697 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4698 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4699 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">central theme</span>&#8221;</span> to which <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4700 women</span>&#8221;</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4701 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4702 owners in the nation.</span>&#8221;</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4703 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4704 </p><p>
4705 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4706 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4707 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4708 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4709 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4710 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4711 scope of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span> His views have
4712 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4713 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4714 tradition, at least in Washington.
4715 </p><p>
4716 While <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> is certainly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
4717 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4718 understand,<sup>[<a name="id3068750" href="#ftn.id3068750" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4719 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>&#8221;</span> have been
4720 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4721 property owners.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4722 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4723 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4724 </p><p>
4725 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4726 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4727 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4728 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4729 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4730 </p><p>
4731
4732 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4733 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4734 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4735 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4736 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4737 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4738 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4739 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4740 creativity having less than perfect control.
4741 </p><p>
4742 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4743 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4744 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4745 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4746 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4747 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4748 threaten the old.  To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4749 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4750 Constitution itself.
4751 </p><p>
4752 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, so
4753 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4754 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4755 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4756 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>&#8221;</span> to pay
4757 you <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just compensation</span>&#8221;</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4758 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4759 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4760 government pays for the privilege.
4761 </p><p>
4762
4763 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4764 calls <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4765 power to create <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property,</span>&#8221;</span> the Constitution
4766 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited time,</span>&#8221;</span>
4767 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4768 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4769 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4770 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">takes</span>&#8221;</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4771 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just
4772 compensation</span>&#8221;</span> for this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking.</span>&#8221;</span> Instead, the same
4773 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4774 your <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> right without any compensation at all.
4775 </p><p>
4776 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4777 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4778 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4779 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4780 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4781 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4782 </p><p>
4783 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4784 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4785 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4786 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4787 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4788 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4789 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4790 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4791 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4792 </p><p>
4793 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4794 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4795 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4796 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4797 creative property there must be a public domain?
4798 </p><p>
4799 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4800 these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> rights, and the control that they
4801 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4802 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4803 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4804 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4805 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4806 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4807 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4808 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4809 </p><p>
4810
4811
4812
4813 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4814 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4815 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4816 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4817 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4818 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4819 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4820 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
4821 the right or regulation.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
4822 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4823 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4824 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4825 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4826 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4827 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4828 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4829 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4830 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4831 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4832 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4833 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3068638"></a>
4834 </p><p>
4835 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4836 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4837 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4838 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4839 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4840 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4841 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4842 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4843 </p><p>
4844 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4845 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4846 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4847 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4848 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4849 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4850 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4851 </p><p>
4852 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4853 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4854 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4855 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4856 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4857 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4858 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4859 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4860 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4861 by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture.</span>&#8221;</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4862 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4863 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4864 enforces this constraint.
4865 </p><p>
4866
4867
4868
4869 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4870 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4871 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4872 </p><p>
4873 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4874 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4875 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4876 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4877 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4878 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4879 particular interact.
4880 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><p>
4881 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">freedom</span>&#8221;</span> to drive a car at a
4882 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4883 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4884 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4885 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4886 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4887 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4888 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4889 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4890 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4891 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4892 </p><p>
4893
4894 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4895 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4896 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id3069136" href="#ftn.id3069136" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4897 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4898 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4899 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4900 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4901 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4902 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4903 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4904 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4905 driving.
4906 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3069159"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
4907 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4908 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4909 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4910 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4911 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id3069203" href="#ftn.id3069203" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4912 </p><div class="section" title="10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><p>
4913 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4914 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4915 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4916 sense.
4917 </p><p>
4918 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4919 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
4920
4921
4922 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4923 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4924 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4925 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4926 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4927 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4928 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4929 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4930 this form of infringement.
4931 </p><p>
4932 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4933 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4934 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4935 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4936 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4937 of anarchy after the Internet.
4938 </p><p>
4939
4940 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4941 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4942 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4943 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4944 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4945 results.
4946 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
4947 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4948 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">White Paper</span>&#8221;</span> prepared by the Commerce
4949 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4950 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4951 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4952 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4953 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4954 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4955 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4956 </p><p>
4957
4958 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4959 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4960 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4961 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4962 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4963 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4964 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4965 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4966 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4967 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4968 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4969 U.S. steel industry.
4970 </p><p>
4971 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4972 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4973 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4974 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4975 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4976 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>&#8221;</span>
4977 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3069417"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3069422"></a><p>
4978 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4979 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4980 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4981 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4982 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
4983 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4984 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id3069438" href="#ftn.id3069438" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
4985 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4986 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4987 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
4988 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
4989 weakened the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stickiness</span>&#8221;</span> of television advertising (if a
4990 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
4991 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
4992 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
4993 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
4994 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
4995 </p><p>
4996 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
4997 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
4998 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
4999 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
5000 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
5001 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
5002 patents, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
5003 competitors.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3069500" href="#ftn.id3069500" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
5004 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
5005 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
5006 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
5007 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
5008 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
5009 <a class="indexterm" name="id3069520"></a>
5010 </p><p>
5011 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5012 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5013 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5014 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5015 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5016 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5017 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5018 </p><p>
5019 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5020 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5021 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5022 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5023 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5024 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5025 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5026 Constitution: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5027 freedom of speech.</span>&#8221;</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5028 would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">abridge</span>&#8221;</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5029 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5030 </p><p>
5031
5032 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5033 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5034 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">justified.</span>&#8221;</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5035 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5036 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5037 of the changes the content industry wants.
5038 </p><p>
5039 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5040 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
5041 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5042 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5043 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5044 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5045 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3069606"></a>
5046 </p><p>
5047 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5048 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5049 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5050 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3069624"></a><p>
5051 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5052 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5053 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5054 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3069640"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3069646"></a>
5055 </p><p>
5056 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5057 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5058 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5059 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5060 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5061 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5062 solve.
5063 </p><p>
5064
5065 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5066 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>&#8221;</span> for
5067 culture.<sup>[<a name="id3069678" href="#ftn.id3069678" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5068 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5069 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5070 that music should be given away <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for free.</span>&#8221;</span> The point is that
5071 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5072 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5073 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5074 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5075 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5076 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5077 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5078 </p><p>
5079 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5080 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5081 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5082 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5083 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5084 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5085 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5086 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5087 for creativity.
5088 </p><p>
5089 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5090 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5091 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3069728"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.2. Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Opphav</h2></div></div></div><p>
5092 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5093 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative
5094 property</span>&#8221;</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5095 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5096 </p><p>
5097 The power to establish <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> rights is granted to
5098 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5099 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5100 </p><p>
5101
5102 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5103 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5104 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5105 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>&#8221;</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5106 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property
5107 rights.</span>&#8221;</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5108 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5109 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5110 purpose of rewarding authors.
5111 </p><p>
5112 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5113 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5114 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5115 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5116 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5117 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5118 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to
5119 Authors</span>&#8221;</span> only.
5120 </p><p>
5121 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5122 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5123 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5124 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5125 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5126 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5127 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5128 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5129 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5130 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5131 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5132 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5133 </p><p>
5134 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5135 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5136 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5137 to put our <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5138 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5139 </p><p>
5140
5141 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5142 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5143 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5144 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5145 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5146 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.6. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Opphavsrett</span>&#8221;</span> i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Opphavsrett i dag."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5147
5148 La meg forklare hvordan.
5149
5150 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.3. Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
5151 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5152 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5153 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5154 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5155 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id3069909" href="#ftn.id3069909" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5156 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5157 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5158 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5159 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5160 to reprint and distribute works.
5161 </p><p>
5162 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5163 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5164 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5165 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5166 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5167 expired as well.
5168 </p><p>
5169 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5170 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5171 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5172 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5173 work passed into the public domain.
5174 </p><p>
5175 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5176 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5177 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5178 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5179 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5180 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id3069977" href="#ftn.id3069977" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5181 </p><p>
5182
5183 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5184 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5185 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5186 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5187 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5188 </p><p>
5189 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5190 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5191 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5192 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id3070044" href="#ftn.id3070044" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5193 </p><p>
5194 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5195 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5196 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id3070079" href="#ftn.id3070079" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5197 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5198 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5199 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5200 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5201 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5202 </p><p>
5203 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5204 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5205 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5206 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5207 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5208 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5209 </p><p>
5210 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5211 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5212 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5213 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5214 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5215 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5216 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5217 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5218 </p><p>
5219
5220 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5221 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5222 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5223 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5224 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5225 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5226 copyright term.
5227 </p><p>
5228 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5229 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5230 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5231 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5232 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5233 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5234 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5235 </p><p>
5236 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5237 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5238 term. For <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">natural</span>&#8221;</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5239 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5240 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5241 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5242 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5243 </p><p>
5244 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5245 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5246 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5247 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5248 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5249 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited,</span>&#8221;</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5250 </p><p>
5251 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5252 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5253 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5254 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5255 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5256 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id3070181" href="#ftn.id3070181" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5257 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.4. Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Virkeområde</h2></div></div></div><p>
5258 The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">scope</span>&#8221;</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5259 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5260 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5261 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5262 </p><p>
5263 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">maps,
5264 charts, and books.</span>&#8221;</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5265 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5266 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">publish</span>&#8221;</span> copyrighted works. That
5267 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5268 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5269 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5270 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>&#8221;</span> It would not,
5271 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5272 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5273 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5274 </p><p>
5275 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5276 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5277 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5278 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5279 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5280 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">publish</span>&#8221;</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5281 over any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5282 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5283 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative work</span>&#8221;</span> that
5284 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5285 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5286 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5287 </p><p>
5288
5289 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5290 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5291 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5292 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5293 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5294 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5295 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5296 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5297 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5298 government before a copyright could be secured.
5299 </p><p>
5300 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5301 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5302 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5303 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5304 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5305 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5306 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5307 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5308 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5309 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5310 author.
5311 </p><p>
5312 All of these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">formalities</span>&#8221;</span> were abolished in the American
5313 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5314 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5315 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5316 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5317 available for others to copy.
5318 </p><p>
5319 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5320 </p><p>
5321 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5322 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5323 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5324 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5325 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5326 United States.<sup>[<a name="id3070334" href="#ftn.id3070334" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5327 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5328 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5329 </p><p>
5330
5331
5332 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5333 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5334 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5335 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5336 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5337 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5338 </p><p>
5339 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5340 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5341 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5342 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5343 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5344 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5345 </p><p>
5346 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5347 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5348 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5349 </p><p>
5350 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5351 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5352 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative
5353 rights.</span>&#8221;</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5354 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5355 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5356 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5357 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5358 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5359 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5360 </p><p>
5361 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5362 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5363 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5364 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5365 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5366 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5367 the verbatim original work.
5368 </p><p>
5369
5370 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5371 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5372 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5373 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5374 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5375 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5376 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5377 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id3070421" href="#ftn.id3070421" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5378 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5379 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5380 </p><p>
5381 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5382 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5383 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5384 book.<sup>[<a name="id3070470" href="#ftn.id3070470" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5385 creative work are treated the same.
5386 </p><p>
5387 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5388 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5389 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5390 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>&#8221;</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5391 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5392 </p><p>
5393 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5394 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5395 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5396 originally granted.
5397 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
5398 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5399 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5400 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5401 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id3070536" href="#ftn.id3070536" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5402 </p><p>
5403
5404
5405 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copies.</span>&#8221;</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5406 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5407 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span>
5408 deserves the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">same rights</span>&#8221;</span> as all other property, it is the
5409 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5410 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5411 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5412 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5413 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5414 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5415 </p><p>
5416 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5417 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5418 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5419 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id3070614" href="#ftn.id3070614" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5420 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5421 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5422 law.
5423 </p><p>
5424 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5425 circle.
5426 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5427
5428
5429 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5430 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5431 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5432 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5433 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5434 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5435 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5436 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5437 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5438 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5439 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1531.png" alt="Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5440 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5441 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5442 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5443 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5444 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5445 diagram on next page).
5446 </p><p>
5447 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5448 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rimelig
5449 bruk</span>&#8221;</span>.
5450 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
5451 copyrighted work.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1541.png" alt="Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5452 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5453 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5454 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5455 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5456 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5457 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5458 over such <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses</span>&#8221;</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5459 Amendment) reasons.
5460 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Uregulert kopiering anses som rimelig bruk."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
5461 regulated.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1551.png" alt="Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5462
5463
5464 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5465 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5466 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair</span>&#8221;</span> regardless of the copyright
5467 owner's views.
5468 </p><p>
5469 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5470 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id3070545" href="#ftn.id3070545" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5471 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5472 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5473 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5474 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5475 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5476 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5477 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5478 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5479 burden of this shift.
5480 </p><p>
5481
5482 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5483 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5484 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5485 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5486 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5487 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5488 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5489 those uses produced a copy.
5490 </p><p>
5491 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5492 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5493 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5494 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5495 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5496 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5497 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5498 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5499 the copyright owner's wish.
5500 </p><p>
5501 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5502 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5503 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5504 clear:
5505 </p><p>
5506 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5507 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5508 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5509 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5510 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5511 Internet.
5512 </p><p>
5513 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5514 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5515 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5516 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5517 machine. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>&#8221;</span> and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span>
5518 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5519 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5520 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5521 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5522 </p><p>
5523
5524 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5525 on category 3 (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span>) that fair use never before had to
5526 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5527 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5528 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5529 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5530 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5531 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5532 because reading was not regulated.
5533 </p><p>
5534 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5535 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5536 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5537 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5538 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5539 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5540 fair use are not enough.
5541 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5542 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5543 business of making <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trailer</span>&#8221;</span> advertisements for movies
5544 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5545 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5546 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5547 </p><p>
5548 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5549 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5550 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>&#8221;</span> technique by
5551 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">browsing.</span>&#8221;</span>
5552 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5553 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5554 before you bought it.
5555 </p><p>
5556
5557 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5558 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5559 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5560 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5561 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5562 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5563 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5564 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5565 was within their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5566 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5567 rights were in fact their rights.
5568 </p><p>
5569 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5570 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">willfully
5571 infringed</span>&#8221;</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5572 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5573 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5574 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5575 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5576 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5577 </p><p>
5578 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5579 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5580 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5581 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5582 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5583 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5584 Disney's permission.
5585 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3071015"></a><p>
5586 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5587 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5588 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5589 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5590 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>&#8221;</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5591 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5592 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5593 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5594 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5595 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5596 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5597 </p><p>
5598
5599
5600 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5601 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5602 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5603 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5604 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5605 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5606 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5607 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5608 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5609 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5610 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5611 are quite slight.
5612 </p><p>
5613 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5614 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5615 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5616 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5617 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5618 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5619 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
5620 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5621 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5622 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5623 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5624 </p><p>
5625 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5626 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5627 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5628 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5629 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5630 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3071129"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5631 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5632 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5633 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5634 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5635 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id3071176" href="#ftn.id3071176" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5636 </p><p>
5637 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt.  De advarte
5638 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
5639 det</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3071204" href="#ftn.id3071204" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
5640 ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
5641 å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
5642 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
5643 </p><p>
5644 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5645 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5646 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5647 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5648 </p><p>
5649 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5650 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5651 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5652 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5653 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5654 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5655 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5656 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3071262"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3071270"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5657 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5658 </p><p>
5659 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5660 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5661 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5662 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5663 </p><p>
5664 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5665 </p><p>
5666
5667 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5668 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5669 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5670 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5671 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5672 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5673 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5674 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5675 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1611.png" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5676 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5677 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5678 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5679
5680
5681 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5682 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5683 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5684 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5685 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5686 computer.
5687 </p><p>
5688 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5689 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id3071394"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3071401"></a>
5690 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Politikk</span>&#8221;</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5691 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5692 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5693 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5694 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5695 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5696 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.16. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5697 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5698 boken!
5699 </p><p>
5700 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5701 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5702 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5703 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5704 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5705 power.<sup>[<a name="id3071485" href="#ftn.id3071485" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5706 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5707 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5708 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5709 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5710 </p><p>
5711 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5712 which the e-book <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lives.</span>&#8221;</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5713 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span> that most
5714 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission</span>&#8221;</span> to stay out
5715 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5716 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5717 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5718 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5719 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5720 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5721 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5722 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5723 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5724 simply won't read aloud.
5725 </p><p>
5726
5727 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5728 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5729 to type <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>&#8221;</span> erased <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Brothers</span>&#8221;</span> from
5730 the sentence.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3071565"></a>
5731 </p><p>
5732 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5733 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5734 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5735 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5736 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5737 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5738 technology have no similar built-in check.
5739 </p><p>
5740 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5741 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5742 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5743 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5744 as well?
5745 </p><p>
5746 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5747 Reader.
5748 </p><p>
5749 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5750 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5751 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5752 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5753 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5754 <a class="indexterm" name="id3071615"></a>
5755 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Alice i Eventyrland</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5756 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5757 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5758 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">read
5759 aloud</span>&#8221;</span>!
5760 </p><p>
5761 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5762 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5763 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5764 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5765 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5766 absurd.
5767 </p><p>
5768 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5769 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5770 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5771 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5772 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5773 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5774 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5775 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5776 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5777 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5778 </p><p>
5779 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5780 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5781 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5782 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5783 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5784 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3071690"></a><p>
5785 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5786 of mine that makes the same point.
5787 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5788 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>&#8221;</span> The Aibo
5789 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5790 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5791 </p><p>
5792 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5793 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5794 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5795
5796 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5797 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5798 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5799 </p><p>
5800 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Teach</span>&#8221;</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5801 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5802 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5803 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5804 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5805 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">dog</span>&#8221;</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5806 </p><p>
5807 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5808 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5809 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5810 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5811 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5812 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5813 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5814 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5815 run, or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">drive,</span>&#8221;</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5816 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5817 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5818 </p><p>
5819 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5820 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5821 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5822 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5823 ethically.
5824 </p><p>
5825 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5826 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5827 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5828 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5829 built.
5830 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3071828"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3071837"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3071845"></a><p>
5831
5832 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5833 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5834 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5835 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5836 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5837 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5838 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5839 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5840 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5841 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5842 </p><p>
5843 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5844 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5845 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5846 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5847 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5848 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5849 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5850 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5851 knew very well.
5852 </p><p>
5853 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3071890" href="#ftn.id3071890" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5854 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5855 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5856 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5857 </p><p>
5858 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5859 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5860 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5861 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">this music cannot
5862 be copied,</span>&#8221;</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5863 was to be part of a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trusted system</span>&#8221;</span> of control that would get
5864 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5865 </p><p>
5866 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5867 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5868 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5869 problems to the consortium.
5870 </p><p>
5871
5872
5873 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5874 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5875 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5876 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5877 </p><p>
5878 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5879 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5880 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5881 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5882 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5883 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5884 </p><p>
5885 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5886 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5887 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5888 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5889 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5890 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5891 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5892 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5893 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5894 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5895 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5896 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5897 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5898 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3072074"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072082"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072090"></a><p>
5899 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5900 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5901 RIAA lawyer that read:
5902 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5903
5904 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5905 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5906 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5907 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">DMCA</span>&#8221;</span>).
5908 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5909 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5910 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5911 information an offense.
5912 </p><p>
5913 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5914 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5915 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5916 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5917 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5918 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5919 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5920 for copyright owners.
5921 </p><p>
5922 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5923 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5924 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5925 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5926 code of copyright</em></span>.
5927 </p><p>
5928 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5929 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5930 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5931 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5932 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5933 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5934 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3072171"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072177"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072183"></a><p>
5935
5936 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5937 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5938 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5939 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5940 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5941 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5942 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5943 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5944 system was circumvented.
5945 </p><p>
5946 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5947 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5948 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5949 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5950 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5951 others to infringe others' copyright.
5952 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3072221"></a><p>
5953 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5954 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5955 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5956 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5957 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5958 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>&#8221;</span> for example, had testified
5959 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5960 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3072243"></a>
5961 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5962 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5963 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5964 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5965 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5966 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5967 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5968 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5969 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5970 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5971 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You are an important
5972 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>&#8221;</span> Maybe
5973 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5974 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5975 important.<sup>[<a name="id3072282" href="#ftn.id3072282" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5976 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5977
5978
5979 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5980 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5981 responsible.
5982 </p><p>
5983 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5984 <a class="indexterm" name="id3072323"></a>
5985 </p><p>
5986 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5987 </p><p>
5988 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5989 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
5990 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
5991 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
5992 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
5993 use&#8212;a good end.
5994 </p><p>
5995
5996 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
5997 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
5998 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
5999 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
6000 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
6001 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
6002 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
6003 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
6004 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
6005 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
6006 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3072382"></a>
6007 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3072389"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072395"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072402"></a><p>
6008 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
6009 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
6010 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6011 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6012 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6013 erasing.
6014 </p><p>
6015 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6016 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6017 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6018 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6019 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6020 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6021 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6022 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6023 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6024 </p><p>
6025 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6026 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6027 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6028 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6029 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6030 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6031 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6032 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6033 violate the rules.
6034 </p><p>
6035
6036
6037 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6038 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6039 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6040 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6041 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id3072466" href="#ftn.id3072466" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6042 </p><p>
6043 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6044 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6045 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6046 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6047 wished without fear of legal control.
6048 </p><p>
6049 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6050 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6051 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6052 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6053 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6054 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6055 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6056 is quick.
6057 </p><p>
6058 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6059 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6060 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6061 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6062 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6063 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6064 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
6065
6066 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6067 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6068 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6069 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6070 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6071 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6072 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6073 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6074 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6075 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6076 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6077 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6078 to copyright's control.
6079 </p><p>
6080 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6081 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6082 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6083 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6084 about all the other changes I have described.
6085 </p><p>
6086 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6087 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6088 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6089 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6090 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6091 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6092 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6093 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6094 </p><p>
6095 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6096 </p><p>
6097 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6098 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6099 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6100 sources.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3072580" href="#ftn.id3072580" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6101 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6102 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id3072592" href="#ftn.id3072592" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6103 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6104 nationwide.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3072610" href="#ftn.id3072610" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072622"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072629"></a>
6105 <a class="indexterm" name="id3072635"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072641"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072648"></a>
6106 </p><p>
6107
6108 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6109 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6110 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6111 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6112 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6113 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6114 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6115 revenues.
6116 </p><p>
6117 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6118 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6119 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6120 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6121 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6122 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6123 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6124 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6125 market.
6126 </p><p>
6127 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6128 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6129 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id3072679"></a>
6130 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6131 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6132 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6133 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6134 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6135 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6136 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6137 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6138 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6139 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3072704" href="#ftn.id3072704" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6140 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6141 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6142 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6143 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6144 thousand words could do:
6145 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
6146
6147
6148 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6149 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6150 distribuere innhold?
6151 </p><p>
6152 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6153 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6154 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6155 begynt å endre mening.
6156 </p><p>
6157 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6158 er viktig.
6159 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3072786"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072799"></a><p>
6160 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6161 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6162 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6163 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6164 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6165 ikke mer.
6166 </p><p>
6167 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6168 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6169 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6170 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id3072831" href="#ftn.id3072831" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6171 </p><p>
6172
6173
6174
6175 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6176 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6177 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6178 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6179 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6180 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">independent</span>&#8221;</span> of the networks.
6181 </p><p>
6182 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6183 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6184 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6185 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6186 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6187 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6188 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6189 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6190 one.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3072894" href="#ftn.id3072894" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6191 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the
6192 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6193 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6194 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6195 studios decreased 63%.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3072922" href="#ftn.id3072922" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6196 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3072929"></a><p>
6197 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6198 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6199 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6200 increasingly owned by the network.
6201 </p><p>
6202 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6203 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6204 <a class="indexterm" name="id3072953"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072959"></a>
6205 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6206 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6207 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6208 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6209 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6210 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6211 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id3072978" href="#ftn.id3072978" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6212 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6213 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6214 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6215 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6216 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6217 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6218 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6219 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6220 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6221 the environment for a democracy.
6222 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3073005"></a><p>
6223 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6224 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6225 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>&#8221;</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6226 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6227 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6228 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6229 trends.<sup>[<a name="id3073036" href="#ftn.id3073036" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6230 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6231 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3073067"></a>
6232 </p><p>
6233 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6234 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6235 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6236 </p><p>
6237 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6238 the concern.
6239 </p><p>
6240 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6241 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6242 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6243 </p><p>
6244
6245 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6246 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6247 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6248 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6249 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6250 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6251 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6252 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6253 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6254 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6255 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6256 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6257 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6258 </p><p>
6259 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6260 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6261 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6262 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6263 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6264 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>&#8221;</span> The campaign
6265 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6266 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6267 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6268 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6269 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6270 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6271 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6272 campaign.
6273 </p><p>
6274 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6275 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6276 </p><p>
6277 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6278 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6279 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6280 war. Can you do it?
6281 </p><p>
6282
6283 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6284 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6285 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6286 heard then?
6287 </p><p>
6288 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6289 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">controversial</span>&#8221;</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6290 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6291 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6292 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6293 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6294 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6295 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id3073188" href="#ftn.id3073188" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6296 </p><p>
6297 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6298 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6299 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6300 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6301 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6302 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6303 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6304 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6305 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3073101"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.8. Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
6306 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6307 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>&#8221;</span> In
6308 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6309 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6310 </p><p>
6311
6312 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> has
6313 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6314 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6315 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6316 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6317 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6318 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6319 expanded <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6320 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6321 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6322 </p><p>
6323 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6324 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6325 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6326 today.
6327 </p><p>
6328 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6329 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6330 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6331 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6332 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6333 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6334 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6335 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6336 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6337 </p><p>
6338 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6339 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6340 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6341 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6342 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6343 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6344 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6345 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6346 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6347 </p><p>
6348
6349 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6350 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6351 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6352 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6353 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6354 our culture than now</em></span>.
6355 </p><p>
6356 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6357 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6358 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6359 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6360 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6361 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6362 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6363 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6364 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6365 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6366 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6367 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6368 known.<sup>[<a name="id3073432" href="#ftn.id3073432" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6369 </p><p>
6370 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6371 </p><p>
6372 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6373 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6374 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6375 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6376 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6377 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t2"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Publisere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6378
6379 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6380 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6381 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6382 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6383 free.
6384 </p><p>
6385 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6386 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t3"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Publisere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6387 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6388 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6389 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6390 essentially free.
6391 </p><p>
6392 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6393 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6394 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6395 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6396 look like this:
6397 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t4"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Kopiere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©/Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6398 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6399 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6400 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6401 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6402 like this:
6403 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t5"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Kopiere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6404
6405 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6406 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6407 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6408 commercial publishers.
6409 </p><p>
6410 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6411 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6412 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6413 actually does any good.
6414 </p><p>
6415 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6416 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6417 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6418 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6419 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6420 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6421 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6422 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6423 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6424 </p><p>
6425 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6426 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property,</span>&#8221;</span> and of course, as with any
6427 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6428 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6429 rights<sup>[<a name="id3073788" href="#ftn.id3073788" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6430 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6431 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6432 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6433 tradition, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6434 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6435 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6436 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6437 </p><p>
6438
6439 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6440 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> The very
6441 birth of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6442 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6443 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> is animated by
6444 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6445 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6446 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6447 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6448 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6449 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6450 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6451 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6452 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6453 </p><p>
6454 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6455 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6456 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6457 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6458 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6459 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6460 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6461 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6462 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6463 with a lawyer.
6464 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068681" href="#id3068681" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6465
6466
6467 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6468 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6469 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6470 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6471 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6472 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068750" href="#id3068750" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6473
6474
6475 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6476 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6477 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property right</span>&#8221;</span> to my car gives me the right
6478 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6479 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> to
6480 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>&#8221;</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6481 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6482 26&#8211;27.
6483 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069136" href="#id3069136" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6484
6485
6486 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6487 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6488 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6489 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6490 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6491 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6492 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6493 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6494 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069203" href="#id3069203" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6495
6496 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">liberty.</span>&#8221;</span> They
6497 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6498 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6499 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6500 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6501 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6502 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6503 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6504 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6505 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6506 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6507 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6508 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6509 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6510 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6511 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6512 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6513 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>&#8221;</span> in
6514 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6515 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6516 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6517 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6518 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6519 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6520 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6521 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6522 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3069257"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3069266"></a>
6523 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069438" href="#id3069438" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6524
6525
6526 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6527 Bridge?</span>&#8221;</span> BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #23</a>. For a more recent
6528 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6529 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>&#8221;</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6530 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6531 #24</a>.
6532 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069500" href="#id3069500" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6533
6534
6535 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6536 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6537 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069678" href="#id3069678" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6538
6539
6540 Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6541 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6542 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069909" href="#id3069909" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6544
6545 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6546 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6547 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6548 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6549 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>&#8221;</span>
6550 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3069927"></a>
6551 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069977" href="#id3069977" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6552
6553
6554 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6555 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6556 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6557 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6558 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6559 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6560 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6561 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6562 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6563 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6564 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6565 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6566 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6567 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070044" href="#id3070044" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6568
6569
6570 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6571 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6572 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6573 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6574 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6575 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6576 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span>
6577 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6578 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070079" href="#id3070079" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6579
6580
6581 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070181" href="#id3070181" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6582
6583
6584 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6585 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6586 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6587 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> loc. cit.
6588 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070334" href="#id3070334" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6589
6590
6591 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6592 Creation of American Literature,</span>&#8221;</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6593 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6594 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6595 1987).
6596
6597 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070421" href="#id3070421" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6598
6599 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
6600 Affairs</em>, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3070450"></a>
6601 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070470" href="#id3070470" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6602
6603 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6604 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6605 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span> and derivative
6606 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6607 Constitutionality,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6608 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3070487"></a>
6609 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070536" href="#id3070536" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6610
6611
6612 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6613 regulates more than <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6614 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6615 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6616 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy</span>&#8221;</span>;
6617 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6618 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies;</span>&#8221;</span>
6619 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6620 is a copy, there is a right.
6621 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070614" href="#id3070614" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6622
6623
6624 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6625 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6626 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6627 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6628 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070545" href="#id3070545" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6629
6630
6631 I don't mean <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nature</span>&#8221;</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6632 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6633 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6634 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6635 number of copies remain.
6636 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3071176" href="#id3071176" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6637
6638
6639 Se David Lange, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
6640 and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172&#8211;73.
6641 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3071204" href="#id3071204" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6642
6643 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6644 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3071191"></a>
6645 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3071485" href="#id3071485" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6646
6647
6648 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6649 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6650 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6651 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6652 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6653 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6654 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3071890" href="#id3071890" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6655
6656 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6657 Science,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6658 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6659 New Tricks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6660 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>&#8221;</span>
6661 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6662 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6663 Concerns,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6664 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>&#8221;</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6665 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6666 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6667 Legal Case,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3071946"></a>
6668 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072282" href="#id3072282" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6669
6670 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6671 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6672 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6673 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6674 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3071211"></a>
6675 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072466" href="#id3072466" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6676
6677
6678 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Legal
6679 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>&#8221;</span>
6680 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6681 (1997): 651.
6682 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072580" href="#id3072580" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6683
6684
6685 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6686 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6687 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072592" href="#id3072592" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6688
6689
6690 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6691 Slide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6692 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072610" href="#id3072610" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6693
6694
6695 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>&#8221;</span>
6696 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6697 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072704" href="#id3072704" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6698
6699 James Fallows, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6700 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3072723"></a>
6701 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072831" href="#id3072831" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6702
6703
6704 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>&#8221;</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6705 Center Forum, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>&#8221;</span>
6706 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6707 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6708 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6709 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072894" href="#id3072894" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6710
6711
6712 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6713 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6714 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6715 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6716 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6717 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6718 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072922" href="#id3072922" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6719
6720
6721 ibid.
6722 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072978" href="#id3072978" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6723
6724
6725 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>&#8221;</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
6726 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
6727 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6728 #31</a>.
6729 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073036" href="#id3073036" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6730
6731
6732 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6733 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6734 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6735 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6736 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6737 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6738 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6739 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6740 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6741 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6742 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073188" href="#id3073188" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6743
6744 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6745 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6746 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">against [their]
6747 policy.</span>&#8221;</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6748 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6749 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6750 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6751 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6752 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6753 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6754 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6755 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6756 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6757 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6758 Radio,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6759 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6760 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6761 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6762 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6763 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6764 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6765 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6766 Ad,</span>&#8221;</span> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. The ground was that
6767 the criticism was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073252"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073260"></a>
6768 <a class="indexterm" name="id3073267"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073273"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073279"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073285"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073292"></a>
6769 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073432" href="#id3073432" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6770
6771 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fire
6772 kapitulasjoner</span>&#8221;</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
6773 Vaidhyanathan, 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3073224"></a>
6774 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073788" href="#id3073788" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6775
6776 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6777 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6778 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6779 Property,</span>&#8221;</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6780 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6781 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3073803"></a>
6782 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Del III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6783 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6784 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6785 the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id3073953" href="#ftn.id3073953" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
6786 extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
6787 climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
6788 excellent fruit.</span>&#8221;</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
6789 as an opportunity. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>&#8221;</span> he tells
6790 himself, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>&#8221;</span> So he resolves to live
6791 with the villagers to explore life as a king.
6792 </p><p>
6793 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6794 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6795 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">blind.</span>&#8221;</span> They don't have the word
6796 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6797 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6798 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6799 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6800 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6801 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>&#8221;</span>
6802 </p><p>
6803
6804
6805 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6806 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6807 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6808 of creation,</span>&#8221;</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6809 what he sees <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6810 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6811 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">She
6812 did not believe,</span>&#8221;</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">she could only half
6813 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>&#8221;</span>
6814 </p><p>
6815 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mysteriously
6816 delighted</span>&#8221;</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You see,
6817 my dear,</span>&#8221;</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6818 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>&#8221;</span> They take Nunez to the
6819 village doctor.
6820 </p><p>
6821 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">His brain
6822 is affected,</span>&#8221;</span> he reports.
6823 </p><p>
6824 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>&#8221;</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Those queer things
6825 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6826 affect his brain.</span>&#8221;</span>
6827 </p><p>
6828 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6829 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6830 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6831 eyes].</span>&#8221;</span>
6832 </p><p>
6833
6834 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>&#8221;</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6835 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6836 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6837 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)  It
6838 sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
6839 fusion produces a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">chimera.</span>&#8221;</span> A chimera is a single creature
6840 with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
6841 from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6842 mysteries. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6843 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>&#8221;</span>
6844 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3074109"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3074116"></a><p>
6845 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6846 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6847 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6848 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6849 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">person</span>&#8221;</span> should
6850 reflect this reality.
6851 </p><p>
6852 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6853 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6854 enough, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>&#8221;</span> the more I think we're dealing
6855 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What is
6856 p2p file sharing?</span>&#8221;</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6857 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6858 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6859 years without any question at all.</span>&#8221;</span> That's true, at least in
6860 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6861 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6862 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6863 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6864 </p><p>
6865 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6866 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6867 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6868 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">friends</span>&#8221;</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6869 friends</span>&#8221;</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6870 friend is what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>&#8221;</span> we have not
6871 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6872 friends.</span>&#8221;</span>
6873 </p><p>
6874 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6875 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6876 it,</span>&#8221;</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6877 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6878 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6879 <a class="indexterm" name="id3074199"></a>
6880 </p><p>
6881
6882
6883
6884 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6885 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6886 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6887 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6888 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6889 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6890 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6891 </p><p>
6892 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6893 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6894 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6895 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6896 rules should govern it?
6897 </p><p>
6898 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6899 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6900 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6901 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6902 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6903 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6904 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id3074249" href="#ftn.id3074249" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6905
6906 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3074347"></a><p>
6907 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6908 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6909 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6910 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6911 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6912 </p><p>
6913 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6914 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6915 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6916 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6917 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6918 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6919 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6920 of the two extremes.
6921 </p><p>
6922
6923
6924
6925 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6926 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6927 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6928 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6929 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6930 will be lost.
6931 </p><p>
6932 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span>
6933 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6934 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6935 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6936 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6937 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6938 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6939 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6940 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6941 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6942 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6943 and we want to protect those rights.
6944 </p><p>
6945 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6946 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6947 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6948 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6949 industry model.
6950 </p><p>
6951 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6952 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6953 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6954 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6955 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6956 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6957 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6958 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id3074435" href="#ftn.id3074435" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6959 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6960 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6961 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>&#8221;</span> Its position on these matters has now
6962 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3074461"></a>
6963 </p><p>
6964 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6965 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6966 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6967 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073953" href="#id3073953" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6968
6969
6970 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>&#8221;</span> (1904, 1911). Se
6971 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6972 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6973 Press, 1996).
6974 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074249" href="#id3074249" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
6975
6976 For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
6977 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
6978 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span> 27 June
6979 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6980 #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
6981 (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized on-line
6982 copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high as five years
6983 imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on
6984 Piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003,
6985 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6986 #34</a>. Civil penalties are currently set at $150,000 per copied
6987 song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
6988 that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than 600
6989 songs through a family computer, see <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6990 v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In re. Verizon Internet
6991 Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could
6992 face liability ranging as high as $90 million. Such astronomical figures
6993 furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
6994 sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to $17,500 for four students
6995 accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
6996 pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
6997 proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to
6998 Fines,</span>&#8221;</span> redandblack.com, August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an example of the
6999 RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
7000 universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
7001 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,</span>&#8221;</span>
7002 <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3074330"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3074339"></a>
7003 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074435" href="#id3074435" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
7004
7005
7006 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
7007 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
7008 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
7009 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
7010 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7011 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
7012 To fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> to protect <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property,</span>&#8221;</span> the
7013 content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
7014 contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
7015 war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
7016 of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
7017 </p><p>
7018 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7019 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free culture.</span>&#8221;</span> But my aim now
7020 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7021 justified?
7022 </p><p>
7023 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7024 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7025 the property called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> is at its greatest
7026 in our history.
7027 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3074522"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3074529"></a><p>
7028 Yet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">common sense</span>&#8221;</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7029 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7030 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7031 rejection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> still has play.
7032 </p><p>
7033
7034
7035 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7036 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7037 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7038 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7039 today's monopolists of culture.
7040 </p><div class="section" title="12.1. Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
7041 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7042 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7043 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7044 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7045 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7046 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7047 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7048 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7049 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7050 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7051 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7052 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7053 </p><p>
7054 This digital <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>&#8221;</span> is in part an extension of
7055 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7056 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7057 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7058 digital <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>&#8221;</span> promises a world of
7059 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7060 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7061 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7062 contribute to the culture all around.
7063 </p><p>
7064
7065 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7066 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7067 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7068 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7069 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7070 </p><p>
7071 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7072 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7073 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7074 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7075 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7076 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7077 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7078 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7079 presumptively illegal.
7080 </p><p>
7081 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7082 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7083 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7084 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7085 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7086 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7087 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7088 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7089 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7090 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id3074645" href="#ftn.id3074645" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7091 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7092 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7093 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id3074683" href="#ftn.id3074683" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7094 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7095 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7096 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id3074727"></a>
7097 </p><p>
7098 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7099 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7100 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7101 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7102 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7103 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7104 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7105 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7106 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7107 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7108 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7109 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegal
7110 art</span>&#8221;</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3074746" href="#ftn.id3074746" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7111 what does their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegality</span>&#8221;</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7112 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7113 </p><p>
7114 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7115 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7116 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7117 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7118 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7119 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7120 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7121 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7122 </p><p>
7123 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7124 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7125 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7126 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7127 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7128 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7129 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7130 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7131 them is not similarly free.
7132 </p><p>
7133 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7134 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7135 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7136 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7137 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7138 </p><p>
7139
7140
7141
7142 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7143 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7144 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7145 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7146 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7147 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7148 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7149 on the rule of law.
7150 </p><p>
7151 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7152 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">breathing room</span>&#8221;</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7153 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7154 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7155 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7156 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7157 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7158 relationship to the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">law</span>&#8221;</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7159 </p><p>
7160 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7161 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7162 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7163 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7164 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7165 that pass under the name <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> silence speech and
7166 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7167 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7168 </p><p>
7169 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7170 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7171
7172 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7173 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7174 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7175 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7176 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7177 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>&#8221;</span> You're not even
7178 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7179 which they control it.
7180 </p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2. Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
7181 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7182 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7183 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7184 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7185 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7186 you.
7187 </p><p>
7188 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7189 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7190 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7191 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7192 substituting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free market</span>&#8221;</span> every place I've spoken of
7193 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free culture.</span>&#8221;</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7194 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7195 </p><p>
7196 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7197 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7198 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7199 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7200 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7201 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7202 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7203 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7204 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7205 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7206 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3074957"></a><p>
7207
7208 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7209 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7210 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7211 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7212 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7213 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7214 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7215 calls a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>&#8221;</span> that has fallen over the
7216 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7217 </p><p>
7218 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7219 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7220 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7221 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3075013"></a><p>
7222 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7223 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7224 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7225 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7226 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7227 the creators.
7228 </p><p>
7229 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7230 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7231 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7232 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7233 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3075036"></a>
7234 </p><p>
7235 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7236 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7237 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7238 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7239 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7240 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7241 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7242 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7243 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7244 </p><p>
7245
7246 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7247 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7248 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7249 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7250 the users liked.
7251 </p><p>
7252 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7253 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7254 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7255 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7256 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7257 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7258 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7259 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7260 something they had already bought.
7261 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7262 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7263 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7264 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7265 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7266 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7267 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7268 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7269 </p><p>
7270 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7271 </p><p>
7272 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7273 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7274 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7275 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7276 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7277 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7278 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7279 </p><p>
7280
7281 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7282 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7283 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7284 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7285 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7286 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7287 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7288 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3075140"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3075148"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3075154"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3075160"></a><p>
7289 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7290 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7291 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7292 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id3075174" href="#ftn.id3075174" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7293 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7294 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7295 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7296 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7297 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7298 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7299 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7300 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7301 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7302 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id3075221"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3075228"></a>
7303 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3075237"></a><p>
7304 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7305 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7306 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7307 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7308 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7309 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id3074906" href="#ftn.id3074906" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7310 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7311 This is the world of the mafia&#8212;filled with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">your money or your
7312 life</span>&#8221;</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
7313 that the law empowers copyright holders to exercise. It is a system that
7314 will obviously and necessarily stifle new innovation. It is hard enough to
7315 start a company. It is impossibly hard if that company is constantly
7316 threatened by litigation.
7317 </p><p>
7318
7319
7320
7321 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7322 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegal.</span>&#8221;</span> The law
7323 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7324 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7325 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7326 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7327 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7328 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7329 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7330 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7331 and much less creativity.
7332 </p><p>
7333 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7334 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">real</span>&#8221;</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7335 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7336 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7337 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7338 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7339 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7340 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7341 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7342 </p><p>
7343
7344 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7345 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7346 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7347 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7348 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7349 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7350 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7351 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7352 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7353 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7354 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7355 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7356 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7357 justifying to justify that result.  The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7358 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7359 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7360 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7361 content.
7362 </p><p>
7363 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7364 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7365 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7366 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bug.</span>&#8221;</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7367 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7368 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7369 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> then, this
7370 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7371 </p><p>
7372 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7373 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7374 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7375 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id3075410" href="#ftn.id3075410" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7376 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>&#8221;</span> that would be required on
7377 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7378 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7379 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7380 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7381 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id3075439" href="#ftn.id3075439" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7382 </p><p>
7383
7384 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7385 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7386 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7387 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7388 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7389 </p><p>
7390 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7391 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7392 impose.<sup>[<a name="id3075462" href="#ftn.id3075462" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7393 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7394 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3075475"></a>
7395 </p><p>
7396 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7397 innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7398 market crowd.
7399 </p><p>
7400 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7401 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7402 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7403 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7404 </p><p>
7405 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7406 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7407 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id3075510" href="#ftn.id3075510" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7408 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7409 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7410 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7411 case of the VCR) has been another.
7412 </p><p>
7413 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7414 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7415 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7416 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7417 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7418 </p><p>
7419 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id3075546" href="#ftn.id3075546" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7420 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7421 here.<sup>[<a name="id3075581" href="#ftn.id3075581" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7422 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7423 radio.
7424 </p><p>
7425
7426
7427 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: &#8220;Pirater&#8221;">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7428 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radio performance</span>&#8221;</span> unless he or she
7429 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7430 version of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7431 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7432 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7433 owners of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> would get some money, whereas
7434 Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3075656"></a>
7435 </p><p>
7436 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7437 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7438 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7439 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7440 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7441 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7442 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7443 compensation to the recording artists.
7444 </p><p>
7445 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7446 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7447 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7448 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tune in</span>&#8221;</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7449 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7450 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7451 </p><p>
7452 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7453 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7454 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7455 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7456 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7457 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7458 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7459 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7460 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7461 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7462 </p><p>
7463
7464
7465
7466 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7467 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7468 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7469 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7470 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7471 struggle to enable FM radio,
7472 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7473 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7474 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7475 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7476 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7477 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7478 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7479 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7480 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7481 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7482 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7483 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7484 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id3075253" href="#ftn.id3075253" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7485 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7486 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7487 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7488 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3075764" href="#ftn.id3075764" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7489 </p><p>
7490 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7491 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7492 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7493 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7494 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7495 </p><p>
7496
7497 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7498 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7499 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7500 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7501 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7502 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7503 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> on the
7504 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7505 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7506 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7507 </p><p>
7508 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7509 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7510 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7511 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7512 year.<sup>[<a name="id3075812" href="#ftn.id3075812" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7513 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7514 </p><p>
7515 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7516 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7517 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7518 transaction</em></span>:
7519 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7520 navn på tjenesten,
7521 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7522 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7523 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7524 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7525 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7526 dato for sending;
7527 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7528 tidspunkt for sending;
7529 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7530 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7531 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7532 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7533 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7534 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7535 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7536 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7537 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7538 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7539 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7540 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7541 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7542 the track;
7543 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7544 spillende plateartist;
7545 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7546 tittel på album i butikker;
7547 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7548 plateselskap;
7549 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7550 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7551 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7552 katalognummer;
7553 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7554 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7555 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7556 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7557 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7558 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7559 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7560 kanal eller program;
7561 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7562 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7563 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7564 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7565 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7566 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7567 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7568 unik bruker-identifikator;
7569 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7570 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7571 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7572 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7573 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7574 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7575 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7576 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7577 not.
7578 </p><p>
7579 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7580 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7581 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7582 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3076034"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3076041"></a><p>
7583 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7584 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7585 Real Networks, told me,
7586 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7587
7588 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7589 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7590 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7591 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7592 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How do you come
7593 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7594 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7595 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7596 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>&#8221;</span>
7597 </p><p>
7598 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7599 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7600 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7601 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>&#8221;</span> (Emphasis added.)
7602 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7603 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7604 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7605 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7606 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7607 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7608 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7609 </p></div><div class="section" title="12.3. Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
7610 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7611 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7612 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7613 </p><p>
7614 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7615 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7616 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7617 </p><p>
7618
7619 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7620 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7621 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7622 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id3076135" href="#ftn.id3076135" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7623 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7624 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7625 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7626 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7627 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7628 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7629 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7630 </p><p>
7631 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7632 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7633 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7634 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7635 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7636 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7637 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7638 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7639 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7640 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7641 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id3075802" href="#ftn.id3075802" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7642 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7643 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7644 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7645 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7646 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7647 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7648 </p><p>
7649 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7650 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7651 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7652 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7653 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7654 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7655 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7656 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id3076216" href="#ftn.id3076216" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7657 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7658 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id3076233" href="#ftn.id3076233" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7659 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7660 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7661 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id3076249" href="#ftn.id3076249" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
7662 society,</span>&#8221;</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7663 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7664 regularly violate at least some law.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3076271"></a>
7665 </p><p>
7666 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7667 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7668 about the importance of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ethics.</span>&#8221;</span> As my colleague Charlie
7669 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7670 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7671 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7672 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7673 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7674 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7675 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7676 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7677 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7678 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7679 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">normally</span>&#8221;</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7680 <a class="indexterm" name="id3076289"></a>
7681 </p><p>
7682 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7683 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7684 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7685 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7686 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7687 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7688 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7689 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7690 </p><p>
7691
7692
7693
7694 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7695 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7696 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7697 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7698 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7699 </p><p>
7700 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7701 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7702 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7703 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7704 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7705 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7706 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7707 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7708 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7709 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7710 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sharing.</span>&#8221;</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7711 Americans <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">citizens,</span>&#8221;</span> not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">felons.</span>&#8221;</span>
7712 </p><p>
7713 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7714 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7715 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7716 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7717 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7718 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7719 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7720 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7721 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7722 </p><p>
7723 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7724 </p><p>
7725
7726 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7727 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7728 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7729 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7730 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> of the
7731 recordings is free.
7732 </p><p>
7733 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7734 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7735 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> to copy, or
7736 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rip,</span>&#8221;</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7737 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">freedom</span>&#8221;</span> was
7738 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7739 Burn</span>&#8221;</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7740 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3076417"></a><p>
7741 This <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7742 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7743 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7744 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7745 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7746 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7747 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7748 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7749 right.
7750 </p><p>
7751 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7752 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7753 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7754 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7755 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7756 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7757 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7758 </p><p>
7759
7760 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7761 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7762 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7763 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7764 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7765 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7766 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7767 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7768 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>&#8221;</span> system.
7769 </p><p>
7770 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7771 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7772 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7773 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7774 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7775 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7776 easily?
7777 </p><p>
7778 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7779 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7780 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7781 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7782 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7783 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7784 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7785 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7786 </p><p>
7787 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7788 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7789 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7790 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7791 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7792 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7793 horse-drawn buggy.
7794 </p><p>
7795 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7796 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7797 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7798 as criminals and their own survival.
7799 </p><p>
7800 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7801 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7802 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7803 important as our tradition of free culture.  There's one more aspect to this
7804 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7805 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7806 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">collateral
7807 damage</span>&#8221;</span> that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7808 of the population into criminals.</span>&#8221;</span> This is the collateral damage to
7809 civil liberties generally.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3076534"></a>
7810 </p><p>
7811 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>&#8221;</span> von
7812 Lohmann explains, <a class="indexterm" name="id3076549"></a>
7813 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7814 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7815 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7816 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7817 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7818 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7819 soon as we think, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7820 lawbreaker.</span>&#8221;</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7821 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7822 into <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>&#8221;</span>
7823 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7824 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7825 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7826 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7827 </p><p>
7828 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7829 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7830 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7831 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7832 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7833 user is revealed.
7834 </p><p>
7835
7836 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7837 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7838 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7839 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7840 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7841 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7842 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id3076607" href="#ftn.id3076607" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7843
7844 </p><p>
7845 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7846 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7847 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id3076663" href="#ftn.id3076663" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7848 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7849 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7850 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>&#8221;</span>
7851 </p><p>
7852 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7853 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7854 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7855 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7856 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7857 if the college network is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cooperating</span>&#8221;</span> with the RIAA's
7858 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7859 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7860 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminal.</span>&#8221;</span> And under the rules
7861 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id3076708" href="#ftn.id3076708" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7862 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7863 </p><p>
7864 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7865 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7866 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7867 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7868 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7869 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">contraband</span>&#8221;</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7870 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7871 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7872 Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id3076795"></a>
7873 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7874 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7875 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7876 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7877 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7878 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7879 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7880 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7881 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7882 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7883 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7884 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7885 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7886 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7887 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7888 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7889 million of them.
7890 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7891 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7892 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminals</span>&#8221;</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7893 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7894 millions being considered <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminals,</span>&#8221;</span> who is the villain?
7895 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7896 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7897 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074645" href="#id3074645" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7898
7899 See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7900 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7901 for details of the settlement, see MCI press release, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7902 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>&#8221;</span> (7 July 2003),
7903 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
7904 <a class="indexterm" name="id3074670"></a>
7905 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074683" href="#id3074683" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7906  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7907 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7908 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7909 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>&#8221;</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7910 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7911 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>&#8221;</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7912 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7913 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7914 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3074714"></a>
7915 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074746" href="#id3074746" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7916
7917
7918
7919 See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>&#8221;</span>
7920 <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For an overview of the
7921 exhibition, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
7922 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075174" href="#id3075174" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7923
7924
7925 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>&#8221;</span>
7926 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7927 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7928 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>&#8221;</span>
7929 Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>.  See also Jon Healey,
7930 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7931 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7932 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074906" href="#id3074906" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7933
7934 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>&#8221;</span>
7935 <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. I am grateful to
7936 Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3075272"></a>
7937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075410" href="#id3075410" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7938
7939 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span>
7940 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7941 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7942 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075439" href="#id3075439" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7943
7944
7945 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7946 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075462" href="#id3075462" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7947
7948
7949 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>&#8221;</span>
7950 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7951 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075510" href="#id3075510" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7952
7953 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7954 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3075518"></a>
7955 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075546" href="#id3075546" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7956
7957
7958 The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
7959 Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7960 Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of
7961 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7962 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7963 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7964 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7965 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7966 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7967 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
7968 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
7969 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7970 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7971 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075581" href="#id3075581" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
7972
7973 For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
7974 Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
7975 copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
7976 copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In August
7977 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate that
7978 technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films broadcast on
7979 TV (i.e., computers) respect a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>&#8221;</span> that would
7980 disable copying of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator
7981 Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
7982 Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital
7983 media devices. See GartnerG2, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a
7984 Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span> 27 June 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3075611"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3075619"></a>
7985 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075253" href="#id3075253" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
7986
7987
7988 Lessing, 239.
7989 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075764" href="#id3075764" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
7990
7991
7992 Ibid., 229.
7993 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075812" href="#id3075812" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
7994
7995 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
7996 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
7997 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
7998 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
7999 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
8000 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
8001 Recordings, Docket No. 2000-9, CARP DTRA 1 and 2, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #45</a>.  For an excellent
8002 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright as
8003 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
8004 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
8005 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
8006 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
8007 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
8008 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
8009 media-neutral way.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3075848"></a>
8010 <a class="indexterm" name="id3075857"></a>
8011 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076135" href="#id3076135" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
8012
8013 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>&#8221;</span>
8014 Pew Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #46</a>.  The Pew Internet and
8015 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8016 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8017 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075802" href="#id3075802" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8018
8019
8020 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8021 Case,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8022 Business.
8023 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076216" href="#id3076216" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8024
8025
8026 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8027 Prohibition,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8028 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8029 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076233" href="#id3076233" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8030
8031
8032 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8033 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8034 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8035 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076249" href="#id3076249" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8036
8037
8038 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Tax
8039 Compliance,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8040 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8041 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076607" href="#id3076607" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8042
8043
8044 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8045 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>&#8221;</span>
8046 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8047 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8048 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8049 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8050 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recording
8051 Industry Sues Parents,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8052 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8053 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8054 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>&#8221;</span>
8055 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8056 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076663" href="#id3076663" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8057
8058
8059 See <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
8060 Some Methods Used,</span>&#8221;</span> CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
8061 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076708" href="#id3076708" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8062
8063
8064 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8065 Penitent,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8066 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8067 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>&#8221;</span>
8068 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8069 Armstrong, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>&#8221;</span>
8070 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8071 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8072 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>&#8221;</span>
8073 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8074 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>&#8221;</span>
8075 <em class="citetitle">Internet News</em>, 30 January 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #48</a>; Benny Evangelista,
8076 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8077 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8078 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8079 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8080 September 2000, 3D.
8081 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Del IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
8082 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
8083 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
8084 hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
8085 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8086 </p><p>
8087 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8088 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8089 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8090 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8091 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8092 </p><p>
8093 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil
8094 ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
8095 virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.
8096 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
8097 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til
8098 seg selv vil brenne ut.
8099 </p><p>
8100
8101
8102 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8103 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8104 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8105 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8106 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8107 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8108 </p><p>
8109 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8110 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8111 bensin på denne brannen.
8112 </p><p>
8113 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8114 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8115 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8116 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8117 burde holde øynene på veien.
8118 </p><p>
8119 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8120 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8121 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8122 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8123 å lykkes.
8124 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8125 In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
8126 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
8127 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
8128 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
8129 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
8130 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
8131 </p><p>
8132 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8133 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8134 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8135 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8136 </p><p>
8137
8138 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8139 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8140 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8141 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8142 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8143 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8144 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8145 </p><p>
8146 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8147 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8148 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8149 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8150 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8151 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8152 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8153 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8154 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8155 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8156 works.
8157 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3077046"></a><p>
8158 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8159 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8160 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8161 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8162 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8163 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>&#8221;</span> which before the Internet
8164 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8165 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8166 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id3077069" href="#ftn.id3077069" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8167 </p><p>
8168 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8169 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8170 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8171 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8172 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8173 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8174 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8175 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8176 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8177 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8178 </p><p>
8179
8180
8181 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8182 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8183 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8184 forever.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3077125" href="#ftn.id3077125" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8185
8186 </p><p>
8187 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8188 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8189 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8190 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8191 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8192 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8193 </p><p>
8194 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8195 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8196 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8197 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8198 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8199 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8200 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8201 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8202 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8203 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8204 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8205 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8206 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8207 example, to regulate <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>&#8221;</span> or
8208 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">declare War.</span>&#8221;</span> But here, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">something</span>&#8221;</span> is
8209 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8210 Progress</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8211 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">securing</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>&#8221;</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8212 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>&#8221;</span>
8213 </p><p>
8214 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8215 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8216 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8217 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited</span>&#8221;</span> will have no practical
8218 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8219 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8220 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>&#8221;</span> as
8221 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3077225"></a>
8222 </p><p>
8223 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8224 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8225 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8226 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8227 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8228 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8229 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8230 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8231 </p><p>
8232 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8233 government. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Corruption</span>&#8221;</span> not in the sense that representatives
8234 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">corruption</span>&#8221;</span> in the sense that the system
8235 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8236 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8237 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8238 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8239 </p><p>
8240 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8241 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8242 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8243 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8244 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8245 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8246 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8247 </p><p>
8248 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8249 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8250 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8251 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8252 </p><p>
8253
8254 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Next year,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8255 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8256 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8257 of those works.</span>&#8221;</span>
8258 </p><p>
8259 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>&#8221;</span> she continues,
8260 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8261 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8262 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>&#8221;</span>
8263 </p><p>
8264 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hope?</span>&#8221;</span> a fellow board member says. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Can't we be doing
8265 something about it?</span>&#8221;</span>
8266 </p><p>
8267 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We could
8268 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8269 that they support the bill.</span>&#8221;</span>
8270 </p><p>
8271 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8272 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much would we get
8273 if this extension were passed?</span>&#8221;</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much
8274 is it worth?</span>&#8221;</span>
8275 </p><p>
8276 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8277 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8278 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8279 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>&#8221;</span>
8280 </p><p>
8281 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8282 conclusion:
8283 </p><p>
8284 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8285 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8286 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>&#8221;</span>
8287 </p><p>
8288 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8289 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8290 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>&#8221;</span>
8291 </p><p>
8292
8293 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8294 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8295 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8296 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8297 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8298 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8299 extended.
8300 </p><p>
8301 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8302 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8303 buy further extensions of copyright.
8304 </p><p>
8305 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8306 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theory</span>&#8221;</span> about incentives was proved
8307 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8308 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8309 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3077419" href="#ftn.id3077419" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8310 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8311 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3077436" href="#ftn.id3077436" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8312 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id3077455" href="#ftn.id3077455" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8313
8314 </p><p>
8315 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8316 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8317 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8318 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8319 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8320 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8321 constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> If they
8322 could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8323 </p><p>
8324
8325 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8326 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8327 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8328 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8329 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8330 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8331 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8332 </p><p>
8333 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8334 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8335 only <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>&#8221;</span> (aka <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">interstate
8336 commerce</span>&#8221;</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8337 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8338 </p><p>
8339 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8340 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8341 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8342 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8343 limit.
8344 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3077533"></a><p>
8345 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8346 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8347 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8348 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8349 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8350 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8351 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8352 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8353 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8354 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8355 </p><p>
8356 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8357 arguments,</span>&#8221;</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id3077567" href="#ftn.id3077567" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8358 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8359 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8360 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8361 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id3077594" href="#ftn.id3077594" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8362 </p><p>
8363
8364 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8365 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id3077614" href="#ftn.id3077614" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8366 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8367 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8368 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stopping
8369 point</span>&#8221;</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8370 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8371 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8372 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8373 </p><p>
8374 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8375 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8376 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8377 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8378 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8379 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8380 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fidelity</span>&#8221;</span>
8381 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8382 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8383 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8384 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8385 </p><p>
8386 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8387 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8388 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8389 piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8390 piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8391 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8392 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8393 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8394 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8395 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8396 these entities were using their power&#8212;expressed through the power of
8397 lobbyists' money&#8212;to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8398 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8399 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8400 </p><p>
8401 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8402 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8403 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3077704" href="#ftn.id3077704" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8404 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8405 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8406 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3077730"></a>
8407 </p><p>
8408 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8409 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8410 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8411 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8412 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8413 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8414 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8415 </p><p>
8416 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8417 Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>&#8221;</span> These works are too
8418 valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
8419 from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget
8420 Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and
8421 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
8422 comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
8423 not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8424 </p><p>
8425 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8426 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8427 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8428 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8429 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8430 generally.<sup>[<a name="id3077775" href="#ftn.id3077775" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8431
8432 </p><p>
8433
8434 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8435 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8436 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8437 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8438 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8439 have to do?
8440 </p><p>
8441 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8442 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8443 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8444 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8445 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8446 under copyright.
8447 </p><p>
8448 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8449 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8450 </p><p>
8451 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8452 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8453 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8454 </p><p>
8455 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8456 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8457 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8458 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8459 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8460 </p><p>
8461 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>&#8221;</span> the
8462 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8463 copyright owners?</span>&#8221;</span>
8464 </p><p>
8465 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8466 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8467 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8468 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8469 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8470 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8471 </p><p>
8472
8473 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8474 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8475 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8476 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8477 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8478 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8479 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8480 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8481 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8482 </p><p>
8483 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8484 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8485 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8486 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8487 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8488 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8489 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8490 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8491 to be used.
8492 </p><p>
8493 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8494 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8495 creative works is much more dire.
8496 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3077916"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3077922"></a><p>
8497 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8498 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8499 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8500 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8501 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8502 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8503 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8504 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8505 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8506 films.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3077946" href="#ftn.id3077946" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3077969"></a>
8507 </p><p>
8508 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8509 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8510 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8511 a whole generation of American film.
8512 </p><p>
8513
8514 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8515 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8516 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8517 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8518 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8519 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8520 </p><p>
8521 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8522 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8523 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8524 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8525 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id3078006" href="#ftn.id3078006" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8526
8527 </p><p>
8528 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8529 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8530 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8531 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8532 locate the copyright owner.
8533 </p><p>
8534 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8535 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8536 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8537 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8538 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8539 exceptionally high.
8540 </p><p>
8541 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8542 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>&#8221;</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8543 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8544 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8545 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8546 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8547 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8548 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8549 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8550 </p><p>
8551
8552 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8553 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8554 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8555 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8556 expires.
8557 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078083"></a><p>
8558 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8559 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8560 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8561 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8562 </p><p>
8563 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8564 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8565 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8566 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8567 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">engine of free
8568 expression.</span>&#8221;</span>
8569 </p><p>
8570 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8571 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8572 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8573 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8574 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8575 commercial life ends.
8576 </p><p>
8577 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8578 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8579 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8580 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8581 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8582 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8583 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8584 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8585 </p><p>
8586
8587 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8588 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8589 context do no good.
8590 </p><p>
8591 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8592 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8593 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8594 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8595 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8596 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8597 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8598 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8599 </p><p>
8600 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8601 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8602 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8603 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8604 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8605 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8606 </p><p>
8607 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8608 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8609 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8610 interfered with anything.
8611 </p><p>
8612 But this situation has now changed.
8613 </p><p>
8614 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8615 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8616 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8617 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8618 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8619 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8620 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8621 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8622 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8623 </p><p>
8624
8625
8626 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8627 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8628 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8629 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8630 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8631 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8632 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8633 radically different context.
8634 </p><p>
8635 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8636 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8637 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8638 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8639 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8640 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8641 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8642 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8643 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8644 </p><p>
8645 You may well ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8646 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8647 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8648 widely?</span>&#8221;</span>
8649 </p><p>
8650 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8651 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8652 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8653 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8654 what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the market</span>&#8221;</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8655 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8656 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8657 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8658 work for us.
8659 </p><p>
8660 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8661 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8662 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8663 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8664 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8665 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8666 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8667 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id3078276" href="#ftn.id3078276" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8668
8669 </p><p>
8670 In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8671 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8672 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8673 that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
8674 Constitution's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> requirement, and (2) that
8675 extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8676 </p><p>
8677 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8678 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8679 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8680 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8681 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8682 </p><p>
8683 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8684 be for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8685 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8686 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stopping point</span>&#8221;</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8687 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8688 grant terms that are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8689 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> to give it
8690 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8691 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8692 </p><p>
8693 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8694 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8695 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8696 the court will sit <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">en banc</span>&#8221;</span> to hear the case.
8697 </p><p>
8698
8699 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8700 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8701 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8702 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8703 bounds.
8704 </p><p>
8705 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8706 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8707 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8708 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8709 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8710 </p><p>
8711 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8712 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8713 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8714 </p><p>
8715 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8716 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8717 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8718 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8719 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8720 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8721 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8722 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8723 </p><p>
8724 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8725 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8726 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8727 at vi ikke vant.
8728 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078405"></a><p>
8729
8730 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8731 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8732 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8733 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8734 på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8735 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8736 saken.
8737 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078428"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078434"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078440"></a><p>
8738 There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff Stewart was
8739 the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became quite
8740 involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view about how this
8741 case would be won: We would only win, they repeatedly told me, if we could
8742 make the issue seem <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">important</span>&#8221;</span> to the Supreme Court. It had to
8743 seem as if dramatic harm were being done to free speech and free culture;
8744 otherwise, they would never vote against <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the most powerful media
8745 companies in the world.</span>&#8221;</span>
8746 </p><p>
8747 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8748 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8749 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8750 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8751 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">true,</span>&#8221;</span> I thought, but it is
8752 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">wrong</span>&#8221;</span> as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it just shouldn't be that way.</span>&#8221;</span> As
8753 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8754 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8755 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8756 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8757 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8758 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8759 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8760 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8761 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8762 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8763 put in the Constitution.
8764 </p><p>
8765 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8766 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8767 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8768 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8769 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8770 </p><p>
8771
8772 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8773 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8774 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8775 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8776 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8777 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8778 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8779 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8780 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8781 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8782 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8783 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8784 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8785 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8786 </p><p>
8787 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8788 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8789 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8790 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8791 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8792 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8793 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8794 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>&#8221;</span> The answer, as the
8795 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8796 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8797 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8798 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3078553"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078559"></a>
8799 </p><p>
8800 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8801 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8802 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8803 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8804 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8805 </p><p>
8806 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8807 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8808 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8809 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8810 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8811 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8812 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8813 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8814 <a class="indexterm" name="id3078588"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078597"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078603"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078609"></a>
8815 </p><p>
8816 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8817 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8818 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8819 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3078623"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078630"></a>
8820 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078637"></a><p>
8821 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8822 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8823 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8824 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8825 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078652"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078658"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078670"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078677"></a><p>
8826 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8827 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8828 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8829 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8830 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8831 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8832 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8833 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8834 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8835 </p><p>
8836 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8837 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8838 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8839 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8840 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8841 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8842 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8843 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8844 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8845 <a class="indexterm" name="id3078712"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078721"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078727"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078733"></a>
8846 </p><p>
8847 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8848 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8849 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8850 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8851 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8852 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8853 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8854 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8855 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3078754"></a>
8856 </p><p>
8857 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8858 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">friends</span>&#8221;</span> included
8859 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8860 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8861 holders.
8862 </p><p>
8863 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8864 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8865 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8866 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8867 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8868 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8869 </p><p>
8870 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8871 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8872 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8873 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8874 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3078793" href="#ftn.id3078793" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8875 which defended its <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protection</span>&#8221;</span> of the work of George
8876 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8877 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8878 cast.<sup>[<a name="id3078818" href="#ftn.id3078818" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8879 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8880 help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3078834"></a>
8881 </p><p>
8882 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8883 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8884 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8885 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8886 Congress and say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8887 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8888 else.</span>&#8221;</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8889 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8890 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8891 traditionally meant to block.
8892 </p><p>
8893 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8894 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8895 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8896 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8897 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.  Between
8898 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8899 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8900 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078864"></a><p>
8901 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8902 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>&#8221;</span> The other we called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
8903 Rest.</span>&#8221;</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8904 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8905 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8906 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8907 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8908 that Congress's powers had limits.
8909 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078900"></a><p>
8910
8911 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8912 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8913 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8914 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8915 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8916 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8917 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8918 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8919 </p><p>
8920 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8921 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8922 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8923 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8924 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8925 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8926 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8927 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8928 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078935"></a><p>
8929 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8930 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8931 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8932 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8933 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8934 </p><p>
8935 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8936 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8937 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8938 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8939 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8940 confident he would recognize limits here.
8941 </p><p>
8942 This analysis of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Rest</span>&#8221;</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8943 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8944 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8945 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8946 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8947 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8948 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8949 </p><p>
8950
8951 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8952 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8953 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8954 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8955 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8956 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> Our aim would be
8957 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
8958 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8959 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8960 limited.
8961 </p><p>
8962 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8963 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8964 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8965 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8966 practice is unconstitutional.
8967 </p><p>
8968 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8969 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
8970 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8971 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
8972 </p><p>
8973
8974 But this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">consistency</span>&#8221;</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
8975 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
8976 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
8977 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8978 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8979 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8980 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8981 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
8982 couldn't intervene here.  Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8983 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8984 weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mooted</span>&#8221;</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
8985 to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">moots</span>&#8221;</span> are basically practice
8986 rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
8987 </p><p>
8988 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
8989 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
8990 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
8991 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
8992 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
8993 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
8994 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079061"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3079068"></a><p>
8995 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
8996 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
8997 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
8998 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id3079081"></a>
8999 </p><p>
9000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
9001 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
9002 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
9003 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
9004 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>&#8221;</span>
9005 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079093"></a><p>
9006
9007 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
9008 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
9009 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
9010 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9011 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9012 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9013 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9014 politicians learn to see that it was also good.  The night before the
9015 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
9016 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
9017 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
9018 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
9019 would be assured a seat.
9020 </p><p>
9021 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9022 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9023 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9024 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9025 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9026 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9027 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9028 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9029 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9030 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9031 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9032 </p><p>
9033 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9034 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9035 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9036 powers had any limit.
9037 </p><p>
9038 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9039 was bothering her.
9040 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9041 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9042 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9043 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9044 act.
9045 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9046 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9047 of what the framers had in mind.</span>&#8221;</span> But my response again and again was
9048 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9049 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9050
9051 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9052 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9053 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9054 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9055 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9056 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9057 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9058 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9059 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9060 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9061 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9062 evidence for that.
9063 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9064 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9065 answered,
9066 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9067 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9068 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9069 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9070 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9071 under the copyright laws.
9072 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3079223"></a><p>
9073 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9074 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9075 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9076 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9077 was a swing and a miss.
9078 </p><p>
9079 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9080 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9081 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9082 </p><p>
9083
9084 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9085 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9086
9087
9088 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9089 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9090 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9091 </p><p>
9092 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9093 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9094 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9095 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9096 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9097 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9098 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9099 General Olson,
9100 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9101 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9102 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9103 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9104 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9105 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9106 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9107 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9108 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9109 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9110 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9111 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9112 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9113 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9114 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9115 Court to my side.
9116 </p><p>
9117
9118 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
9119 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
9120 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
9121 </p><p>
9122 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9123 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9124 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9125 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9126 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9127 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9128 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9129 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9130 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9131 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9132 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9133 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9134 </p><p>
9135 The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
9136 missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
9137 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
9138 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
9139 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
9140 </p><p>
9141 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9142 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9143 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9144 </p><p>
9145 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9146 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9147 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9148 </p><p>
9149 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9150 principle in this case from the principle in
9151 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9152 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9153 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9154 </p><p>
9155
9156
9157
9158 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9159 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9160 Congress's power not limited here.
9161 </p><p>
9162 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9163 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9164 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9165 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9166 </p><p>
9167 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9168 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9169 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9170 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9171 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9172 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9173 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9174 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9175 context it would not.
9176 </p><p>
9177 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9178 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9179 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9180 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9181 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9182 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9183 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9184 will respect, that is the system we have.
9185 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079418"></a><p>
9186 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9187 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9188 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9189 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9190 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9191 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9192 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9193 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9194 charge go unanswered.
9195 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079437"></a><p>
9196
9197
9198 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9199 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9200 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9201 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9202 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9203 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9204 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited,</span>&#8221;</span> and the existing
9205 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9206 unconstitutional.
9207 </p><p>
9208 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9209 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9210 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9211 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9212 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9213 Prince.
9214 </p><p>
9215 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9216 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9217 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9218 </p><p>
9219 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>&#8221;</span> It would have
9220 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9221 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9222 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9223 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9224 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9225 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9226 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalism</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9227 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9228 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9229 other <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalist</span>&#8221;</span> rulings. Where was their
9230 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalism</span>&#8221;</span> now?
9231 </p><p>
9232
9233 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9234 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9235 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9236 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9237 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9238 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9239 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9240 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9241 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9242 consistent with their own principles.
9243 </p><p>
9244 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9245 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9246 it is.
9247 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079551"></a><p>
9248 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9249 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9250 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9251 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9252 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9253 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9254 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9255 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9256 popularity.
9257 </p><p>
9258
9259 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9260 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9261 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9262 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9263 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9264 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9265 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9266 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9267 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9268 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9269 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9270 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9271 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9272 on which a court should decide the issue.
9273 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079593"></a><p>
9274 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9275 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9276 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id3079604"></a>
9277 </p><p>
9278 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9279 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9280 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9281 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9282 </p><p>
9283 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9284 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9285 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9286 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9287 persuaded.
9288 </p><p>
9289 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9290 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9291 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9292 was a mistake. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>&#8221;</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9293 issue should not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3079638"></a>
9294 </p><p>
9295
9296 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9297 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9298 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9299 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9300 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9301 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9302 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.  While the reaction to the Sonny
9303 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9304 decision was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9305 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9306 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9307 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9308 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9309 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9310 law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9311 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9312 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9313 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9314 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9315 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9316 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9317 creative ferment.
9318 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9319 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9320 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9321 case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figur 13.1, &#8220;Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon&#8221;</a>). The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>&#8221;</span> line is a bit
9322 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3079700"></a>
9323 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3079721"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9324 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9325 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">grand
9326 experiment</span>&#8221;</span> we call the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public domain</span>&#8221;</span> is over? When I
9327 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9328 Constitution.</span>&#8221;</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9329 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9330 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9331 have made them see differently.
9332 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077069" href="#id3077069" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9333
9334
9335 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9336 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9337 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9338 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9339 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9340 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9341 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9342 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9343 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9344 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9345 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9346 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9347 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077125" href="#id3077125" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9348
9349
9350 The full text is: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9351 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9352 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9353 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9354 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9355 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>&#8221;</span> 144
9356 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9357 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077419" href="#id3077419" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9358
9359 Associated Press, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9360 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>&#8221;</span>
9361 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
9362 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077436" href="#id3077436" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9363
9364 See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9365 Age,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9366 #49</a>.
9367 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077455" href="#id3077455" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9368
9369
9370 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>&#8221;</span>
9371 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990,
9372 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
9373 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077567" href="#id3077567" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9374
9375 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9376 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9377 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077594" href="#id3077594" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9378
9379
9380 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9381 U.S. 598 (2000).
9382 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077614" href="#id3077614" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9383
9384
9385 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9386 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9387 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9388 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9389 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9390 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9391 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9392 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited times</span>&#8221;</span>
9393 notwithstanding.
9394 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077704" href="#id3077704" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9395
9396
9397 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9398 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9399 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9400 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077775" href="#id3077775" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9401
9402 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9403 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9404 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9405 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9406 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077946" href="#id3077946" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9407
9408
9409 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9410 Law,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9411 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9412 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>&#8221;</span>
9413 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9414 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3078006" href="#id3078006" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9415
9416
9417 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9418 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9419 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9420 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9421 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9422 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9423 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3078276" href="#id3078276" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9424
9425
9426 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>&#8221;</span>
9427 20 December 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9428 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3078793" href="#id3078793" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9429
9430
9431 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9432 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9433 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3078818" href="#id3078818" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9434
9435
9436 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9437 Joins the Fray,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9438 1998, B7.
9439 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9440 The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9441 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9442 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied&#8212;meaning the case was really
9443 finally over&#8212;fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9444 technologists at Disney World.)  This was a particularly long flight to my
9445 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9446 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9447 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079772"></a><p>
9448 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9449 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9450 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9451 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9452 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9453 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>&#8221;</span> And
9454 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9455 turned to an argument of politics.
9456 </p><p>
9457
9458 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9459 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9460 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9461 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9462 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9463 </p><p>
9464 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9465 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9466 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9467 </p><p>
9468 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9469 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>&#8221;</span> or the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright
9470 Term Deregulation Act.</span>&#8221;</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9471 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9472 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9473 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9474 the content go.
9475 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079839"></a><p>
9476 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9477 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9478 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9479 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9480 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9481 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9482 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9483 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9484 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9485 </p><p>
9486 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9487 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9488 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9489 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9490 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9491 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9492 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9493 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9494 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3079878"></a><p>
9495
9496 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9497 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9498 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id3079896" href="#ftn.id3079896" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9499 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">natural right.</span>&#8221;</span>
9500 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9501 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9502 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9503 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9504 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9505 </p><p>
9506 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9507 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9508 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt
9509 Disney creativity</span>&#8221;</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9510 what's protected and what's not.
9511 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079958"></a><p>
9512 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9513 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9514 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9515 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9516 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9517 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9518 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9519 loss of widows' only income.
9520 </p><p>
9521 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9522 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9523 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9524 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9525 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9526 of registration.
9527 </p><p>
9528 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9529 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9530 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9531 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9532 imposed upon creators.
9533 </p><p>
9534
9535 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9536 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9537 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9538 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9539 a property right over the table <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">naturally,</span>&#8221;</span> and he can assert
9540 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9541 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9542 </p><p>
9543 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9544 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9545 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9546 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9547 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9548 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9549 </p><p>
9550 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9551 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9552 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9553 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9554 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9555 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9556 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9557 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9558 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9559 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9560 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9561 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9562 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9563 </p><p>
9564 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9565 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9566 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9567 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9568 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9569 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9570 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9571 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9572 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9573 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3080064"></a>
9574 </p><p>
9575 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9576 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9577 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">get.</span>&#8221;</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9578 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9579 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">short,</span>&#8221;</span> then
9580 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9581 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9582 presumptively uncontrolled.
9583 </p><p>
9584 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9585 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9586 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9587 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9588 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9589 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9590 formalities</em></span>.
9591 </p><p>
9592 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9593 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9594 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9595 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9596 extended copyright term.
9597 </p><p>
9598 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9599 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9600 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9601 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9602 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9603 </p><p>
9604 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9605 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9606 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9607 registrering?
9608 </p><p>
9609
9610 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9611 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9612 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9613 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9614 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9615 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9616 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9617 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9618 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9619 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9620 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9621 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9622 years. What do you think?
9623 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3080157"></a><p>
9624 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9625 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9626 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9627 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9628 </p><p>
9629 One representative, Zoe Lofgren of California, went so far as to get the
9630 bill drafted. The draft solved any problem with international law. It
9631 imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners possible. In May
9632 2003, it looked as if the bill would be introduced. On May 16, I posted on
9633 the Eldred Act blog, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we are close.</span>&#8221;</span> There was a general
9634 reaction in the blog community that something good might happen here.
9635 <a class="indexterm" name="id3080188"></a>
9636 </p><p>
9637 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9638 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9639 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9640 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9641 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9642 about what this debate is really about.
9643 </p><p>
9644
9645 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9646 concept in the proposed bill</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9647 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>&#8221;</span> had
9648 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9649 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9650 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9651 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9652 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9653 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9654 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9655 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9656 impose <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">enormous</span>&#8221;</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9657 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9658 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9659 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9660 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9661 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9662 </p><p>
9663 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9664 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9665 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9666 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9667 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9668 likely to.
9669 </p><p>
9670 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9671 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.  In the other,
9672 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9673 power of the opposition&#8212;the power of the side that fought to defend
9674 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9675 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9676 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9677 </p><p>
9678 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9679 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9680 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9681 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9682 sunne fornuften?
9683 </p><p>
9684
9685
9686
9687 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9688 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9689 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9690 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9691 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9692 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9693 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9694 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9695 resistance.
9696 </p><p>
9697 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9698 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9699 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9700 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9701 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9702 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>&#8221;</span> that fills archives
9703 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9704 ask one simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id3080306"></a>
9705 </p><p>
9706 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9707 </p><p>
9708 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9709 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9710 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9711 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9712 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9713 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9714 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9715 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9716 </p><p>
9717 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9718 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9719 the protection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9720 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9721 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9722 </p><p>
9723
9724 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9725 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9726 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9727 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9728 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9729 creation.
9730 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3080363"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3080370"></a><p>
9731 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9732 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9733 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9734 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9735 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9736 </p><p>
9737 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9738 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9739 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9740 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission
9741 society.</span>&#8221;</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9742 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9743 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9744 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3079896" href="#id3079896" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9745
9746
9747 Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9748 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9749 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9750 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
9751 of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
9752 exercise</span>&#8221;</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">shall not be
9753 subject to any formality.</span>&#8221;</span> The prohibition against formalities is
9754 presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
9755 Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
9756 registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
9757 law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
9758 repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books published in
9759 the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
9760 Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
9761 name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
9762 Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
9763 Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
9764 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9765 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten
9766 millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9767 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er
9768 17 millioner afrikanere.
9769 </p><p>
9770 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9771 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9772 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9773 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9774 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9775 usynlig.
9776 </p><p>
9777 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9778 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9779 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9780 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9781 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9782 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9783 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id3080494" href="#ftn.id3080494" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9784 </p><p>
9785
9786
9787 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9788 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9789 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9790 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9791 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9792 prisene høye.
9793 </p><p>
9794 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9795 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9796 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9797 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9798 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9799 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9800 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9801 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9802 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9803 </p><p>
9804 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9805 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9806 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9807 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9808 markedspris.
9809 </p><p>
9810 In 1997, South Africa tried one tack. It passed a law to allow the
9811 importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in another
9812 nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the
9813 drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is
9814 called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>&#8221;</span> and it is generally permitted
9815 under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the
9816 European Union.<sup>[<a name="id3080581" href="#ftn.id3080581" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9817 </p><p>
9818 However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than
9819 opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
9820 characterized it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa &#8230;
9821 not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3077194" href="#ftn.id3077194" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Through the Office of the United States Trade
9822 Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the
9823 law&#8212;and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed
9824 South Africa for possible trade sanctions.  That same year, more than forty
9825 pharmaceutical companies began proceedings in the South African courts to
9826 challenge the government's actions. The United States was then joined by
9827 other governments from the EU. Their claim, and the claim of the
9828 pharmaceutical companies, was that South Africa was violating its
9829 obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular
9830 kind of patent&#8212; pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these
9831 governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa
9832 respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any
9833 effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<sup>[<a name="id3080637" href="#ftn.id3080637" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9834 </p><p>
9835 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9836 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9837 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9838 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9839 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9840 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9841 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9842 </p><p>
9843 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9844 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9845 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9846 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9847 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9848 30 millioner liv.
9849 </p><p>
9850 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9851 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9852 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9853 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9854 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9855 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9856 selskapene betydelig.
9857 </p><p>
9858 Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of information,
9859 which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument about the
9860 sanctity of property.<sup>[<a name="id3080724" href="#ftn.id3080724" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> It was because
9861 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> would be violated that these drugs
9862 should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the importance of
9863 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> that led these government actors to
9864 intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
9865 </p><p>
9866 Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years from now
9867 when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have let this
9868 happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose direct cost would be
9869 to speed the death of 15 to 30 million Africans, and whose only real benefit
9870 would be to uphold the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sanctity</span>&#8221;</span> of an idea? What possible
9871 justification could there ever be for a policy that results in so many
9872 deaths? What exactly is the insanity that would allow so many to die for
9873 such an abstraction?
9874 </p><p>
9875 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9876 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9877 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9878 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9879 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9880 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9881 </p><p>
9882 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9883 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9884 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9885 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9886 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9887 overvunnet.
9888 </p><p>
9889
9890 A different problem, however, could not be overcome. This is the fear of the
9891 grandstanding politician who would call the presidents of the drug companies
9892 before a Senate or House hearing, and ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How is it you can sell
9893 this HIV drug in Africa for only $1 a pill, but the same drug would cost an
9894 American $1,500?</span>&#8221;</span> Because there is no <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sound bite</span>&#8221;</span>
9895 answer to that question, its effect would be to induce regulation of prices
9896 in America. The drug companies thus avoid this spiral by avoiding the first
9897 step. They reinforce the idea that property should be sacred. They adopt a
9898 rational strategy in an irrational context, with the unintended consequence
9899 that perhaps millions die. And that rational strategy thus becomes framed in
9900 terms of this ideal&#8212;the sanctity of an idea called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual
9901 property.</span>&#8221;</span>
9902 </p><p>
9903 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9904 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9905 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9906 </p><p>
9907 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9908 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9909 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9910 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9911 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9912 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9913 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9914 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9915 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9916 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9917 </p><p>
9918 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9919 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9920 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9921 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9922 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9923 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9924 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3080902"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3080927"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3080935"></a><p>
9925
9926 En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
9927 av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
9928 idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
9929 det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk
9930 aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
9931 spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
9932 folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne
9933 fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
9934 kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9935 </p><p>
9936 So far, common sense sleeps. There is no revolt. Common sense does not yet
9937 see what there could be to revolt about. The extremism that now dominates
9938 this debate fits with ideas that seem natural, and that fit is reinforced by
9939 the RCAs of our day. They wage a frantic war to fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span>
9940 and devastate a culture for creativity. They defend the idea of
9941 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property,</span>&#8221;</span> while transforming real creators into
9942 modern-day sharecroppers. They are insulted by the idea that rights should
9943 be balanced, even though each of the major players in this content war was
9944 itself a beneficiary of a more balanced ideal. The hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a
9945 city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even noticed. Powerful lobbies,
9946 complex issues, and MTV attention spans produce the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">perfect
9947 storm</span>&#8221;</span> for free culture.
9948 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3080998"></a><p>
9949 In August 2003, a fight broke out in the United States about a decision by
9950 the World Intellectual Property Organization to cancel a
9951 meeting.<sup>[<a name="id3081009" href="#ftn.id3081009" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> At the request of a wide range
9952 of interests, WIPO had decided to hold a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open and
9953 collaborative projects to create public goods.</span>&#8221;</span> These are projects
9954 that have been successful in producing public goods without relying
9955 exclusively upon a proprietary use of intellectual property. Examples
9956 include the Internet and the World Wide Web, both of which were developed on
9957 the basis of protocols in the public domain. It included an emerging trend
9958 to support open academic journals, including the Public Library of Science
9959 project that I describe in the Afterword. It included a project to develop
9960 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are thought to have great
9961 significance in biomedical research. (That nonprofit project comprised a
9962 consortium of the Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and technological
9963 companies, including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer,
9964 Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola,
9965 Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It included the Global Positioning System,
9966 which Ronald Reagan set free in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open
9967 source and free software.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081083"></a>
9968 <a class="indexterm" name="id3081092"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081098"></a>
9969 </p><p>
9970 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9971 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9972 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9973 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9974 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9975 </p><p>
9976 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9977 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id3081123" href="#ftn.id3081123" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9978 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
9979 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9980 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9981 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9982 </p><p>
9983
9984 Indeed, I was once publicly scolded for not recognizing this fact about
9985 WIPO. In February 2003, I delivered a keynote address to a preparatory
9986 conference for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At a
9987 press conference before the address, I was asked what I would say. I
9988 responded that I would be talking a little about the importance of balance
9989 in intellectual property for the development of an information society. The
9990 moderator for the event then promptly interrupted to inform me and the
9991 assembled reporters that no question about intellectual property would be
9992 discussed by WSIS, since those questions were the exclusive domain of
9993 WIPO. In the talk that I had prepared, I had actually made the issue of
9994 intellectual property relatively minor. But after this astonishing
9995 statement, I made intellectual property the sole focus of my talk. There was
9996 no way to talk about an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Information Society</span>&#8221;</span> unless one also
9997 talked about the range of information and culture that would be free. My
9998 talk did not make my immoderate moderator very happy. And she was no doubt
9999 correct that the scope of intellectual property protections was ordinarily
10000 the stuff of WIPO. But in my view, there couldn't be too much of a
10001 conversation about how much intellectual property is needed, since in my
10002 view, the very idea of balance in intellectual property had been lost.
10003 </p><p>
10004 So whether or not WSIS can discuss balance in intellectual property, I had
10005 thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and should. And thus the
10006 meeting about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
10007 goods</span>&#8221;</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
10008 </p><p>
10009 But there is one project within that list that is highly controversial, at
10010 least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
10011 software.</span>&#8221;</span> Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of the
10012 subject. From its perspective, a conference to discuss open source and free
10013 software would be like a conference to discuss Apple's operating
10014 system. Both open source and free software compete with Microsoft's
10015 software. And internationally, many governments have begun to explore
10016 requirements that they use open source or free software, rather than
10017 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>&#8221;</span> for their own internal uses.
10018 </p><p>
10019 I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make clear
10020 that the distinction is not between commercial and noncommercial
10021 software. There are many important companies that depend fundamentally upon
10022 open source and free software, IBM being the most prominent. IBM is
10023 increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux operating system, the most
10024 famous bit of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free software</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;and IBM is emphatically a
10025 commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
10026 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead, to
10027 support a mode of software development that is different from
10028 Microsoft's.<sup>[<a name="id3081224" href="#ftn.id3081224" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081276"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081282"></a>
10029 <a class="indexterm" name="id3081291"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081297"></a>
10030 </p><p>
10031
10032 More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
10033 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Open source and free
10034 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not software in the public domain. Instead, like
10035 Microsoft's software, the copyright owners of free and open source software
10036 insist quite strongly that the terms of their software license be respected
10037 by adopters of free and open source software. The terms of that license are
10038 no doubt different from the terms of a proprietary software license.  Free
10039 software licensed under the General Public License (GPL), for example,
10040 requires that the source code for the software be made available by anyone
10041 who modifies and redistributes the software. But that requirement is
10042 effective only if copyright governs software. If copyright did not govern
10043 software, then free software could not impose the same kind of requirements
10044 on its adopters. It thus depends upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
10045 </p><p>
10046 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10047 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10048 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10049 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10050 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10051 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10052 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id3081352" href="#ftn.id3081352" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10053 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3081370"></a>
10054 </p><p>
10055 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10056 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10057 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10058 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10059 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10060 </p><p>
10061 What was surprising was the United States government's reason for opposing
10062 the meeting. Again, as reported by Krim, Lois Boland, acting director of
10063 international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, explained
10064 that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which
10065 is to promote intellectual-property rights.</span>&#8221;</span> She is quoted as saying,
10066 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
10067 rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO.</span>&#8221;</span>
10068 </p><p>
10069 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10070 </p><p>
10071 First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and free
10072 software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property right called
10073 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span>.  Without it, restrictions imposed by those
10074 licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">runs counter</span>&#8221;</span> to the
10075 mission of promoting intellectual property rights reveals an extraordinary
10076 gap in understanding&#8212;the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
10077 first-year law student, but an embarrassment from a high government official
10078 dealing with intellectual property issues.
10079 </p><p>
10080 Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to
10081 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">promote</span>&#8221;</span> intellectual property maximally? As I had been
10082 scolded at the preparatory conference of WSIS, WIPO is to consider not only
10083 how best to protect intellectual property, but also what the best balance of
10084 intellectual property is. As every economist and lawyer knows, the hard
10085 question in intellectual property law is to find that balance. But that
10086 there should be limits is, I had thought, uncontested. One wants to ask
10087 Ms. Boland, are generic drugs (drugs based on drugs whose patent has
10088 expired) contrary to the WIPO mission? Does the public domain weaken
10089 intellectual property? Would it have been better if the protocols of the
10090 Internet had been patented?
10091 </p><p>
10092 Third, even if one believed that the purpose of WIPO was to maximize
10093 intellectual property rights, in our tradition, intellectual property rights
10094 are held by individuals and corporations. They get to decide what to do with
10095 those rights because, again, they are <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> rights. If
10096 they want to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">waive</span>&#8221;</span> or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">disclaim</span>&#8221;</span> their rights,
10097 that is, within our tradition, totally appropriate. When Bill Gates gives
10098 away more than $20 billion to do good in the world, that is not inconsistent
10099 with the objectives of the property system. That is, on the contrary, just
10100 what a property system is supposed to be about: giving individuals the right
10101 to decide what to do with <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> property.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3081480"></a>
10102 </p><p>
10103
10104 When Ms. Boland says that there is something wrong with a meeting
10105 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights,</span>&#8221;</span>
10106 she's saying that WIPO has an interest in interfering with the choices of
10107 the individuals who own intellectual property rights. That somehow, WIPO's
10108 objective should be to stop an individual from <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">waiving</span>&#8221;</span> or
10109 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">disclaiming</span>&#8221;</span> an intellectual property right. That the interest
10110 of WIPO is not just that intellectual property rights be maximized, but that
10111 they also should be exercised in the most extreme and restrictive way
10112 possible.
10113 </p><p>
10114 There is a history of just such a property system that is well known in the
10115 Anglo-American tradition. It is called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">feudalism.</span>&#8221;</span> Under
10116 feudalism, not only was property held by a relatively small number of
10117 individuals and entities. And not only were the rights that ran with that
10118 property powerful and extensive. But the feudal system had a strong interest
10119 in assuring that property holders within that system not weaken feudalism by
10120 liberating people or property within their control to the free
10121 market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control and concentration. It fought
10122 any freedom that might interfere with that control.
10123 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3081528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3081534"></a><p>
10124 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10125 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3081547" href="#ftn.id3081547" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10126 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10127 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10128 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10129 mot det føydale.
10130 </p><p>
10131 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10132 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10133 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10134 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10135 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10136
10137 George, you misunderstand Lessig: He's only talking about the world as it
10138 should be (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should
10139 be to promote the right balance of intellectual property rights, not simply
10140 to promote intellectual property rights</span>&#8221;</span>), not as it is. If we were
10141 talking about the world as it is, then of course Boland didn't say anything
10142 wrong. But in the world as Lessig would have it, then of course she
10143 did. Always pay attention to the distinction between Lessig's world and
10144 ours.
10145 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10146 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10147 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10148 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10149 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10150 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10151 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10152 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10153 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10154 </p><p>
10155 Obviously, however, the poster was not supporting that idea.  Instead, the
10156 poster was ridiculing the very idea that in the real world, the
10157 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">goal</span>&#8221;</span> of a government should be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to promote the right
10158 balance</span>&#8221;</span> of intellectual property. That was obviously silly to
10159 him. And it obviously betrayed, he believed, my own silly
10160 utopianism. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Typical for an academic,</span>&#8221;</span> the poster might well
10161 have continued.
10162 </p><p>
10163 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10164 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10165 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10166 eget lands historie).
10167 </p><p>
10168 But when it has become silly to suppose that the role of our government
10169 should be to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">seek balance,</span>&#8221;</span> then count me with the silly, for
10170 that means that this has become quite serious indeed. If it should be
10171 obvious to everyone that the government does not seek balance, that the
10172 government is simply the tool of the most powerful lobbyists, that the idea
10173 of holding the government to a different standard is absurd, that the idea
10174 of demanding of the government that it speak truth and not lies is just
10175 naïve, then who have we, the most powerful democracy in the world,
10176 become?
10177 </p><p>
10178
10179 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10180 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10181 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10182 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10183 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10184 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3081675"></a><p>
10185 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart. Det finnes
10186 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
10187 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
10188 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10189 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10190 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10191 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10192 endringen i FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10193 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3081703"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081710"></a>
10194 </p><p>
10195 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10196 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10197 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10198 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10199 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10200 </p><p>
10201 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10202 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10203 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10204 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10205 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10206 </p><p>
10207 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10208 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10209 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10210 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10211 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10212 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10213 gjør størrelsen ille.
10214 </p><p>
10215 It is therefore significant that so many would rally to demand competition
10216 and increased diversity. Still, if the rally is understood as being about
10217 bigness alone, it is not terribly surprising. We Americans have a long
10218 history of fighting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big,</span>&#8221;</span> wisely or not. That we could be
10219 motivated to fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big</span>&#8221;</span> again is not something new.
10220 </p><p>
10221 It would be something new, and something very important, if an equal number
10222 could be rallied to fight the increasing extremism built within the idea of
10223 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>&#8221;</span> Not because balance is alien to our
10224 tradition; indeed, as I've argued, balance is our tradition. But because the
10225 muscle to think critically about the scope of anything called
10226 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> is not well exercised within this tradition anymore.
10227 </p><p>
10228 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10229 for våre tragedie.
10230 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3081807"></a><p>
10231 As I write these final words, the news is filled with stories about the RIAA
10232 lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.<sup>[<a name="id3081819" href="#ftn.id3081819" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem has just been sued for
10233 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling</span>&#8221;</span> someone else's music.<sup>[<a name="id3081885" href="#ftn.id3081885" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing</span>&#8221;</span> from a Japanese
10234 author has just finished making the rounds.<sup>[<a name="id3081906" href="#ftn.id3081906" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> An insider from Hollywood&#8212;who insists he must remain
10235 anonymous&#8212;reports <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
10236 guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use but
10237 can't because they can't begin to clear the rights. They've got scores of
10238 kids who could do amazing things with the content, but it would take scores
10239 of lawyers to clean it first.</span>&#8221;</span> Congressmen are talking about
10240 deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers thought to violate the
10241 law. Universities are threatening expulsion for kids who use a computer to
10242 share content.
10243 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3081941"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3081947"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3081953"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3081960"></a><p>
10244
10245 Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced that it
10246 will build a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>&#8221;</span> from which British citizens
10247 can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<sup>[<a name="id3081976" href="#ftn.id3081976" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil,
10248 himself a folk hero of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to
10249 release content and free licenses in that Latin American
10250 country.<sup>[<a name="id3081997" href="#ftn.id3081997" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> I've told a dark story. The
10251 truth is more mixed. A technology has given us a new freedom. Slowly, some
10252 begin to understand that this freedom need not mean anarchy. We can carry a
10253 free culture into the twenty-first century, without artists losing and
10254 without the potential of digital technology being destroyed. It will take
10255 some thought, and more importantly, it will take some will to transform the
10256 RCAs of our day into the Causbys.
10257 </p><p>
10258
10259 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10260 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10261
10262
10263
10264 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3080494" href="#id3080494" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10265
10266 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10267 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>&#8221;</span> (London, 2002),
10268 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10269 #55</a>. According to a World Health Organization press release issued 9
10270 July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in the developing
10271 world receive them&#8212;and half of them are in Brazil.
10272 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3080581" href="#id3080581" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10273
10274 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10275 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10276 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3080589"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3080598"></a>
10277 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077194" href="#id3077194" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10278
10279
10280 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10281 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10282 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10283 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10284 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10285 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10286 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10287 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10288 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3080637" href="#id3080637" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10289
10290
10291 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10292 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10293 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10294 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3080724" href="#id3080724" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10295
10296
10297
10298 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10299 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10300 Chronicle</em>, 24 May 1999, A1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a> (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">compulsory
10301 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10302 property protection</span>&#8221;</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10303 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>&#8221;</span>
10304 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10305 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10306 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10307 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10308 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10309 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10310
10311 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081009" href="#id3081009" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10312
10313 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>&#8221;</span>
10314 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, August 2003, E1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10315 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir,</span>&#8221;</span>
10316 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19 August 2003,
10317 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>;
10318 William New, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at
10319 WIPO,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19
10320 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10321 #61</a>.
10322 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081123" href="#id3081123" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10323
10324 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10325 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081224" href="#id3081224" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10326
10327
10328 Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
10329 sophisticated.  As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with
10330 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source</span>&#8221;</span> software or software in the public
10331 domain. Microsoft's principal opposition is to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free software</span>&#8221;</span>
10332 licensed under a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyleft</span>&#8221;</span> license, meaning a license that
10333 requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any derivative work. See
10334 Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace
10335 to Decide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source
10336 Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
10337 Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
10338 Research, 2002), 69, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. See also Craig Mundie,
10339 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10340 Model</em>, discussion at New York University Stern School of
10341 Business (3 May 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10342 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081352" href="#id3081352" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10343
10344
10345 Krim, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
10346 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081547" href="#id3081547" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10347
10348 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10349 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3080639"></a>
10350 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081819" href="#id3081819" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10351
10352
10353 John Borland, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>&#8221;</span> CNET News.com,
10354 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10355 #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers,</span>&#8221;</span>
10356 CNN/Money, 8 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni Sangha and
10357 Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old
10358 Among 261 Cited as Sharers,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Daily
10359 News</em>, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits
10360 Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in
10361 N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10
10362 September 2003, E1; Katie Dean, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>&#8221;</span>
10363 <em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>, 10 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10364 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081885" href="#id3081885" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10365
10366
10367 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10368 Lady,</span>&#8221;</span> mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10369 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081906" href="#id3081906" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10370
10371
10372
10373 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10374 Dylan Songs,</span>&#8221;</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
10375
10376 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081976" href="#id3081976" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10377
10378 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>&#8221;</span> BBC press
10379 release, 24 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10380 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081997" href="#id3081997" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10381
10382
10383 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>&#8221;</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6
10384 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10385 #71</a>.
10386 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Kapittel 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10387
10388
10389
10390 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10391 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder.  Balansen i denne boken
10392 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10393 </p><p>
10394 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10395 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10396 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10397 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10398 </p><p>
10399 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10400 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10401 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10402 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10403 så viktig.
10404 </p><p>
10405 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10406 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10407 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10408 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10409 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10410 fri kultur.
10411 </p><div class="section" title="16.1. Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>16.1. Oss, nå</h2></div></div></div><p>
10412 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10413 been framed at the extremes&#8212;as a grand either/or: either property or
10414 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10415 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10416 </p><p>
10417 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10418 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10419 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;
10420 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>&#8221;</span> The
10421 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10422 permission before you <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10423 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10424 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10425 </p><p>
10426
10427 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10428 tilted in the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> direction. Content could be
10429 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10430 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10431 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>&#8221;</span>
10432 Content was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taken</span>&#8221;</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10433 effectively unprotected.
10434 </p><p>
10435 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10436 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10437 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10438 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10439 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10440 default <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>&#8221;</span> the future architecture will make
10441 the effective default <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>&#8221;</span> The architecture
10442 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10443 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut
10444 and paste</span>&#8221;</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10445 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span> world that is a creator's
10446 nightmare.
10447 </p><p>
10448 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10449 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> nor <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> but
10450 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10451 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10452 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10453 for granted before.
10454 </p><div class="section" title="16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
10455 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10456 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10457 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10458 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10459 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10460 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10461 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10462 </p><p>
10463 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10464 </p><p>
10465 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, your privacy was
10466 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10467 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10468 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10469 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10470 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10471 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10472 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10473 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10474 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> in public places), and in
10475 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10476 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10477 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3082264"></a><p>
10478 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10479 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10480 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10481 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">recently
10482 viewed</span>&#8221;</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10483 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10484 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span>
10485 protected by the friction disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3082288"></a>
10486 </p><p>
10487 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10488 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10489 should have the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> to browse in a library without the
10490 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10491 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10492 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10493 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10494 </p><p>
10495
10496 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10497 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10498 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10499 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id3082321" href="#ftn.id3082321" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10500 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10501 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10502 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10503 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10504 by default.
10505 </p><p>
10506 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10507 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10508 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10509 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10510 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10511 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3082362"></a>
10512 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3082374"></a><p>
10513 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10514 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10515 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10516 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10517 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10518 </p><p>
10519 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10520 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10521 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10522 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10523 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10524 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10525 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10526 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10527 else?
10528 </p><p>
10529 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10530 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10531 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10532 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10533 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10534 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10535 market than it was for you.
10536 </p><p>
10537
10538 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10539 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10540 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10541 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10542 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10543 </p><p>
10544 Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating
10545 system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was
10546 the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's
10547 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Linux</span>&#8221;</span> kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating
10548 system.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3082441"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3082447"></a>
10549 </p><p>
10550 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10551 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10552 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10553 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10554 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10555 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10556 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10557 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10558 </p><p>
10559 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10560 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10561 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10562 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10563 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10564 passively guaranteed.
10565 </p><p>
10566 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10567 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10568 journals are produced.
10569 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10570
10571 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10572 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10573 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10574 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10575 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10576 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10577 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10578 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10579 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10580 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10581 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10582 opinion through their respective services.
10583 </p><p>
10584 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10585 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10586 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10587 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10588 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10589 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10590 the public domain.
10591 </p><p>
10592 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10593 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10594 data except by paying for a subscription?
10595 </p><p>
10596 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10597 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10598 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10599 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10600 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10601 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10602 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10603 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10604 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10605 paper journal.
10606 </p><p>
10607 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10608 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10609 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10610 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10611 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10612 </p><p>
10613 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10614 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10615 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10616 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10617 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10618 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10619 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10620 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10621 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3082570"></a>
10622 </p><p>
10623 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10624 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10625 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10626 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10627 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10628 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10629 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3082581"></a></div><div class="section" title="16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
10630 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10631 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10632 </p><p>
10633 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10634 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10635 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10636 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10637 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10638 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10639 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10640 possible.
10641 </p><p>
10642
10643 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10644 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10645 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10646 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10647 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10648 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10649 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10650 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10651 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10652 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10653 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10654 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All</span>&#8221;</span> or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No</span>&#8221;</span> extremes. Content is marked with
10655 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10656 freedoms are given.
10657 </p><p>
10658 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10659 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10660 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10661 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10662 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10663 uses (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>&#8221;</span>). Or any use so long as no
10664 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10665 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10666 educational use.
10667 </p><p>
10668 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10669 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10670 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10671 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10672 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10673 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10674 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10675 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10676 </p><p>
10677 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10678 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10679 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10680 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10681 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10682 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">content
10683 conducers,</span>&#8221;</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10684 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10685 domain to other creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3082720"></a>
10686 </p><p>
10687 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts. The
10688 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10689 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10690 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10691 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10692 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10693 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10694 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10695 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10696 those rules.
10697 </p><p>
10698 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10699 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10700 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10701 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10702 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10703 </p><p>
10704 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10705 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10706 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10707 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10708 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10709 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10710 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10711 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10712 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10713 </p><p>
10714 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10715 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10716 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10717 </p><p>
10718 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10719 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10720 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10721 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10722 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10723 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10724 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10725 <a class="indexterm" name="id3082795"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3082803"></a>
10726 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3082811"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3082817"></a><p>
10727 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10728 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10729 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10730 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling license</span>&#8221;</span> do so because anything else would be
10731 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10732 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10733 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10734 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10735 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10736 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10737 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10738 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">allow</span>&#8221;</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10739 are so high<sup>[<a name="id3082849" href="#ftn.id3082849" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10740 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10741 their form of creativity might grow.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3082870"></a>
10742 </p><p>
10743 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10744 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10745 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10746 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span>
10747 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10748 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10749 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10750 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Some Rights
10751 Reserved,</span>&#8221;</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10752 </p><p>
10753
10754 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10755 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10756 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10757 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10758 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10759 build content based upon content set free.
10760 </p><p>
10761 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10762 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10763 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10764 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10765 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10766 possible.
10767 </p><p>
10768 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10769 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10770 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10771 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10772 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10773 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10774 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3082930"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2. Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
10775 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10776 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10777 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms.  But
10778 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10779 we need.
10780 </p><p>
10781 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10782 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10783 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10784 end.
10785 </p><div class="section" title="16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
10786 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10787 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10788 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10789 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10790 </p><p>
10791
10792
10793 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10794 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10795 </p><p>
10796 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10797 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10798 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10799 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">formalities</span>&#8221;</span> are banished.
10800 </p><p>
10801 Why?
10802 </p><p>
10803 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10804 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10805 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10806 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10807 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10808 </p><p>
10809 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10810 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10811 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10812 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10813 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10814 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10815 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10816 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10817 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10818 </p><p>
10819 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id3083037" href="#ftn.id3083037" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10820 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10821 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10822 </p><p>
10823 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10824 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10825 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10826 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10827 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10828 approving standards developed by others.
10829 </p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
10830 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10831 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10832 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10833 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10834 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10835 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10836 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10837 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10838 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10839 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10840 </p><p>
10841 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10842 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10843 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10844 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10845 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10846 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10847 that the government sets.
10848 </p><p>
10849 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10850 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10851 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10852 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10853 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10854 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10855 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10856 </p><p>
10857
10858 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10859 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10860 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10861 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10862 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10863 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10864 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10865 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10866 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10867 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.1.2. Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>16.2.1.2. Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
10868 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10869 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10870 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10871 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10872 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10873 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10874 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10875 </p><p>
10876 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10877 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10878 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10879 </p><p>
10880 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10881 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10882 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10883 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10884 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10885 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10886 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10887 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10888 </p><p>
10889
10890 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10891 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10892 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10893 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10894 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10895 permission.<sup>[<a name="id3083160" href="#ftn.id3083160" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10896 work would therefore be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>&#8221;</span> If
10897 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10898 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10899 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10900 their work.
10901 </p><p>
10902 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10903 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10904 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10905 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10906 elsewhere.
10907 </p><p>
10908 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10909 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10910 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10911 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10912 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10913 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10914 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10915 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10916 its other important functions.
10917 </p><p>
10918 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10919 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10920 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10921 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10922 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10923 possible.
10924 </p><p>
10925 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10926 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10927 unclear.
10928 </p><p>
10929 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10930 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10931 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10932 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10933 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10934 the appropriate time.
10935 </p></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
10936 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10937 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10938 for individuelle forfattere.
10939 </p><p>
10940 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
10941 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10942 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10943 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
10944 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
10945 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10946 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id3083289" href="#ftn.id3083289" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
10947 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10948 </p><p>
10949 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10950 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10951 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10952 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
10953
10954
10955 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10956 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10957 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10958 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10959 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10960 when it no longer benefits an author.
10961 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10962
10963
10964
10965 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it simple:</em></span> The line between the public domain and
10966 protected content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the fuzziness of
10967 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> and the distinction between <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ideas</span>&#8221;</span>
10968 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">expression.</span>&#8221;</span> That kind of law gives them lots of work. But
10969 our framers had a simpler idea in mind: protected versus unprotected.  The
10970 value of short terms is that there is little need to build exceptions into
10971 copyright when the term itself is kept short. A clear and active
10972 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone</span>&#8221;</span> makes the complexities of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
10973 use</span>&#8221;</span> and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>&#8221;</span> less necessary to navigate.
10974
10975 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10976
10977 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10978 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10979 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10980 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10981 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10982 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id3083394" href="#ftn.id3083394" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
10983 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
10984 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
10985 <a class="indexterm" name="id3083413"></a>
10986 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10987
10988
10989 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
10990 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
10991 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
10992 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
10993 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
10994 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
10995 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
10996 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
10997 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
10998 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
10999 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
11000 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
11001 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
11002 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
11003 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
11004 det samme.
11005 </p><p>
11006 No doubt the extremists will call these ideas <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical.</span>&#8221;</span> (After
11007 all, I call them <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">extremists.</span>&#8221;</span>) But again, the term I
11008 recommended was longer than the term under Richard Nixon. How
11009 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical</span>&#8221;</span> can it be to ask for a more generous copyright law
11010 than Richard Nixon presided over?
11011 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><p>
11012 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11013 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11014 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11015 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11016 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11017 technology.
11018 </p><p>
11019 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive
11020 right</span>&#8221;</span> to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">their writings.</span>&#8221;</span> Congress has given authors
11021 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">their writings</span>&#8221;</span> plus any derivative
11022 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11023 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11024 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11025 movie is not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">my writing.</span>&#8221;</span>
11026 </p><p>
11027 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11028 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11029 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id3083524" href="#ftn.id3083524" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11030 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11031 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11032 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3083538"></a>
11033 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11034 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11035 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11036 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11037 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id3083554" href="#ftn.id3083554" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11038 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11039 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11040 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11041 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11042 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11043 each limitation in turn.
11044 </p><p>
11045 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11046 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11047 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11048 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11049 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11050 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11051 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3083592"></a>
11052 </p><p>
11053 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11054 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11055 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11056 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11057 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">reuse</span>&#8221;</span> of creative material was within the control of
11058 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11059 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11060 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11061 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11062 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11063 </p><p>
11064 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11065 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11066 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11067 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11068 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11069 </p><p>
11070 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11071 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11072 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id3083638" href="#ftn.id3083638" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11073 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11074 </p><p>
11075 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11076 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11077 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11078 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11079 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11080 </p><p>
11081
11082 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11083 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11084 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11085 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11086 would earn artists more income.
11087 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
11088 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11089 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11090 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11091 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11092 music.
11093 </p><p>
11094 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11095 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11096 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11097 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11098 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11099 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11100 </p><p>
11101 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11102 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11103 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11104 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11105 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11106 </p><p>
11107 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11108 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11109 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: &#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;">5</a>, they enable four
11110 different kinds of sharing:
11111 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11112
11113
11114 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11115 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11116
11117
11118 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11119 purchasing CDs.
11120 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11126 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11127 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11128 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11129
11130
11131 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11132 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11133 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11134 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11135 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11136 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11137 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11138 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11139 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11140 weakened.
11141 </p><p>
11142 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: &#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11143 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11144 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11145 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11146 </p><p>
11147 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11148 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11149 </p><p>
11150 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11151 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11152 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11153 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11154 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11155 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11156 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11157 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11158 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11159 </p><p>
11160
11161 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11162 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11163 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11164 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11165 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11166 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11167 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11168 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11169 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11170 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11171 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11172 </p><p>
11173 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11174 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11175 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11176 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11177 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11178 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11179 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11180 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11181 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11182 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11183 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11184 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11185 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11186 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11187 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11188 Web.<sup>[<a name="id3083886" href="#ftn.id3083886" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11189
11190 </p><p>
11191
11192 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11193 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem</span>&#8221;</span> with file
11194 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11195 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11196 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11197 to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">solving</span>&#8221;</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11198 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11199 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11200 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11201 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11202 twenty-first-century technologies.
11203 </p><p>
11204 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11205 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problems</span>&#8221;</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11206 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11207 wants shared. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem</span>&#8221;</span> with this content is to make sure
11208 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11209 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11210 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11211 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11212 eliminate kidnapping.
11213 </p><p>
11214 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem.</span>&#8221;</span> This is content
11215 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11216 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11217 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11218 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11219 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11220 artist.
11221 </p><p>
11222 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11223 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11224 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11225 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11226 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11227 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11228 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sharing</span>&#8221;</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11229 than ideal.
11230 </p><p>
11231 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11232 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11233 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11234 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">share</span>&#8221;</span> that content, even though
11235 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11236 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11237 should be as free as trading books.
11238 </p><p>
11239
11240
11241
11242 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11243 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11244 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11245 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11246 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11247 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11248 artists would benefit from this trade.
11249 </p><p>
11250 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11251 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11252 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11253 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11254 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11255 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11256 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11257 publisher.
11258 </p><p>
11259 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11260 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11261 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11262 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11263 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11264 content.
11265 </p><p>
11266 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11267 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11268 seg om.
11269 </p><p>
11270 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11271 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11272 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11273 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11274 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11275 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11276 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11277 industry.
11278 </p><p>
11279
11280
11281 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11282 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11283 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11284 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11285 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11286 </p><p>
11287 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11288 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id3084074" href="#ftn.id3084074" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11289 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11290 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11291 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11292 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11293 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11294 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11295 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11296 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11297 </p><p>
11298 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11299 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11300 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11301 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11302 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11303 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11304 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11305 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11306 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11307 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11308 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11309 old system of controlling access.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3084240"></a>
11310 </p><p>
11311
11312 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11313 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11314 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>&#8221;</span> possible. But
11315 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11316 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11317 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11318 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11319 do with the content itself.
11320 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3084258"></a><p>
11321 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11322 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">harm</span>&#8221;</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11323 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11324 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11325 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11326 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11327 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11328 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11329 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11330 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11331 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11332 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11333 on-line.
11334 </p><p>
11335 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11336 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11337 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11338 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11339 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11340 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11341 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11342 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11343 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">first class</span>&#8221;</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11344 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11345 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free.</span>&#8221;</span>
11346 </p><p>
11347 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11348 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11349 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11350 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11351 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11352 strenge straffer fra loven.
11353 </p><p>
11354 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11355 </p><p>
11356
11357
11358
11359 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11360 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11361 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11362 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11363 </p><p>
11364 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11365 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11366
11367
11368 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11369 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11370
11371
11372 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11373 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11374 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11375
11376
11377 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11378 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11379 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11380 But what if <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> doesn't disappear? What if there is a
11381 competitive market providing content at a low cost, but a significant number
11382 of consumers continue to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take</span>&#8221;</span> content for nothing? Should the
11383 law do something then?
11384 </p><p>
11385 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11386 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11387 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11388 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11389 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11390 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11391 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11392 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11393 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11394 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11395 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11396 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11397 </p><p>
11398
11399 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11400 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11401 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11402 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11403 som internettet er.
11404 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
11405 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11406 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11407 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11408 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11409 </p><p>
11410 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11411 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11412 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11413 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11414 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11415 synet ødelegge loven.
11416 </p><p>
11417 The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
11418 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical</span>&#8221;</span> by many within the profession, yet the positions that
11419 I am advocating are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate and
11420 significant figures in the history of this branch of the law. Many, for
11421 example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to the Copyright Term
11422 Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the dominant scholar and
11423 practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville Nimmer, thought it
11424 obvious.<sup>[<a name="id3084506" href="#ftn.id3084506" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11425
11426 </p><p>
11427 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11428 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11429 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11430 </p><p>
11431 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11432 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11433 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11434 lav.<sup>[<a name="id3084542" href="#ftn.id3084542" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11435 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11436 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11437 </p><p>
11438
11439
11440 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11441 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11442 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11443 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11444 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11445 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11446 </p><p>
11447 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11448 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11449 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11450 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11451 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11452 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11453 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11454 </p><p>
11455 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11456 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11457 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11458 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11459 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11460 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11461 </p><p>
11462 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11463 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11464 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11465 </p><p>
11466 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11467 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11468 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11469 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11470 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11471 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11472 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11473 </p><p>
11474
11475 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11476 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11477 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11478 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>&#8221;</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11479 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11480 ikke?</span>&#8221;</span>
11481 </p><p>
11482 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>&#8221;</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11483 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11484 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11485 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3082321" href="#id3082321" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11486
11487
11488
11489 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11490 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>&#8221;</span>
11491 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11492 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11493 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11494 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11495 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11496 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3082849" href="#id3082849" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11497
11498
11499 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11500 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11501 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11502 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083037" href="#id3083037" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11503
11504
11505 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11506 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11507 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083160" href="#id3083160" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11508
11509
11510 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11511 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11512 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11513 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083289" href="#id3083289" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11514
11515
11516
11517 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11518 (25 January 2003): 15, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11519 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083394" href="#id3083394" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11520
11521
11522 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11523 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11524 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11525 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083524" href="#id3083524" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11526
11527
11528 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11529 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11530 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083554" href="#id3083554" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11531
11532 Ibid., 56.
11533 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083638" href="#id3083638" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11534
11535 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11536 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11537 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3082336"></a>
11538 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083886" href="#id3083886" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11539
11540
11541 See, for example, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>&#8221;</span> The J@pan
11542 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3084074" href="#id3084074" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11544
11545 William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
11546 Possibilities</em> (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at
11547 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #77</a>; William Fisher,
11548 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of
11549 Entertainment</em> (forthcoming) (Stanford: Stanford University
11550 Press, 2004), ch. 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel has
11551 proposed a related idea that would exempt noncommercial sharing from the
11552 reach of copyright and would establish compensation to artists to balance
11553 any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy
11554 to Allow Free P2P File Sharing,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other proposals,
11555 see Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>&#8221;</span>
11556 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip
11557 S. Corwin on behalf of Sharman Networks, A Letter to Senator Joseph
11558 R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26
11559 February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11560 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11561 Property Use Fee (IPUF)</em>, 3 March 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
11562 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly,</span>&#8221;</span>
11563 <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13 May 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11564 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right,</span>&#8221;</span> IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002,
11565 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>;
11566 Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign,</span>&#8221;</span> CNET
11567 News.com, 27 August 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>.  Fisher's proposal is
11568 very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for DAT. Unlike Fisher's,
11569 Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly proportionally, though
11570 more popular artists would get more than the less popular. As is typical
11571 with Stallman, his proposal predates the current debate by about a
11572 decade. See <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>.
11573 <a class="indexterm" name="id3084188"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3084197"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3084203"></a>
11574 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3084506" href="#id3084506" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11575
11576
11577 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>&#8221;</span> (Melville
11578 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48
11579 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11580 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3084542" href="#id3084542" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11581
11582 A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is to be
11583 commended for his careful review of data about infringement, leading him to
11584 question his own publicly stated position&#8212;twice. He initially
11585 predicted that downloading would substantially harm the industry. He then
11586 revised his view in light of the data, and he has since revised his view
11587 again.  Compare Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11588 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11589 York: Amacom, 2002), (reviewing his original view but expressing skepticism)
11590 with Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11591 Industry?</span>&#8221;</span> working paper, June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>.  Liebowitz's careful
11592 analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the effect of file-sharing
11593 technology. In my view, however, he underestimates the costs of the legal
11594 system. See, for example, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.
11595 <a class="indexterm" name="id3084518"></a>
11596 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11597 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11598 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11599 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11600 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11601 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11602 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11603 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11604 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11605 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11606 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Kapittel 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11607 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11608 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11609 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11610 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11611 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3084762"></a><p>
11612 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11613 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11614 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11615 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11616 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11617 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11618 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11619 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11620 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11621 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11622 </p><p>
11623
11624 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11625 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11626 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11627 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11628 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11629 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11630 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11631 mens jeg var der.
11632 </p><p>
11633 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11634 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11635 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11636 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11637 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11638 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11639 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11640 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11641 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11642 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11643 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11644 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11645 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11646 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Wink,</span>&#8221;</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>&#8221;</span> og Richard
11647 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11648 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11649 flotte svar.)
11650 </p><p>
11651 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11652 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11653 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11654 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11655 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11656 i denne boken.
11657 </p><p>
11658 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11659 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11660 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11661 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11662 </p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3084892"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Adromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a></dt><dt>AT&amp;T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>