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=
"id2607478"></a><p>
3 <span class=
"inlinemediaobject"><img src=
"images/cc.png" align=
"middle" height=
"37.5" alt=
"Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
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 "e.biz
19 25," og omtalt som en av Scientific American's "
50 visjonærer". Etter
20 utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law
21 School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit
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
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
&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
29 The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
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>
37 Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
38 og kontrollere kreativiteten
41 </p></div><div class=
"dedication" title=
"Dedikasjon"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"id2565954"></a>Dedikasjon
</h2></div></div></div><p>
42 Til Eric Eldred
— 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">"Piratvirksomhet"</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Pirater"
</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: "Piratvirksomhet"
</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">5.1.
<a href=
"#piracy-i">Piracy I
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">5.2.
<a href=
"#piracy-ii">Piracy II
</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class=
"part">II.
<a href=
"#c-property">"Eiendom"</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: "Eiendom"
</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
—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=
"#id2646957">Indeks
</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class=
"colophon" title=
"Kolofon"><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"id2565825"></a>Kolofon
</h2><p>
45 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
375 Hudson Street
48 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig. Alle rettigheter reservert.
50 Excerpt from an editorial titled "The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity,"
51 <em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em>, January
16,
2003. Copyright
52 ©
2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with permission.
54 Cartoon in
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#fig-1711" title=
"Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur
10.18,
“VCR/handgun cartoon.
”</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
55 Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
57 Diagram in
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#fig-1761" title=
"Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur
10.19,
“Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.
”</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
58 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
60 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
62 Lessig, Lawrence. Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
63 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
69 ISBN
1-
59420-
006-
8 (hardcover)
71 1. Intellectual property
—United States.
2. Mass media
—United
74 3. Technological innovations
—United States.
4. Art
—United
81 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
83 Printed in the United States of America
87 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
89 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
90 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target=
"_top">tilgjengelig
91 fra github
</a>. Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
93 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
94 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
95 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
96 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
97 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
99 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
100 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
101 punishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
102 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
103 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
104 </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>
105 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
106 datarelaterte tekster, skrev dette på slutten av hans gjennomgang av min
107 første bok,
<em class=
"citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
</em>:
108 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
109 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
110 kapasiteten til å straffe. Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
111 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online). Og hvis du
112 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
113 modemet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"preface01" href=
"#ftn.preface01" class=
"footnote">1</a>]
</sup>
114 </p></blockquote></div><p>
115 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken
— at
116 programvaren, eller "koden", fungerte som en slags lov
— og foreslo i
117 sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace gikk dårlig,
118 så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og komme hjem
119 igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle problemer som
120 finnes
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>den
</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke "påvirke" oss mer.
123 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i
1999 — jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
124 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
125 nå.
<em class=
"citetitle">Fri Kultur
</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
126 selv etter at modemet er slått av. Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
127 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket "folk som er
128 ikke pålogget." Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
130 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2564968"></a><p>
131 Men i motsetning til i boken
<em class=
"citetitle">Code
</em>, er argumentet her
132 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
133 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
134 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
136 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på. Som jeg vil forklare i
137 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av "fri kultur"
—ikke
138 "fri" som i "fri bar" (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
139 programvarebevegelsen
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2564949" href=
"#ftn.id2564949" class=
"footnote">2</a>]
</sup>), men "fri" som i
140 "talefrihet", "fritt marked", "frihandel", "fri konkurranse", "fri vilje" og
141 "frie valg". En fri kultur støtter og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.
142 Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele immaterielle rettigheter. Men det gjør
143 den indirekte ved å begrense rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å
144 garantere at neste generasjon skapere og oppfinnere forblir
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>så fri
145 som mulig
</em></span> fra kontroll fra fortiden. En fri kultur er ikke en
146 kultur uten eierskap, like lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er
147 gratis. Det motsatte av fri kultur er "tillatelseskultur"
—en kultur
148 der skapere kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne
151 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den. Ikke
152 "vi" på venstresiden eller "dere" på høyresiden, men vi som ikke har
153 investert i den bestemt kulturindustrien som har definert det tjuende
154 århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis du i denne forstand
155 ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi deg problemer. For
156 endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider av vår politiske
157 kultur anser som grunnleggende.
158 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2565573"></a><p>
159 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i
2003. Da FCC
160 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
161 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
162 mer enn
700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen. Mens William
163 Safire beskrev å marsjere "ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for Peace
164 and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
165 konservative Ted Stevens", formulerte han kanskje det enkleste uttrykket
166 for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han:
167 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2565592"></a>
168 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
169 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut? Ikke for meg. Denne konsentrasjonen av
170 makt
—politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt
—bør være
171 bannlyst av konservative. Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
172 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
173 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2565553" href=
"#ftn.id2565553" class=
"footnote">3</a>]
</sup>
174 </p></blockquote></div><p>
175 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til
<em class=
"citetitle">Fri
176 Kultur
</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
177 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
178 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
179 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven. Loven er i endring, og
180 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
181 bekymre deg
—Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
182 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
183 og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
184 og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
185 nytt, spesielt essyene i
<em class=
"citetitle">Free Software, Free Society
</em>,
186 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
187 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden. Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
188 dette verket kun er et avledet verk.
191 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk. Arbeidet til en advokat
192 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
193 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
194 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
195 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet. Og som Stallman, tror jeg
196 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid. En fri
197 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
198 retningen vi følger akkurat nå. På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
199 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
200 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå. En fri kultur er ikke en
201 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
202 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
203 anarki, ikke frihet. Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
205 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
206 mellom anarki og kontroll. En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
207 fylt med eierskap. Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
208 blir håndhevet av staten. Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
209 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
210 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den. Det er dette jeg
211 frykter om vår kultur i dag. Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
212 denne boken er skrevet.
213 </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>
214 David Pogue, "Don't Just Chat, Do Something,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York
215 Times
</em>,
30. januar
2000
216 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2564949" href=
"#id2564949" class=
"para">2</a>]
</sup>
217 Richard M. Stallman,
<em class=
"citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn
</em> 57
218 (Joshua Gay, red.
2002).
219 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2565553" href=
"#id2565553" class=
"para">3</a>]
</sup> William Safire, "The Great Media Gulp,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York
220 Times
</em>,
22. mai
2003.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2565622"></a>
221 </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>
222 17. desember
1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
223 hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
224 enn luft kunne fly. Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
225 forstått. Nesten umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye
226 teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
227 begynte å bygge videre på den.
229 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
230 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
231 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
232 bakken, "i ubestemt grad, oppover".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2621909" href=
"#ftn.id2621909" class=
"footnote">4</a>]
</sup> I
233 mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om at
234 eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
235 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
238 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
239 USA
—dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
240 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid
—en betydning. Hvis min
241 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
242 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom? Har jeg mulighet til å
243 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines? Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
244 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
245 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2621929"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2621954"></a><p>
246 I
1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
247 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
248 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
249 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
250 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
251 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
252 strakk seg "i ubestemt grad, oppover," så hadde regjeringen trengt seg inn
253 på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for dette.
254 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2621973"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2621979"></a><p>
255 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
256 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
257 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
258 grunnlovens forbud mot å "ta" eiendom uten kompensasjon. Retten erkjente at
259 "det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom rakk til utkanten av
260 universet.", men dommer Douglas hadde ikke tålmodighet for forhistoriske
261 doktriner. I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis av år med
262 eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
263 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
264 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden. Luften er en
265 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært. Hvis det ikke var
266 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
267 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom. Idéen er i
268 strid med sunn fornuft. Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
269 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
270 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
271 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622017" href=
"#ftn.id2622017" class=
"footnote">5</a>]
</sup>
272 </p></blockquote></div><p>
273 "Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft."
276 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer. Ikke ofte like brått eller
277 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer. Det var ikke
278 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere. Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
279 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
280 linje: "Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.". Men uansett om det tar flere
281 sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med et
282 rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til aktuelle
283 teknologiene. Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den. Idéer som var
284 solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
285 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622083"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622089"></a><p>
286 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
287 av endringen. Causbyene var bare bønder. Og selv om det uten tvil var
288 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
289 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
290 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
291 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden. Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
292 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
293 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av "det synes
294 rimelig" gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert. De kunne stå
295 på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve knyttneven mot disse
296 nye teknologiene så mye de ville. De kunne ringe sine representanter eller
297 til og med saksøke. Men når alt kom til alt, ville kraften i det som virket
298 "åpenbart" for alle andre
—makten til "sunn fornuft"
—ville vinne
299 frem. Deres "personlige interesser" ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
300 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
302 Edwin Howard Armstrong er en av USAs glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp
303 på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham
304 Bell. Alle hans bidrag på området radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den
305 viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i de første femti årene av radio. Han
306 var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday, som var bokbinderlærling da han
307 oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i
1831. Men han hadde like god intuisjon om
308 hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre anledninger, fant Armstrong opp
309 svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
310 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622152"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622161"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622168"></a>
312 Dagen etter julaften i
1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
313 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse
—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde
314 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio. Tidens teoretikere
315 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio. De hadde rett når det gjelder
316 et smalt bånd av spektrumet. Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
317 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
318 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
320 Den
5. november
1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
321 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City. Han vred
322 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
323 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp
27 kilometer unna. Radioen ble helt
324 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
325 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
326 opplesers stemme: "Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York, som
327 opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter."
329 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
330 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
331 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
332 et glass som ble fylt opp.
… Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
333 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann.
…
334 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
335 utført.
… Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
336 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en radio-"musikk-boks".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622097" href=
"#ftn.id2622097" class=
"footnote">6</a>]
</sup>
337 </p></blockquote></div><p>
339 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
340 bedre radioteknologi. Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
341 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
342 AM-radiomarkedet. I
1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
343 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
346 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
347 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
348 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
349 støy fra "radio.". Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin oppfinnelse, var ikke
350 Sarnoff fornøyd.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622276"></a>
351 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
352 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
353 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon
—
354 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622180" href=
"#ftn.id2622180" class=
"footnote">7</a>]
</sup>
355 </p></blockquote></div><p>
356 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
357 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
358 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
359 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622318"></a>
360 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
361 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
362 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
363 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon. For FM utgjorde,
364 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger
… en komplett endring i
365 maktforholdene rundt radio
… og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
366 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
367 makt.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622344" href=
"#ftn.id2622344" class=
"footnote">8</a>]
</sup>
368 </p></blockquote></div><p>
369 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
370 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
371 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
372 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I
1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
373 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
374 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM
—hovedsakelig ved å
375 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
376 disse forsøkene. Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
377 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter. Like etter at krigen var
378 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
379 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
380 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
381 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
382 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
383 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622360" href=
"#ftn.id2622360" class=
"footnote">9</a>]
</sup>
384 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622399"></a><p>
385 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
386 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
387 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
388 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
389 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT
&T, på grunn av at fjerningen
390 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
391 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT
&T.) Spredningen av FM-radio var
392 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
394 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
395 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
396 patentene ugyldige
—uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
397 utstedet. De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene. I seks år
398 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine. Til
399 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
400 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning. Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
401 skrev Armstrong i
1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
402 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
405 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger. Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
406 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
407 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
408 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
409 juridisk eller teknologisk endring. Denne mektige interessen utøver for
410 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
411 den. Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
412 fellesskapets beste. Realiteten er noe annet. Idéer som kan være solide
413 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
414 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
415 prosess. RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
416 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
418 Det er ingen enkeltoppfinner av Internet. Ei heller er det en god dato som
419 kan brukes til å markere når det ble født. Likevel har internettet i løpet
420 av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv. I følge the Pew
421 Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har
58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
422 tilgang til internettet i
2002, opp fra
49 prosent to år
423 tidligere.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622481" href=
"#ftn.id2622481" class=
"footnote">10</a>]
</sup> Det tallet kan uten
424 problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av
2004.
426 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
427 blitt endret. Noen av disse endringene er teknisk
—internettet har
428 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
429 data, og så videre. Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
430 boken. De er viktige. De er ikke godt forstått. Men de er den type ting
431 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet. De
432 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
433 det ikke dem direkte. De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet. Men
434 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
436 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
437 selv. En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt. Min påstand er at
438 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
439 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
440 selv. De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
441 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
444 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
445 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
446 Med "kommersiell kultur" mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som er produsert
447 og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt. Med "ikke-kommersiell kultur"
448 mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle menn satt rundt i parker eller på
449 gatehjørner og fortalte historier som unger og andre lyttet til, så var det
450 ikke-kommersiell kultur. Da Noah Webster publiserte sin "Reader", eller
451 Joel Barlow sin poesi, så var det kommersiell kultur.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622546"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622554"></a>
453 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
454 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert. Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
455 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
456 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
457 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være "fri". Den vanlige måten
458 som vanlige individer delte og formet deres kultur
—historiefortelling,
459 formidling av scener fra teater eller TV, delta i fan-klubber, deling av
460 musikk, laging av kassetter
—ble ikke styrt av lovverket.
462 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet. I starten forsiktig, etter
463 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
464 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
465 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622587" href=
"#ftn.id2622587" class=
"footnote">11</a>]
</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
466 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
467 USA. Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon. Det var i
468 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
470 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
471 fjernet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622624" href=
"#ftn.id2622624" class=
"footnote">12</a>]
</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
472 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
473 påvirket det. For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
474 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
475 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
476 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
477 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen
—mellom bruken av
478 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
479 tillatelse
—har blitt borte. Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
480 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
482 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
483 kommersiell kreativitet. Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
484 som motiverer endringen. Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
485 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
486 som har definert loven tidligere. Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
487 beskytte artister. Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
488 bestemte forretningsformer. Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
489 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
490 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
491 å beskytte selskapene. Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
492 drømmen til Causbyene.
494 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
495 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
496 lokale grenselinjer. Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
497 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
498 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
499 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
500 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
501 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
502 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
503 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur. Dette
504 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
505 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
506 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
507 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
508 dag
—så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
509 selv mot denne konkurransen.
511 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
512 som skjer i vår kultur i dag. Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
513 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
514 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
515 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
516 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
518 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange. Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
519 internettet er fjernt for de fleste. For de få som følger dem, virker de i
520 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål
—hvorvidt
521 "piratvirksomhet" vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt "eiendomsretten" vil bli
522 beskyttet. "Krigen" som har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til
523 internettet
—det presidenten for Motion Picture Association of America
524 (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin "egen terroristkrig"
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622752" href=
"#ftn.id2622752" class=
"footnote">13</a>]
</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge
525 loven og respektere eiendomsretten. For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i
526 denne krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi
527 er for eiendomsrett eller mot den.
529 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
530 Valenti og innholdsindustrien. Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
531 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller "kreativ eiendomsrett".
532 Jeg tror at "piratvirksomhet" er galt, og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør
533 straffe "piratvirksomhet", både på og utenfor internettet.
535 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
536 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
537 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
538 internettets "pirater" også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som har vært
539 integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
541 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første
180 årene
542 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
543 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
544 kontroll. Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
545 kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622818" href=
"#ftn.id2622818" class=
"footnote">14</a>]
</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
546 skaperne mot privat kontroll. Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
547 tradisjonen til velgjørere. I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
548 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
550 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
551 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
552 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA. For å bygge på eller kritisere
553 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
554 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget
—men det er ikke ofte
555 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige. Vi har bygget en slags
556 kulturell adel. De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
557 utsiden har det ikke. Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
560 Historien som følger er om denne krigen. Er det ikke om "betydningen av
561 teknologi" i vanlig liv. Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale eller
562 andre typer. Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen individer
563 eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig eller på annen
564 måte. Det er ikke en moralsk historie. Ei heller er det et rop om hellig
565 krig mot en industri.
567 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
568 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
569 kode. Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
570 fred. Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
571 internett-teknologiene. Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
572 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
573 til denne krigen. Vi må finne en løsning snart.
574 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622900"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622906"></a><p>
575 Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om "eiendomsrett". Eiendommen i
576 denne krigen er ikke like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige
577 kyllinger har så langt mistet livet. Likevel er idéene rundt denne
578 "eiendomsretten" like åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om
579 ukrenkeligheten til deres bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for
580 gitt de uvanlig mektige krav som eierne av "immaterielle rettigheter" nå
581 hevder. De fleste av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som
582 åpenbare. Og dermed protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper
583 inn i denne eiendomsretten. Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at
584 de nye teknologiene til internettet "tar seg til rette" mot legitime krav
585 til "eiendomsrett". Det er like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven
586 skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
587 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622949"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622955"></a><p>
589 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
590 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
591 fornuft gjør ikke opprør. I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
592 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen. I
593 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
594 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
596 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre. Jeg har blitt stadig mer
597 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
598 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
599 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår "kultur" som har vært
600 "eid" enn det er nå. Og likevel har aldri før konsentrasjonen av makt til å
601 kontrollere
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>bruken
</em></span> av kulturen vært mer akseptert uten
602 spørsmål enn det er nå.
604 Gåten er, hvorfor det? Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
605 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
606 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
609 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
610 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
613 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
614 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
615 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
616 forskjellsbehandling? Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
617 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
618 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
620 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
621 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme? Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
622 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
623 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
624 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623044"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623050"></a><p>
626 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk. Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
627 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
628 Causbyene. Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
629 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av "immaterielle
630 rettigheter". Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som om
631 lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
632 eiendom. Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
636 Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
637 "piratvirksomhet" og "eiendom". Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er
638 å utforske disse to idéene.
640 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker. Jeg ønsker ikke
641 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
642 obskure franske teoretikere
—uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
643 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt. Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
644 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
645 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
647 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
648 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
649 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette "noe nytt" til å
650 ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt. I stedet for å forstå endringene som
651 internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden som trengs for å
652 la "sunn fornuft" finne ut hvordan best svare på utfordringen, så lar vi de
653 som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt til å endre loven
—og
654 viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe fundamentalt om hvordan vi
657 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
658 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene. Vi tillater det på grunn av at
659 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
660 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
661 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon
—en konsekvens
662 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
663 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2621909" href=
"#id2621909" class=
"para">4</a>]
</sup>
664 St. George Tucker,
<em class=
"citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries
</em> 3 (South
665 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints,
1969),
18.
666 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622017" href=
"#id2622017" class=
"para">5</a>]
</sup>
667 USA mot Causby, U.S.
328 (
1946):
256,
261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
668 å "ta" hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde ødelagt verdien
669 av eiendomen til Causby. Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for meg i Keith
670 Aokis flotte stykke, "(intellectual) Property and Sovereignty: Notes Toward
671 a cultural Geography of Authorship",
<em class=
"citetitle">Stanford Law
672 Review
</em> 48 (
1996):
1293,
1333. Se også Paul Goldstein,
673 <em class=
"citetitle">Real Property
</em> (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press
674 (
1984)),
1112–13.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622051"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622047"></a>
675 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622097" href=
"#id2622097" class=
"para">6</a>]
</sup>
676 Lawrence Lessing,
<em class=
"citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
677 Armstrong
</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company,
1956),
209.
678 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622180" href=
"#id2622180" class=
"para">7</a>]
</sup> Se "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," første
679 elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha, tilgjengelig fra
680 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
1</a>.
681 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622344" href=
"#id2622344" class=
"para">8</a>]
</sup>Lessing,
226.
682 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622360" href=
"#id2622360" class=
"para">9</a>]
</sup>
684 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622481" href=
"#id2622481" class=
"para">10</a>]
</sup>
685 Amanda Lenhart, "The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
686 Internet Access and the Digital Divide," Pew Internet and American Life
687 Project,
15. april
2003:
6, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
2</a>.
688 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622587" href=
"#id2622587" class=
"para">11</a>]
</sup>
689 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
690 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
691 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
692 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser. Ved
693 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
694 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
695 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy",
696 Harvard Law Review
4 (
1890):
193,
198–200.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622235"></a>
697 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622624" href=
"#id2622624" class=
"para">12</a>]
</sup>
698 Se Jessica Litman,
<em class=
"citetitle">Digital Copyright
</em> (New York:
699 Prometheus bøker,
2001), kap.
13.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622632"></a>
700 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622752" href=
"#id2622752" class=
"para">13</a>]
</sup>
701 Amy Harmon, "Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New Tools
702 to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York
703 Times
</em>,
17. januar
2002.
704 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622818" href=
"#id2622818" class=
"para">14</a>]
</sup>
705 Neil W. Netanel, "Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Yale
706 Law Journal
</em> 106 (
1996):
283.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2622827"></a>
707 </p></div></div></div><div class=
"part" title='Del I.
"Piratvirksomhet"'
><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h1 class=
"title"><a name=
"c-piracy"></a>Del I. "Piratvirksomhet"
</h1></div></div></div><div class=
"partintro" title='
"Piratvirksomhet"'
><div></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxmansfield1"></a><p>
708 Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
709 en krig mot "piratvirksomhet". De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
710 "piratvirksomhet", har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet av
711 urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive. Som Lord Mansfield skrev i en sak som
712 utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere noteark,
713 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
714 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
715 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
716 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2623187" href=
"#ftn.id2623187" class=
"footnote">15</a>]
</sup>
717 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623201"></a></blockquote></div><p>
719 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen "krig" mot "piratvirksomhet". Internettet
720 har fremprovosert denne krigen. Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre
721 innhold. Peer-to-peer (p2p) fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de
722 effektive teknologier internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert
723 intelligens, kan p2p-systemer muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en
724 måte som ingen forestilte seg for en generasjon siden.
727 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
728 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
729 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
730 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Denne
731 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
732 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil "frata forfatteren overskuddet."
734 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
735 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin "eiendom" mot denne
736 "piratvirksomheten". En generasjon amerikanere, advarer krigerne, blir
737 oppdratt til å tro at "eiendom" skal være "gratis". Glem tatoveringer, ikke
738 tenk på kroppspiercing
—våre barn blir
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>tyver
</em></span>!
740 Det er ingen tvil om at "piratvirksomhet" er galt, og at pirater bør
741 straffes. Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
742 "piratvirksomhets"-begrepet i en sammenheng. For mens begrepet blir mer og
743 mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten helt sikkert
746 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
747 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
748 Kreativt arbeid har verdi. Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
749 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi. Når jeg
750 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem. Å ta noe
751 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt. Det er en form for
753 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623299"></a><p>
754 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor
755 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som "hvis verdi, så rettighet"-teorien
756 for kreative eierrettigheter
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2623314" href=
"#ftn.id2623314" class=
"footnote">16</a>]
</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha rettigheten til denne
757 verdien. Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes rettighetsorganisasjon,
758 ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke betale for sangene som
759 jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes leirbål.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2623334" href=
"#ftn.id2623334" class=
"footnote">17</a>]
</sup> Det fantes "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
760 "rettighet"
—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
761 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623363"></a><p>
763 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
764 eierrettigheter bør virke. Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
765 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter. Men teorien om "hvis
766 verdi, så rettighet" for kreative eierrettigheter har aldri vært USAs teori
767 for kreative eierrettigheter. It har aldri stått rot i vårt lovverk.
769 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
770 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
771 til verdien av kreativitet. Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt. Vi
772 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
775 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
776 å markere
—skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
777 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre. Da opphavsretten kom var det
778 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
780 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
781 sammenblandingen mye. Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
782 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
783 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven
—til og med byrden som den bysantiske
784 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt. Det var bare nok en kostnad
785 ved å drive forretning.
786 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623417"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623423"></a><p>
787 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
788 lovens virkeområde. Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
789 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
790 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
791 "kopiering", så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så bredt og obskurt
792 som den gjør. Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt fordelene den ga da
793 den ble vedtatt
—helt klart slik den påvirker ikke-kommersiell
794 kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker kommersiell
795 kreativitet. Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som følger, er lovens
796 rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer å beskytte
797 enkelte industrier mot konkurranse. Akkurat på tidspunktet da digital
798 teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell og
799 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med sinnsykt
800 kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde straffer.
801 Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, "Fremveksten av den kreative
802 klasse"
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2623426" href=
"#ftn.id2623426" class=
"footnote">18</a>]
</sup> Dessverre ser vi også en
803 ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne kreative klassen.
805 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon. Vi bør begynne med å forstå
806 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
807 merkelappen "piratvirksomhet" i sin rette sammenheng.
808 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2623187" href=
"#id2623187" class=
"para">15</a>]
</sup>
811 <em class=
"citetitle">Bach
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Longman
</em>,
98
812 Eng. Rep.
1274 (
1777) (Mansfield).
813 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2623314" href=
"#id2623314" class=
"para">16</a>]
</sup>
816 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, "Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the
817 Pepsi Generation,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review
</em> 65 (
1990):
819 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2623334" href=
"#id2623334" class=
"para">17</a>]
</sup>
821 Lisa Bannon, "The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay Up,"
822 <em class=
"citetitle">Wall Street Journal
</em>,
21. august
1996, tilgjengelig
823 fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
3</a>; Jonathan
824 Zittrain, "Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
825 Speech, No One Wins,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Boston Globe
</em>,
24. november
826 2002.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623352"></a>
827 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2623426" href=
"#id2623426" class=
"para">18</a>]
</sup>
829 I
<em class=
"citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class
</em> (New York: Basic
830 Books,
2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
831 kreativitetsarbeide. Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
832 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under. Jeg er helt
833 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
834 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
835 vanskeligere.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623456"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623507"></a>
836 </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><p>
837 I
1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
838 dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn
<em class=
"citetitle">Plane Crazy
</em>.
839 I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
840 distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd,
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat
841 Willy
</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
843 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
844 <em class=
"citetitle">The Jazz Singer
</em>. Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
845 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm. Ingen visste hvorvidt det
846 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
847 for det. Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren
1928, var resultatet
848 entydig. Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
849 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
851 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
852 munnspill. Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
853 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
854 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
857 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark. Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
858 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
859 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
860 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
862 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
863 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse. Jeg trodde de
864 tullet med meg. Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt. Det
865 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2623621" href=
"#ftn.id2623621" class=
"footnote">19</a>]
</sup>
866 </p></blockquote></div><p>
867 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
868 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: "Jeg har aldri vært så begeistret
869 i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like bra."
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2623644"></a>
871 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
872 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde
—unntatt fra
873 Disneys hender
—vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer. Gjennom
874 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
875 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle. Og ganske ofte var Disneys
876 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
878 Dette er kjent stoff. Det du kanskje ikke vet er at
1928 også markerer en
879 annen viktig overgang. I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
880 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm. Dette geniet var
881 Buster Keaton. Filmen var
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr
</em>.
883 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i
1895. I stumfilm-æraen hadde
884 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
885 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum.
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
886 Jr
</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
887 for sine utrolige stunts. Filmen var en klassisk Keaton
—fantastisk
888 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
890 <em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr
</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
891 Steamboat Willie. Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
892 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
893 Bill,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2623715" href=
"#ftn.id2623715" class=
"footnote">20</a>]
</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
894 som kilde. Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
895 <em class=
"citetitle">The Jazz Singer
</em> at vi får
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat
896 Willie
</em>. Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
897 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen "Steamboat Bill", at vi får
898 Steamboat Willie. Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
900 Denne "låningen" var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for industrien.
901 Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
902 ham.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2623768" href=
"#ftn.id2623768" class=
"footnote">21</a>]
</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
903 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger
—små variasjoner
904 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt. Nøkkelen til
905 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene. Med Disney var det lyden som ga
906 gnisten til hans animasjoner. Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
907 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
908 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
909 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
910 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
912 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
913 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm. Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
914 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
915 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid. Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
916 for oss, ganske dystre. Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
917 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
918 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
921 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
922 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
923 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
924 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
925 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm. Faktisk er katalogen
926 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
927 når den blir samlet:
<em class=
"citetitle">Snøhvit
</em> (
1937),
928 <em class=
"citetitle">Fantasia
</em> (
1940),
<em class=
"citetitle">Pinocchio
</em>
929 (
1940),
<em class=
"citetitle">Dumbo
</em> (
1941),
<em class=
"citetitle">Bambi
</em>
930 (
1942),
<em class=
"citetitle">Song of the South
</em> (
1946),
931 <em class=
"citetitle">Askepott
</em> (
1950),
<em class=
"citetitle">Alice in
932 Wonderland
</em> (
1951),
<em class=
"citetitle">Robin Hood
</em> (
1952),
933 <em class=
"citetitle">Peter Pan
</em> (
1953),
<em class=
"citetitle">Lady og
934 landstrykeren
</em> (
1955),
<em class=
"citetitle">Mulan
</em> (
1998),
935 <em class=
"citetitle">Tornerose
</em> (
1959),
<em class=
"citetitle">101
936 dalmatinere
</em> (
1961),
<em class=
"citetitle">Sverdet i steinen
</em>
937 (
1963), og
<em class=
"citetitle">Jungelboken
</em> (
1967)
—for ikke å nevne
938 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt,
<em class=
"citetitle">Treasure
939 Planet
</em> (
2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
940 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
941 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
942 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
944 Dette er en type kreativitet. Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
945 feire. Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
946 denne typen. Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
947 Vi kan kalle dette "Disney-kreativitet", selv om det vil være litt
948 misvisende. Det er mer presist "Walt Disney-kreativitet"
—en
949 uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på kulturen rundt oss og omformer den
951 </p><p> I
1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
952 fersk. Allemannseie i
1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
953 levende. Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
954 år
—for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
955 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2623911" href=
"#ftn.id2623911" class=
"footnote">22</a>]
</sup> Det betyr at i
956 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
957 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en "eksklusiv rett" til a kontrollere bestemte
958 typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på
959 de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
961 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
962 allemannseie. Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
963 verket. Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
964 "advokat-fri sone". Det meste av innhold fra det nittende århundre var
965 dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
1928. Det var
966 tilgjengelig for enhver
—uansett om de hadde forbindelser eller ikke,
967 om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller ikke
—til å bruke
971 Dette er slik det alltid har vært
—inntil ganske nylig. For
972 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
973 Fram til
1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
974 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
975 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
976 fra noen. Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra
1960- og
977 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
978 bygge på uten tillatelse. Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
979 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
981 Walt Disney hadde selvfølgelig ikke monopol på "Walt Disney-kreativitet".
982 Det har heller ikke USA. Normen med fri kultur har, inntil nylig, og
983 unntatt i totalitære nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og svært universell.
985 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
986 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
987 <em class=
"citetitle">manga
</em>, eller tegneserier. Japanerne er fanatiske når
988 det gjelder tegneserier. Over
40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
989 og
30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier. De er
990 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
991 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
992 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
994 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
995 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss. Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
996 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
997 historiene i disse "grafiske historiene" forteller. For en japaner dekker
998 manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv. For oss er tegneserier "menn i
999 strømpebukser". Og uansett er det ikke slik at T-banen i New York er full
1000 av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway for den saks skyld. Folk i ulike
1001 kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig måter, og japanerne på dette
1004 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga. Det er å beskrive en variant av
1005 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1006 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1009 Dette er fenomenet
<em class=
"citetitle">doujinshi
</em>. Doujinshi er også
1010 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier. En rik etikk styrer
1011 de som skaper doujinshi. Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1012 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>bare
</em></span> er en kopi. Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1013 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig. En
1014 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1015 i en annen retning
—med en annen historie-linje. Eller tegneserien kan
1016 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet. Det er ingen
1017 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig "forskjellig".
1018 Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses som ekte doujinshi. Det er
1019 faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for å bli med på messer, og
1020 avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1022 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet. Det
1023 er enorme. Mer en
33 000 "sirkler" av skapere over hele Japan som
1024 produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet. Mer en
450 000 japanere
1025 samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i langet, for å
1026 bytte og selge dem. Dette markedet er parallelt med det kommersielle
1027 massemarkeds-manga-markedet. På noen måter konkurrerer det åpenbart med det
1028 markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som kontrollerer det
1029 kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge doujinshi-markedet. Det blomstrer,
1030 på tross av konkurransen og til tross for loven.
1032 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1033 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1034 Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
1035 papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
1036 Doujinshi er helt klart "avledede verk". Det er ingen generell praksis hos
1037 doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos manga-skaperne. I stedet
1038 er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre har laget, slik Walt
1039 Disney gjorde med
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr
</em>. For både
1040 japansk og USAs lov, er å "ta" uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige
1041 opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig. Det er et brudd på opphavsretten til det
1042 opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et avledet verk uten tillatelse fra
1043 den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1044 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1045 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1046 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1047 blomstrer. Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, "I
1048 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1049 Japan i dag.
… Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1050 hverandre.
… Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne
—ved å se i
1051 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere dem"
1052 og bygge basert på dem.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624082" href=
"#ftn.id2624082" class=
"footnote">23</a>]
</sup>
1054 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1055 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1056 får lov til. Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, "er det en
1057 rekke regler, og du må følge dem". Det er ting som Supermann "ikke kan"
1058 gjøre. "For en som lager tegneserier er det frustrerende å måtte begrense
1059 seg til noen parameter som er femti år gamle."
1060 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624206"></a><p>
1061 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen. Noen sier at det
1062 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1063 forklarer denne reduksjonen. Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1064 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1065 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1066 produktivt. Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1067 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624231" href=
"#ftn.id2624231" class=
"footnote">24</a>]
</sup>
1069 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1070 er at mekanismen som produserer denne "hold hendene borte"-responsen ikke er
1071 forstått. Det kan godt være at markedet som helhet gjør det bedre hvis
1072 doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den, men det forklarer likevel
1073 ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere ikke saksøker. Hvis loven
1074 ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det finnes faktisk noen
1075 tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt doujinshi-kunstnere,
1076 hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å blokkere denne "frie
1077 takingen" hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1079 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1080 som jeg kunne. Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1081 større japansk advokatfirma. "Vi har ikke nok advokater", fortalte han meg
1082 en ettermiddag. Det er "bare ikke nok ressurser til å tiltale tilfeller som
1086 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1087 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1088 effekt. Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1089 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1090 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt? Ville Japan vinne
1091 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1092 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1093 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1094 eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
1096 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1097 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1098 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1100 Vi lever i en verden som feirer "eiendom". Jeg er en av de som feierer.
1101 Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på verdien av den
1102 sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller "immateriell
1103 eiendom".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624325" href=
"#ftn.id2624325" class=
"footnote">25</a>]
</sup> Et stort og variert samfunn
1104 kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten
1105 immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1107 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1108 verdi der ute som "eiendom" ikke dekker. Jeg mener ikke "kjærlighet kan
1109 ikke kjøpes med penger" men heller, at en verdi som ganske enkelt er del av
1110 produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell produksjon.
1111 Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett med blyanter for å tegne
1112 Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme det som galt
—selv om
1113 det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir oppdaget. Men det var intet galt,
1114 i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller
1115 fra Grimm-brødrene. Det var intet galt med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys
1116 bruk ville blitt ansett som "rimelig". Det var intet galt med å ta fra
1117 brødrene Grimm fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1120 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok
—eller mer generelt, tingene
1121 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet
—er
1122 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1123 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1126 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen. Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1127 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1128 siste verk
—eller bare en kopi
—uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1129 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt. I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1130 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1131 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1133 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1134 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere "stjeler". Denne formen for Walt
1135 Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt advokater
1136 synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1138 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1139 begynner å se etter dem. Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1140 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. ("Unnskyld meg, professor
1141 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1142 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?") Teatertropper viser frem
1143 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1144 (Er det
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>noen
</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1145 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1146 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1147 først?) Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1148 astroidefilmer i slutten av
1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i
1997.
1151 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1152 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå. Denne byggingen er alltid og
1153 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1154 opprinnelige skaperen. Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1155 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1156 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes. Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1157 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1158 ta
—frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1162 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>om
</em></span> en kultur
1163 er fri. Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1164 er i stedet "
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>hvor
</em></span> fri er denne kulturen er?" Hvor mye
1165 og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre å ta, og bygge på?
1166 Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer? Til medlemmer av
1167 kongefamilien? Til de ti største selskapene på New York-børsen? Eller er
1168 at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt, uansett om de er
1169 tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke? Til musikere generelt, uansett om
1170 de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt, uansett om de er
1171 tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1173 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1174 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre. Vår var en fri
1175 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1176 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2623621" href=
"#id2623621" class=
"para">19</a>]
</sup>
1179 Leonard Maltin,
<em class=
"citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1180 Cartoons
</em> (New York: Penguin Books,
1987),
34–35.
1181 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2623715" href=
"#id2623715" class=
"para">20</a>]
</sup>
1184 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1185 beskrevet på
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
4</a>. I
1186 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1187 musikken til fem sanger i
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Willie
</em>:
1188 "Steamboat Bill," "The Simpleton" (Delille), "Mischief Makers" (Carbonara),
1189 "Joyful Hurry No.
1" (Baron), og "Gawky Rube" (Lakay). En sjette sang, "The
1190 Turkey in the Straw," var allerede allemannseie. Brev fra David Smith til
1191 Harry Surden,
10. juli
2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til forfatteren.
1192 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2623768" href=
"#id2623768" class=
"para">21</a>]
</sup>
1195 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, "The Mouse that
1196 Ate the Public Domain," Findlaw,
5. mars
2002, fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
5</a>.
1197 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2623911" href=
"#id2623911" class=
"para">22</a>]
</sup>
1200 Inntil
1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1201 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode. Jeg har beregnet
1202 "gjennomsnittlig" vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av de totale
1203 registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger. Hvis
100
1204 opphavsretter ble registrert i år
1, bare
15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1205 fornyingsvernetiden er
28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid
32,
2
1206 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1207 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
1209 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624082" href=
"#id2624082" class=
"para">23</a>]
</sup>
1212 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud,
<em class=
"citetitle">Reinventing
1213 Comics
</em> (New York: Perennial,
2000).
1214 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624231" href=
"#id2624231" class=
"para">24</a>]
</sup>
1217 Se Salil K. Mehra, "Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain Why All
1218 the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?"
<em class=
"citetitle">Rutgers Law
1219 Review
</em> 55 (
2002):
155,
182.
"det kan være en kollektiv økonomisk
1220 rasjonalitet som får manga- og anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for
1221 opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre
1222 stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle egeninteresse til side og bestemmer
1223 seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en
1224 løsning på fangens dilemma."
1225 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624325" href=
"#id2624325" class=
"para">25</a>]
</sup>
1227 Begrepet
<em class=
"citetitle">immateriell eiendom
</em> er av relativ ny
1228 opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyrights and
1229 Copywrongs
</em>,
11 (New York: New York University Press,
2001). Se
1230 også Lawrence Lessig,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em> (New York:
1231 Random House,
2001),
293 n.
26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
1232 "eiendoms"-rettigheter
—opphavsretter, patenter, varemerker og
1233 forretningshemmeligheter
—men egenskapene til disse rettighetene er
1234 svært forskjellige.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624343"></a>
1235 </p></div></div></div><div class=
"chapter" title='Kapittel
2. Kapittel to:
"Kun etter-apere"'
><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel
2. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</h2></div></div></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxphotography"></a><p>
1236 I
1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
1237 produsere det vi ville kalle "fotografier". Rimelig nok ble de kalt
1238 "daguerreotyper". Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og feltet var dermed
1239 begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og velstående amatører. (Det
1240 var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening som hjalp til med å regulere
1241 industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør, ved å holde konkurransen ned
1242 slik at prisene var høye.)
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624573"></a>
1244 Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
1245 sterk. Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1246 lage "automatiske bilder". William Talbot oppdaget snart en prosess for å
1247 lage "negativer". Men da negativene var av glass, og måtte holdes fuktige,
1248 forble prosessen kostbar og tung. På
1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet,
1249 noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det.
1250 Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess
1251 som var innenfor rekkevidden til de fleste amatører.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624593"></a>
1252 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1254 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1255 før i
1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1256 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1257 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1258 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull. Denne rullen
1259 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1260 vesentlig. Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1261 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1263 Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
1264 dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken. Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
1265 dens enkelhet. "Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser resten."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624641" href=
"#ftn.id2624641" class=
"footnote">26</a>]
</sup> Som han beskrev det i
<em class=
"citetitle">The Kodak
1266 Primer
</em>:
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624655"></a>
1267 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
1268 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1269 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1270 gjøre.
… Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1271 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1272 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1273 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1274 kunnskap om kunstarten. Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1275 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2622416" href=
"#ftn.id2622416" class=
"footnote">27</a>]
</sup>
1276 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1277 For $
25 kunne alle ta bilder. Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1278 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1279 fremkalt. Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1280 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret. Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1281 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1282 for salg i
1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1283 om dagen. Fra
1888 til
1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med
4,
7
1284 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med
11
1285 prosent.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624720" href=
"#ftn.id2624720" class=
"footnote">28</a>]
</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1286 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over
17 prosent.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624729" href=
"#ftn.id2624729" class=
"footnote">29</a>]
</sup>
1287 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624738"></a><p>
1290 Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
1291 økonomisk. Den var sosial. Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
1292 glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
1293 muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
1294 stand til tidligere. Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, "For første gang
1295 tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie og
1296 dens aktiviteter.
… For første gang i historien fantes det en
1297 autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
1298 laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624671" href=
"#ftn.id2624671" class=
"footnote">30</a>]
</sup>
1300 På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
1301 malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
1302 med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører. Med
1303 Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere. Barrièren for å uttrykke
1304 seg var senket. Snobber ville fnyse over "kvaliteten", profesjonelle ville
1305 avvise den som irrelevant. Men se et barn studere hvordan best velge
1306 bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken
1307 muliggjorde. Demokratiske verktøy ga vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem
1308 selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy kunne ha gjort før.
1310 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre. Eastmans genialitet
1311 var åpenbart en viktig del. Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1312 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig. For tidlig i historien til
1313 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1314 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig. Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1315 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1316 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624820" href=
"#ftn.id2624820" class=
"footnote">31</a>]
</sup>
1319 Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
1320 ut. Fotografen "tok" noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
1321 fotografert
—røvet til seg noe av verdi. Noen trodde til og med at han
1322 tok målets sjel. På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
1323 som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
1324 fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
1325 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624852"></a><p>
1326 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1327 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt. Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1328 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område. (Louis
1329 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1330 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624886" href=
"#ftn.id2624886" class=
"footnote">32</a>]
</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1331 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat
1332 Bill, Jr
</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1333 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1335 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1336 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene. Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1337 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre. I stedet
1338 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt. Frihet var utgangspunktet. (Loven
1339 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1340 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1341 begrensninger enn resten av oss. Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1342 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2624938" href=
"#ftn.id2624938" class=
"footnote">33</a>]
</sup>)
1344 Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
1345 hadde slått ut den andre veien. Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
1346 ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass. Kanskje
1347 Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
1348 utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på. Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
1349 var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra "tyveriet" begått av
1350 fotografer. På samme måte som Napster nøt fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd
1351 utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak nytt fordeler fra
1352 "bilde-rettighets"-brudd til deres fotografer. Vi kan forestille oss at
1353 loven da krevede at en form for tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap
1354 fremkalte bildene. Vi kan forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge
1355 frem slike tillatelser.
1360 Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
1361 svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
1362 gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
1363 Fotografering ville eksistert. Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
1364 Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
1365 gjorde
—siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
1366 av godkjenningssystemet. Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
1367 villa aldri ha skjedd. Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd. Og det
1368 ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
1369 uttrykksteknologi. Hvis du kjører gjennom området Presidio i San Francisco,
1370 kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med fargefulle og
1371 iøynefallende bilder, og logoen "Just Think!" i stedet for navnet på en
1372 skole. Men det er lite som er "bare" mentalt i prosjektene som disse bussene
1373 muliggjør. Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med
1374 film. Ikke filmen til Eastman. Ikke en gang filmen i din videospiller. I
1375 stedet er det snakk om "filmen" til digitale kamera. Just Think! er et
1376 prosjekt som gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og
1377 kritisere den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg. Hvert år
1378 besøker disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire
1379 hundre barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media.
1380 Ved å gjøre, så tenker de. Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1381 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625001"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625012"></a><p>
1382 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1383 og billigere. Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1384 dramatisk. Som en analytiker omtalte det, "for fem år siden kostet et godt
1385 sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $
25 000. I dag kan du få
1386 profesjonell kvalitet for $
595."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625091" href=
"#ftn.id2625091" class=
"footnote">34</a>]
</sup> Disse
1387 bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet hundre-tusenvis av dollar for
1388 bare ti år siden. Og det er nå mulig å forestille seg ikke bare slike
1389 busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor unger kan lære mer og mer av
1390 det lærerne kaller "medie-skriveføre" eller "mediekompetanse".
1393 "Media-skriveføre," eller "mediekompetanse" som administrerende direktør
1394 Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, "er evnen til
… å forstå,
1395 analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål er å gjøre [unger] i stand
1396 til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de er konstruert, hvordan de
1397 blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem".
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624759"></a>
1399 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på "skrivefør". For de fleste
1400 handler skrivefør å kunne lese og skrive. "Skriveføre folk kjenner ting som
1401 Faulkner, Hemingway og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1403 Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt
390 timer med
1404 TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom
20 000 og
45 000
1405 reklameinnslag,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625160" href=
"#ftn.id2625160" class=
"footnote">35</a>]
</sup> så er det mer og mer
1406 viktig å forstå "gramatikken" til media. For på samme måte som det er en
1407 gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media. Og akkurat slik
1408 som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så lærer unger å
1409 skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i begynnelsen) grusom
1412 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1413 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1414 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive
—hvor
1415 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1416 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1417 forståelig
—så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1418 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1419 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1420 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1422 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra. Men
1423 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1424 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1425 den. En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1426 skrevet. En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1427 reflektere over det en har laget.
1428 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625191"></a><p>
1429 Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg. Da
1430 det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
1431 Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
1432 ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
1433 "plasseringen av objekter, farger,
… rytme, skritt og
1434 tekstur".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625124" href=
"#ftn.id2625124" class=
"footnote">36</a>]
</sup> Men etter hvert som
1435 datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir "spillt" i
1436 tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den enkle kontrollen til
1437 forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre teknikker nødvendig.
1438 Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret fortellerstemmen til science
1439 fiction. Men da han forsøkte å lage et dataspill basert på et av sine verk,
1440 så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte lære. Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan
1441 en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet,
1442 selv for en enormt vellykket forfatter.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625275" href=
"#ftn.id2625275" class=
"footnote">37</a>]
</sup>
1443 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625297"></a><p>
1444 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1445 filmer. Som Daley skriver, "folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de blir
1446 ledet gjennom en film. Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra å se
1447 det, så du aner det ikke. Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du ikke at
1448 du har vært ledet." Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en film, så har
1451 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren
—til en som går ut over
1452 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer
—handler ikke om å lage
1453 bedre filmregisører. Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt. I
1454 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1455 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
1456 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1457 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke. Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1458 språket som boksen bruker. I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1459 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1461 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1462 "ikke kunne skrive." Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert andre
1463 steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1466 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes. Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1467 kan bli både lesing og skriving. Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1468 forståelse for håndverket å skrive. Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1469 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede. Målet med
1470 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å "gi folket
1471 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1472 uttrykke".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625319" href=
"#ftn.id2625319" class=
"footnote">38</a>]
</sup> Det gir studenter mulighet
1473 "til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste århundret".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625386" href=
"#ftn.id2625386" class=
"footnote">39</a>]
</sup>
1474 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625394"></a><p>
1475 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1476 andre. Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1477 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1478 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1479 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole. Den
1480 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1481 Angeles. Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1482 en fiasko. Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1483 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1484 visste noe om
—våpen-relatert vold.
1486 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1487 skolen. Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1488 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. "Ungene dukket opp
1489 06:
00, og dro igjen
05:
00 på natta", sa Barish. De jobbet hardere enn i noen
1490 annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle om
—å lære hvordan
1491 de skulle uttrykke seg.
1493 Ved å bruke hva som helst av "fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne finne",
1494 og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å blande "bilde,
1495 lyd og tekst", sa Barish at denne klassen produserte en serie av prosjekter
1496 som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få ellers ville forstå. Dette var et
1497 tema veldig nært livene til disse studentene. Prosjektet "ga dem et verktøy
1498 og bemyndiget dem slik at de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om
1499 det", forklarer Barish. Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape
1500 uttrykk
—mye mer vellykket og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget
1501 ved å kun bruke tekst. "Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må
1502 gjøre dette i tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og
1503 gjort noe annet", forklarer Barish. Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1504 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1505 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>disse
</em></span> ideene godt.
1506 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1512 "Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?" spurte jeg. Jo
1513 delvis, naturligvis. Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive? Utdanning,
1514 forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å "konstruere mening".
1515 Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å si at å lære bort skriving kun
1516 handler om å lære ungene å stave. Tekstforming er bare en del
—og i
1517 større grad ikke den kraftigste delen
—for å konstruere mening. Som
1518 Daley forklarte i den mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
1519 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
1520 Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
1521 du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
1522 Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
1523 han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
1524 din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting. Men han kan ikke lese teksten
1525 din. Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier "Johnny, du er analfabet.
1526 Ingenting du gjør betyr noe". Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan avvise
1527 deg eller han kan avvise seg selv. Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil han
1528 avvise deg. Men hvis du i stedet sier, "Well, med alle disse tingene som du
1529 kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet. Spill musikk til meg som du mener
1530 reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener reflekterer over
1531 temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere temaet". Ikke ved å gi en
1532 unge et videokamera og
… si "La oss dra å ha det morsomt med
1533 videokameraet og lage en liten film". Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta
1534 disse elementene som du forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om
1537 Dette bemyndiger enormt. Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
1538 har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
1539 faktumet "jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å skrive
1540 noe". Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive om avsnittet
1541 5,
6,
7,
8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
1544 Fordi de trengte det. Det var en grunn til å gjøre det. De trengte å si
1545 noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe. De trengte faktisk å
1546 bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra. Men de hadde begynt å
1547 forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket."
1548 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1549 Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
1550 et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
1551 til denne nyheten. Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
1552 ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
1553 disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til. Genialiteten i denne
1554 forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
1555 perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1557 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse. Det var musikk
1558 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1559 over skjermen. Det var en formel for intervjuer. Det var "balanse" og
1560 seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik vi i stadig større grad
1561 forventer det, "nyheter som underholdning", selv om underholdningen er en
1563 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625590"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625596"></a><p>
1564 Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om "tragedien
11. september",
1565 kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i tillegg se en svært
1566 annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av fortellinger om de samme
1567 hendelsene. Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde en veldig annerledes
1568 smak. Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget bilder fra hele verden og
1569 presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med tekst. Noen tilbød åpne
1570 brev. Det var lydopptak. Det var sinne og frustrasjon. Det var forsøk på
1571 å tilby en sammenheng. Det var, kort og godt, en ekstraordinær
1572 verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin bruker begrepet i hans bok
1573 <em class=
"citetitle">Cyber Rights
</em>, rundt en nyhetshendelse som hadde
1574 fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden. Det var ABC og CBS, men det var
1578 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet
—selv om
1579 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises. Jeg
1580 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale. For på
1581 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1582 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på "Just
1583 Think!"-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1585 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1586 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1587 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker. Dette er noe nytt i vår
1588 tradisjon
—ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1589 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1590 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1592 11. september var ikke et avvik. Det var en start. Omtrent på samme tid,
1593 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1594 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog. Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1595 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1596 dagbok. I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1597 måte
—det er en slags elektronisk
<em class=
"citetitle">Jerry
1598 Springer
</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1600 But in the United States, blogs have taken on a very different character.
1601 There are some who use the space simply to talk about their private
1602 life. But there are many who use the space to engage in public
1603 discourse. Discussing matters of public import, criticizing others who are
1604 mistaken in their views, criticizing politicians about the decisions they
1605 make, offering solutions to problems we all see: blogs create the sense of a
1606 virtual public meeting, but one in which we don't all hope to be there at
1607 the same time and in which conversations are not necessarily linked. The
1608 best of the blog entries are relatively short; they point directly to words
1609 used by others, criticizing with or adding to them. They are arguably the
1610 most important form of unchoreographed public discourse that we have.
1613 Dette er en sterk uttalelse. Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1614 som den sier om blogger. Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1615 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen. Vi har
1616 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1617 valgene teller. Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1618 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1619 rutinepreget. De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1621 Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg. Demokrati betyr at folket
1622 styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg. I vår tradisjon betyr det
1623 også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning. Dette var ideen som
1624 fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
1625 nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
1626 "demokratiet i Amerika". Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som fascinerte
1627 han
—det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk retten til å
1628 velge liv eller død før andre borgere. Og det som fascinerte han mest var
1629 at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge frem. De
1630 diskuterte. Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var "riktig" resultat, de
1631 forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om "riktig"resultat, og i hvert fall i
1632 kriminalsaker måtte de bli enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen
1633 skulle avsluttes.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625651" href=
"#ftn.id2625651" class=
"footnote">40</a>]
</sup>
1635 Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place,
1636 there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are
1637 pushing to create just such an institution.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625762" href=
"#ftn.id2625762" class=
"footnote">41</a>]
</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
1638 remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place
1639 for "democratic deliberation" to occur.
1641 More bizarrely, there is generally not even permission for it to occur. We,
1642 the most powerful democracy in the world, have developed a strong norm
1643 against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about politics with people
1644 you agree with. But it is rude to argue about politics with people you
1645 disagree with. Political discourse becomes isolated, and isolated discourse
1646 becomes more extreme.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625785" href=
"#ftn.id2625785" class=
"footnote">42</a>]
</sup> We say what our
1647 friends want to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say.
1650 Enter the blog. The blog's very architecture solves one part of this
1651 problem. People post when they want to post, and people read when they want
1652 to read. The most difficult time is synchronous time. Technologies that
1653 enable asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, increase the opportunity
1654 for communication. Blogs allow for public discourse without the public ever
1655 needing to gather in a single public place.
1657 But beyond architecture, blogs also have solved the problem of
1658 norms. There's no norm (yet) in blog space not to talk about politics.
1659 Indeed, the space is filled with political speech, on both the right and the
1660 left. Some of the most popular sites are conservative or libertarian, but
1661 there are many of all political stripes. And even blogs that are not
1662 political cover political issues when the occasion merits.
1664 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1665 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra
2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1666 fra hos noen få blogger. Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1667 lese dem en effekt.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625833"></a>
1669 One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
1670 mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott "misspoke"
1671 at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising Thurmond's
1672 segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that this story would
1673 disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight hours. It did. But he
1674 didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The bloggers kept researching
1675 the story. Over time, more and more instances of the same "misspeaking"
1676 emerged. Finally, the story broke back into the mainstream press. In the
1677 end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625853" href=
"#ftn.id2625853" class=
"footnote">43</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625861"></a>
1679 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1680 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1681 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører. De må arbeide for å holde på
1682 oppmerksomheten. Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter. Som haier,
1683 må de bevege seg videre.
1685 But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they can
1686 focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a particularly
1687 interesting story, more and more people link to that story. And as the
1688 number of links to a particular story increases, it rises in the ranks of
1689 stories. People read what is popular; what is popular has been selected by a
1690 very democratic process of peer-generated rankings.
1691 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1693 There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle from
1694 the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this movement and
1695 a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the
1696 absence of a financial "conflict of interest." "I think you have to take the
1697 conflict of interest" out of journalism, Winer told me. "An amateur
1698 journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the conflict of
1699 interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of get it out of
1701 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625921"></a><p>
1702 These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated
1703 (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public
1704 than an unconcentrated media can
—as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq
1705 war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own
1706 employees.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625728" href=
"#ftn.id2625728" class=
"footnote">44</a>]
</sup> It also needs to sustain a
1707 more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the
1708 Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink
1709 with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter
1710 over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer
1711 a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
1712 told her
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>that
</em></span> they were writing "the story.")
1713 </p><p> Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate
—"amateur" not in
1714 the sense of inexperienced, but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning
1715 not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range
1716 of input into a story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when
1717 hundreds from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to
1718 retell what they had seen.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625956" href=
"#ftn.id2625956" class=
"footnote">45</a>]
</sup> And it
1719 drives readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as
1720 Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly
1721 with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it"
—with all the
1722 benefits, and costs, that might entail.
1725 Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with
1726 blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for public
1727 figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's not clear that
1728 "journalism" is happy about this
—some journalists have been told to
1729 curtail their blogging.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2625985" href=
"#ftn.id2625985" class=
"footnote">46</a>]
</sup> But it is clear
1730 that we are still in transition. "A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
1731 exercises," Winer told me. There is a lot that must mature before this
1732 space has its mature effect. And as the inclusion of content in this space
1733 is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on
1734 copyright), Winer said, "we will be the last thing that gets shut down."
1736 This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because "you don't
1737 have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper." That is
1738 true. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As more and more
1739 citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will change
1740 the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and
1741 misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be
1742 criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has
1743 been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore
1744 when he has been proven wrong. The writing of ideas, arguments, and
1745 criticism improves democracy. Today there are probably a couple of million
1746 blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be
1747 something extraordinary to report.
1748 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2626051"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
1749 John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i
1750 følge hans eget nettsted, er "menneskelig læring og
… å skape
1751 kunnskapsøkologier for å skape
… innovasjon".
1753 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1754 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt. Jeg er
1755 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1756 demokratiet. Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1757 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1760 As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When "a lot of us grew up," he
1761 explains, that tinkering was done "on motorcycle engines, lawnmower engines,
1762 automobiles, radios, and so on." But digital technologies enable a different
1763 kind of tinkering
—with abstract ideas though in concrete form. The
1764 kids at Just Think! not only think about how a commercial portrays a
1765 politician; using digital technology, they can take the commercial apart and
1766 manipulate it, tinker with it to see how it does what it does. Digital
1767 technologies launch a kind of bricolage, or "free collage," as Brown calls
1768 it. Many get to add to or transform the tinkering of many others.
1770 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1771 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS). FS/OSS er programvare der
1772 kildekoden deles ut. Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1773 FS/OSS-program til å fungere. Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1774 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1776 This opportunity creates a "completely new kind of learning platform," as
1777 Brown describes. "As soon as you start doing that, you
… unleash a
1778 free collage on the community, so that other people can start looking at
1779 your code, tinkering with it, trying it out, seeing if they can improve it."
1780 Each effort is a kind of apprenticeship. "Open source becomes a major
1781 apprenticeship platform."
1783 In this process, "the concrete things you tinker with are abstract. They
1784 are code." Kids are "shifting to the ability to tinker in the abstract, and
1785 this tinkering is no longer an isolated activity that you're doing in your
1786 garage. You are tinkering with a community platform.
… You are
1787 tinkering with other people's stuff. The more you tinker the more you
1788 improve." The more you improve, the more you learn.
1790 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold. Og det skjer på samme
1791 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet. Som Brown
1792 formulerer det, "nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn til
1793 flere former for intelligens". Tidligere teknologier, slik som skrivemaskin
1794 eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst. Men nettet fremmer mye
1795 mer enn tekst. "Nettet
… si hvis du er musikalsk, hvis du er
1796 kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
…da er
1797 det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet. Det kan fremme og ta
1798 hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens."
1799 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2626170"></a><p>
1801 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1802 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1803 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1805 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1806 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1807 omstridt. Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1808 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1809 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1810 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1812 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1813 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#property-i" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
>10</a>) har utviklet et
1814 kraftfylt argument til fordel for "retten til å fikle" slik det gjøres i
1815 informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2626218" href=
"#ftn.id2626218" class=
"footnote">47</a>]
</sup>
1816 Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det handler om
1817 hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av loven.
1819 "Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er på
1820 vei", forklarer Brown. Vi må "forstå hvordan unger som vokser opp digitalt
1821 tenker og ønsker å lære".
1823 "Likevel", fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil føre bevis
1824 for, "bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig undertrykker den
1825 naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger.
… We bygger en
1826 arkitektur som frigjør
60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk system som
1827 stenger ned den delen av hjernen".
1828 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2626248"></a><p>
1829 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1830 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1831 denne kreativiteten over alt. Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1834 "Ikke måten å drive en kultur på", sa Brewster Kahle, som vi møtte i
1835 kapittel
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#collectors" title=
"Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>,
1836 kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av nedstemthet.
1837 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624641" href=
"#id2624641" class=
"para">26</a>]
</sup>
1840 Reese V. Jenkins,
<em class=
"citetitle">Images and Enterprise
</em> (Baltimore:
1841 Johns Hopkins University Press,
1975),
112.
1842 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2622416" href=
"#id2622416" class=
"para">27</a>]
</sup>
1844 Brian Coe,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Birth of Photography
</em> (New York:
1845 Taplinger Publishing,
1977),
53.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624694"></a>
1846 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624720" href=
"#id2624720" class=
"para">28</a>]
</sup>
1850 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624729" href=
"#id2624729" class=
"para">29</a>]
</sup>
1853 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s.
178.
1854 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624671" href=
"#id2624671" class=
"para">30</a>]
</sup>
1858 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624820" href=
"#id2624820" class=
"para">31</a>]
</sup>
1861 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel,
<em class=
"citetitle">Pavesich
</em>
1862 mot
<em class=
"citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co
</em>.,
50 S.E.
68 (Ga.
1905);
1863 <em class=
"citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co
</em>. mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Chinn
</em>,
1864 123090 S.W.
364,
366 (Ky.
1909);
<em class=
"citetitle">Corliss
</em> mot
1865 <em class=
"citetitle">Walker
</em>,
64 F.
280 (Mass. Dist. Ct.
1894).
1866 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624886" href=
"#id2624886" class=
"para">32</a>]
</sup>
1868 Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy,"
1869 <em class=
"citetitle">Harvard Law Review
</em> 4 (
1890):
193.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624895"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2624903"></a>
1870 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2624938" href=
"#id2624938" class=
"para">33</a>]
</sup>
1873 Se Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Law and
1874 Contemporary Problems
</em> 19 (
1954):
203; William L. Prosser,
1875 "Privacy," <em class=
"citetitle">California Law Review
</em> 48 (
1960)
1876 398–407;
<em class=
"citetitle">White
</em> mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Samsung
1877 Electronics America, Inc
</em>.,
971 F.
2d
1395 (
9th Cir.
1992),
1878 sert. nektet,
508 U.S.
951 (
1993).
1879 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625091" href=
"#id2625091" class=
"para">34</a>]
</sup>
1882 H. Edward Goldberg, "Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You
1883 Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations," cadalyst, februar
2002,
1884 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
7</a>.
1885 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625160" href=
"#id2625160" class=
"para">35</a>]
</sup>
1888 Judith Van Evra,
<em class=
"citetitle">Television and Child Development
</em>
1889 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1990); "Findings on Family
1890 and TV Study,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Denver Post
</em>,
25. mai
1997, B6.
1891 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625124" href=
"#id2625124" class=
"para">36</a>]
</sup>
1893 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish,
13. desember
2002.
1894 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625249"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625257"></a>
1895 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625275" href=
"#id2625275" class=
"para">37</a>]
</sup>
1898 Se Scott Steinberg, "Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs," E!online,
4. november
1899 2000, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
1900 #
8</a>; "Timeline,"
22. november
2000, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
9</a>.
1901 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625319" href=
"#id2625319" class=
"para">38</a>]
</sup>
1903 Intervju med Daley og Barish.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2625374"></a>
1904 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625386" href=
"#id2625386" class=
"para">39</a>]
</sup>
1908 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625651" href=
"#id2625651" class=
"para">40</a>]
</sup>
1911 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville,
<em class=
"citetitle">Democracy in
1912 America
</em>, bk.
1, overs. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1914 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625762" href=
"#id2625762" class=
"para">41</a>]
</sup>
1917 Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Journal of
1918 Political Philosophy
</em> 10 (
2) (
2002):
129.
1919 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625785" href=
"#id2625785" class=
"para">42</a>]
</sup>
1922 Cass Sunstein,
<em class=
"citetitle">Republic.com
</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1923 University Press,
2001),
65–80,
175,
182,
183,
192.
1924 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625853" href=
"#id2625853" class=
"para">43</a>]
</sup>
1927 Noah Shachtman, "With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot," New York
1928 Times,
16. januar
2003, G5.
1929 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625728" href=
"#id2625728" class=
"para">44</a>]
</sup>
1932 Telefonintervju med David Winer,
16. april
2003.
1933 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625956" href=
"#id2625956" class=
"para">45</a>]
</sup>
1936 John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of Information
1937 Online,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
2 februar
2003, A28; Staci
1938 D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," Online
1939 Journalism Review,
2. februar
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
10</a>.
1940 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2625985" href=
"#id2625985" class=
"para">46</a>]
</sup>
1942 See Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?"
1943 <em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
29 September
2003, C4. ("Not all news
1944 organizations have been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin Sites, a
1945 CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of the war
1946 on March
9, stopped posting
12 days later at his bosses' request. Last year
1947 Steve Olafson, a
<em class=
"citetitle">Houston Chronicle
</em> reporter, was
1948 fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a pseudonym, that
1949 dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.")
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2626017"></a>
1950 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2626218" href=
"#id2626218" class=
"para">47</a>]
</sup>
1953 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, "Technological Access
1954 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,"
1955 <em class=
"citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
1956 Machinery
</em> 43 (
2000):
9.
1957 </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=
"id2626309"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxrensselaer"></a><p>
1958 Høsten
2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
1959 førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
1960 Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi. Selv om han ikke var
1961 en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
1962 søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
1964 RPI is one of America's foremost technological research institutions. It
1965 offers degrees in fields ranging from architecture and engineering to
1966 information sciences. More than
65 percent of its five thousand
1967 undergraduates finished in the top
10 percent of their high school
1968 class. The school is thus a perfect mix of talent and experience to imagine
1969 and then build, a generation for the network age.
1971 RPI's computer network links students, faculty, and administration to one
1972 another. It also links RPI to the Internet. Not everything available on the
1973 RPI network is available on the Internet. But the network is designed to
1974 enable students to get access to the Internet, as well as more intimate
1975 access to other members of the RPI community.
1978 Search engines are a measure of a network's intimacy. Google brought the
1979 Internet much closer to all of us by fantastically improving the quality of
1980 search on the network. Specialty search engines can do this even better. The
1981 idea of "intranet" search engines, search engines that search within the
1982 network of a particular institution, is to provide users of that institution
1983 with better access to material from that institution. Businesses do this
1984 all the time, enabling employees to have access to material that people
1985 outside the business can't get. Universities do it as well.
1987 These engines are enabled by the network technology itself. Microsoft, for
1988 example, has a network file system that makes it very easy for search
1989 engines tuned to that network to query the system for information about the
1990 publicly (within that network) available content. Jesse's search engine was
1991 built to take advantage of this technology. It used Microsoft's network file
1992 system to build an index of all the files available within the RPI network.
1994 Jesse's wasn't the first search engine built for the RPI network. Indeed,
1995 his engine was a simple modification of engines that others had built. His
1996 single most important improvement over those engines was to fix a bug within
1997 the Microsoft file-sharing system that could cause a user's computer to
1998 crash. With the engines that existed before, if you tried to access a file
1999 through a Windows browser that was on a computer that was off-line, your
2000 computer could crash. Jesse modified the system a bit to fix that problem,
2001 by adding a button that a user could click to see if the machine holding the
2002 file was still on-line.
2004 Jesse's engine went on-line in late October. Over the following six months,
2005 he continued to tweak it to improve its functionality. By March, the system
2006 was functioning quite well. Jesse had more than one million files in his
2007 directory, including every type of content that might be on users'
2011 Thus the index his search engine produced included pictures, which students
2012 could use to put on their own Web sites; copies of notes or research; copies
2013 of information pamphlets; movie clips that students might have created;
2014 university brochures
—basically anything that users of the RPI network
2015 made available in a public folder of their computer.
2017 But the index also included music files. In fact, one quarter of the files
2018 that Jesse's search engine listed were music files. But that means, of
2019 course, that three quarters were not, and
—so that this point is
2020 absolutely clear
—Jesse did nothing to induce people to put music files
2021 in their public folders. He did nothing to target the search engine to these
2022 files. He was a kid tinkering with a Google-like technology at a university
2023 where he was studying information science, and hence, tinkering was the
2024 aim. Unlike Google, or Microsoft, for that matter, he made no money from
2025 this tinkering; he was not connected to any business that would make any
2026 money from this experiment. He was a kid tinkering with technology in an
2027 environment where tinkering with technology was precisely what he was
2030 On April
3,
2003, Jesse was contacted by the dean of students at RPI. The
2031 dean informed Jesse that the Recording Industry Association of America, the
2032 RIAA, would be filing a lawsuit against him and three other students whom he
2033 didn't even know, two of them at other universities. A few hours later,
2034 Jesse was served with papers from the suit. As he read these papers and
2035 watched the news reports about them, he was increasingly astonished.
2037 "It was absurd," he told me. "I don't think I did anything wrong.
… I
2038 don't think there's anything wrong with the search engine that I ran or
2039 … what I had done to it. I mean, I hadn't modified it in any way that
2040 promoted or enhanced the work of pirates. I just modified the search engine
2041 in a way that would make it easier to use"
—again, a
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>search
2042 engine
</em></span>, which Jesse had not himself built, using the Windows
2043 filesharing system, which Jesse had not himself built, to enable members of
2044 the RPI community to get access to content, which Jesse had not himself
2045 created or posted, and the vast majority of which had nothing to do with
2049 But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a network and
2050 had therefore "willfully" violated copyright laws. They demanded that he pay
2051 them the damages for his wrong. For cases of "willful infringement," the
2052 Copyright Act specifies something lawyers call "statutory damages." These
2053 damages permit a copyright owner to claim $
150,
000 per infringement. As the
2054 RIAA alleged more than one hundred specific copyright infringements, they
2055 therefore demanded that Jesse pay them at least $
15,
000,
000.
2057 Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one other
2058 student at RPI, one at Michigan Technical University, and one at
2059 Princeton. Their situations were similar to Jesse's. Though each case was
2060 different in detail, the bottom line in each was exactly the same: huge
2061 demands for "damages" that the RIAA claimed it was entitled to. If you
2062 added up the claims, these four lawsuits were asking courts in the United
2063 States to award the plaintiffs close to $
100
2064 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>billion
</em></span>—six times the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>total
</em></span>
2065 profit of the film industry in
2001.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2566336" href=
"#ftn.id2566336" class=
"footnote">48</a>]
</sup>
2066 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2566351"></a><p>
2067 Jesse called his parents. They were supportive but a bit frightened. An
2068 uncle was a lawyer. He began negotiations with the RIAA. They demanded to
2069 know how much money Jesse had. Jesse had saved $
12,
000 from summer jobs and
2070 other employment. They demanded $
12,
000 to dismiss the case.
2072 The RIAA wanted Jesse to admit to doing something wrong. He refused. They
2073 wanted him to agree to an injunction that would essentially make it
2074 impossible for him to work in many fields of technology for the rest of his
2075 life. He refused. They made him understand that this process of being sued
2076 was not going to be pleasant. (As Jesse's father recounted to me, the chief
2077 lawyer on the case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, "You don't want to pay
2078 another visit to a dentist like me.") And throughout, the RIAA insisted it
2079 would not settle the case until it took every penny Jesse had saved.
2082 Jesse's family was outraged at these claims. They wanted to fight. But
2083 Jesse's uncle worked to educate the family about the nature of the American
2084 legal system. Jesse could fight the RIAA. He might even win. But the cost of
2085 fighting a lawsuit like this, Jesse was told, would be at least $
250,
000. If
2086 he won, he would not recover that money. If he won, he would have a piece of
2087 paper saying he had won, and a piece of paper saying he and his family were
2090 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $
250,
000 og en sjanse til å vinne,
2091 eller $
12.000 og et forlik.
2093 The recording industry insists this is a matter of law and morality. Let's
2094 put the law aside for a moment and think about the morality. Where is the
2095 morality in a lawsuit like this? What is the virtue in scapegoatism? The
2096 RIAA is an extraordinarily powerful lobby. The president of the RIAA is
2097 reported to make more than $
1 million a year. Artists, on the other hand,
2098 are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $
45,
900.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2566420" href=
"#ftn.id2566420" class=
"footnote">49</a>]
</sup> There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and
2099 direct policy. So where is the morality in taking money from a student for
2100 running a search engine?
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2566439" href=
"#ftn.id2566439" class=
"footnote">50</a>]
</sup>
2102 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2103 for RIA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2104 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for
15 millioner dollar en
2106 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2107 I was definitely not an activist [before]. I never really meant to be an
2108 activist.
… [But] I've been pushed into this. In no way did I ever
2109 foresee anything like this, but I think it's just completely absurd what the
2111 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2112 Jesse's parents betray a certain pride in their reluctant activist. As his
2113 father told me, Jesse "considers himself very conservative, and so do
2114 I.
… He's not a tree hugger.
… I think it's bizarre that they
2115 would pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the
2116 wrong message. And he wants to correct the record."
2117 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2566336" href=
"#id2566336" class=
"para">48</a>]
</sup>
2121 Tim Goral, "Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-
2-P Networks: Suit
2122 Alleges $
97.8 Billion in Damages,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Professional Media Group
2123 LCC
</em> 6 (
2003):
5, tilgjengelig fra
2003 WL
55179443.
2124 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2566420" href=
"#id2566420" class=
"para">49</a>]
</sup>
2127 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (
2001)
2128 (
27–2042—Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2129 the Arts,
<em class=
"citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon
</em> (
2000).
2130 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2566439" href=
"#id2566439" class=
"para">50</a>]
</sup>
2133 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i "KaZaA and Punishment,"
2134 <em class=
"citetitle">Wall Street Journal
</em>,
10. september
2003, A24.
2135 </p></div></div></div><div class=
"chapter" title='Kapittel
4. Kapittel fire:
"Pirater"'
><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"pirates"></a>Kapittel
4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"
</h2></div></div></div><p>
2136 If "piracy" means using the creative property of others without their
2137 permission
—if "if value, then right" is true
—then the history of
2138 the content industry is a history of piracy. Every important sector of "big
2139 media" today
—film, records, radio, and cable TV
—was born of a
2140 kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last generation's
2141 pirates join this generation's country club
—until now.
2142 </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>
2144 The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2566522" href=
"#ftn.id2566522" class=
"footnote">51</a>]
</sup> Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast
2145 to California in the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that
2146 patents granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls
2147 were exercised through a monopoly "trust," the Motion Pictures Patents
2148 Company, and were based on Thomas Edison's creative property
—patents.
2149 Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this creative property gave
2150 him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it demanded.
2152 As one commentator tells one part of the story,
2153 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2154 A January
1909 deadline was set for all companies to comply with the
2155 license. By February, unlicensed outlaws, who referred to themselves as
2156 independents protested the trust and carried on business without submitting
2157 to the Edison monopoly. In the summer of
1909 the independent movement was
2158 in full-swing, with producers and theater owners using illegal equipment and
2159 imported film stock to create their own underground market.
2161 With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
2162 nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
2163 forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company to block
2164 the entry of non-licensed independents. With coercive tactics that have
2165 become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment,
2166 discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
2167 effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
2168 exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
2169 defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627032" href=
"#ftn.id2627032" class=
"footnote">52</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627058"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627064"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627071"></a>
2170 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2171 The Napsters of those days, the "independents," were companies like Fox. And
2172 no less than today, these independents were vigorously resisted. "Shooting
2173 was disrupted by machinery stolen, and `accidents' resulting in loss of
2174 negatives, equipment, buildings and sometimes life and limb frequently
2175 occurred."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627086" href=
"#ftn.id2627086" class=
"footnote">53</a>]
</sup> That led the independents to
2176 flee the East Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that
2177 filmmakers there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And
2178 the leaders of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
2181 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2182 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover. Men fordi patenter tildeler
2183 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet "begrenset" monopol (kun sytten år på den
2184 tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket opp. En ny
2185 industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's kreative
2187 </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>
2188 Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2189 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2191 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxfourneauxhenri"></a><p>
2192 At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for
2193 reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the
2194 law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and
2195 the exclusive right to control public performances of their music. In other
2196 words, in
1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's
1899 hit "Happy Mose,"
2197 the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy of the musical
2198 score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform it publicly.
2199 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627168"></a><p>
2200 But what if I wanted to record "Happy Mose," using Edison's phonograph or
2201 Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear enough that I
2202 would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I performed in making
2203 this recording. And it was clear enough that I would have to pay for any
2204 public performance of the work I was recording. But it wasn't totally clear
2205 that I would have to pay for a "public performance" if I recorded the song
2206 in my own house (even today, you don't owe the Beatles anything if you sing
2207 their songs in the shower), or if I recorded the song from memory (copies in
2208 your brain are not
—yet
— regulated by copyright law). So if I
2209 simply sang the song into a recording device in the privacy of my own home,
2210 it wasn't clear that I owed the composer anything. And more importantly, it
2211 wasn't clear whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of
2212 those recordings. Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively
2213 pirate someone else's song without paying its composer anything.
2214 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627176"></a><p>
2215 The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about this capacity to
2216 pirate. As South Dakota senator Alfred Kittredge put it,
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627210"></a>
2217 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2218 Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an opera. A
2219 publisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and copyrights
2220 it. Along come the phonographic companies and companies who cut music rolls
2221 and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the composer and publisher
2222 without any regard for [their] rights.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627229" href=
"#ftn.id2627229" class=
"footnote">54</a>]
</sup>
2223 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2224 The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
2225 were "sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of American
2226 composers,"
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627260" href=
"#ftn.id2627260" class=
"footnote">55</a>]
</sup> and the "music publishing
2227 industry" was thereby "at the complete mercy of this one
2228 pirate."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627271" href=
"#ftn.id2627271" class=
"footnote">56</a>]
</sup> As John Philip Sousa put it,
2229 in as direct a way as possible, "When they make money out of my pieces, I
2230 want a share of it."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627282" href=
"#ftn.id2627282" class=
"footnote">57</a>]
</sup>
2232 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2233 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2234 argued that "it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of automatic
2235 music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had before their
2236 introduction." Rather, the machines increased the sales of sheet
2237 music.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627300" href=
"#ftn.id2627300" class=
"footnote">58</a>]
</sup> In any case, the innovators
2238 argued, the job of Congress was "to consider first the interest of [the
2239 public], whom they represent, and whose servants they are." "All talk about
2240 `theft,'" the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company wrote, "is
2241 the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas musical, literary
2242 or artistic, except as defined by statute."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627305" href=
"#ftn.id2627305" class=
"footnote">59</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627325"></a>
2245 The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
2246 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>and
</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the law to
2247 make sure that composers would be paid for the "mechanical reproductions" of
2248 their music. But rather than simply granting the composer complete control
2249 over the right to make mechanical reproductions, Congress gave recording
2250 artists a right to record the music, at a price set by Congress, once the
2251 composer allowed it to be recorded once. This is the part of copyright law
2252 that makes cover songs possible. Once a composer authorizes a recording of
2253 his song, others are free to record the same song, so long as they pay the
2254 original composer a fee set by the law.
2256 American law ordinarily calls this a "compulsory license," but I will refer
2257 to it as a "statutory license." A statutory license is a license whose key
2258 terms are set by law. After Congress's amendment of the Copyright Act in
2259 1909, record companies were free to distribute copies of recordings so long
2260 as they paid the composer (or copyright holder) the fee set by the statute.
2262 This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham writes a
2263 novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham gives the
2264 publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
2265 for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham,
2266 and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's
2267 work except with permission of Grisham.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627372"></a>
2269 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2270 effect, the law
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>subsidizes
</em></span> the recording industry
2271 through a kind of piracy
—by giving recording artists a weaker right
2272 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2273 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2274 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2275 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2276 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2277 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2278 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2279 follow-on creativity.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2566550" href=
"#ftn.id2566550" class=
"footnote">60</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627413"></a>
2281 While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
2282 historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
2283 records. As a
1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary relates,
2284 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2285 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2286 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2287 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2288 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2289 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2290 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2291 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2292 recording rights before
1909 and the
1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2293 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2294 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2295 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2296 choice.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627445" href=
"#ftn.id2627445" class=
"footnote">61</a>]
</sup>
2297 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2298 By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
2299 work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
2300 </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>
2301 Radio was also born of piracy.
2303 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a "public
2304 performance" of the composer's work.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627481" href=
"#ftn.id2627481" class=
"footnote">62</a>]
</sup> As
2305 I described above, the law gives the composer (or copyright holder) an
2306 exclusive right to public performances of his work. The radio station thus
2307 owes the composer money for that performance.
2310 But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
2311 of the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>composer's
</em></span> work. The radio station is also
2312 performing a copy of the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>recording artist's
</em></span> work. It's
2313 one thing to have "Happy Birthday" sung on the radio by the local children's
2314 choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling Stones or Lyle
2315 Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the composition
2316 performed on the radio station. And if the law were perfectly consistent,
2317 the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his work, just
2318 as it pays the composer of the music for his work.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627547"></a>
2322 But it doesn't. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio
2323 station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need
2324 only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for
2325 nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist's work for free, even if it
2326 must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song.
2327 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxmadonna"></a><p>
2328 This difference can be huge. Imagine you compose a piece of music. Imagine
2329 it is your first. You own the exclusive right to authorize public
2330 performances of that music. So if Madonna wants to sing your song in public,
2331 she has to get your permission.
2333 Imagine she does sing your song, and imagine she likes it a lot. She then
2334 decides to make a recording of your song, and it becomes a top hit. Under
2335 our law, every time a radio station plays your song, you get some money. But
2336 Madonna gets nothing, save the indirect effect on the sale of her CDs. The
2337 public performance of her recording is not a "protected" right. The radio
2338 station thus gets to
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>pirate
</em></span> the value of Madonna's work
2339 without paying her anything.
2340 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627598"></a><p>
2341 No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
2342 benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
2343 performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
2344 gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
2345 him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
2347 </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>
2349 Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
2352 When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
2353 television in
1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
2354 they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
2355 selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
2356 sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
2357 egregiously than anything Napster ever did
— Napster never charged for
2358 the content it enabled others to give away.
2359 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627632"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627648"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627654"></a><p>
2360 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft. Rosel
2361 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of "unfair and
2362 potentially destructive competition."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627666" href=
"#ftn.id2627666" class=
"footnote">63</a>]
</sup>
2363 There may have been a "public interest" in spreading the reach of cable TV,
2364 but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the National Association of
2365 Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during testimony, "Does public
2366 interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?"
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627688" href=
"#ftn.id2627688" class=
"footnote">64</a>]
</sup> As another broadcaster put it,
2367 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2368 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2369 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2370 for.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627705" href=
"#ftn.id2627705" class=
"footnote">65</a>]
</sup>
2371 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2372 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2373 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2374 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2375 betaler for den. Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2376 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det. Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2377 ville passe.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627733" href=
"#ftn.id2627733" class=
"footnote">66</a>]
</sup>
2378 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627745"></a><p>
2379 Disse var "gratispassasjerer", sa presidenten Charlton Heston i Screen
2380 Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627757" href=
"#ftn.id2627757" class=
"footnote">67</a>]
</sup>
2382 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister
2383 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2384 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2385 Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
2386 protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
2387 already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
2388 extend that monopoly.
… The question here is how much compensation
2389 they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
2390 compensation.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2566468" href=
"#ftn.id2566468" class=
"footnote">68</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627809"></a>
2391 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2392 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2393 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2395 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
2396 whether cable companies had to pay for the content they "pirated." In the
2397 end, Congress resolved this question in the same way that it resolved the
2398 question about record players and player pianos. Yes, cable companies would
2399 have to pay for the content that they broadcast; but the price they would
2400 have to pay was not set by the copyright owner. The price was set by law,
2401 so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise veto power over the emerging
2402 technologies of cable. Cable companies thus built their empire in part upon
2403 a "piracy" of the value created by broadcasters' content.
2405 These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy" means using value
2406 from someone else's creative property without permission from that
2407 creator
—as it is increasingly described today
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627798" href=
"#ftn.id2627798" class=
"footnote">69</a>]
</sup> — then
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>every
</em></span> industry
2408 affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
2409 of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV.
… The list is long and
2410 could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
2411 last. Every generation
—until now.
2412 </p></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2566522" href=
"#id2566522" class=
"para">51</a>]
</sup>
2414 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2415 ekstraordinære historien. Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyrights
2416 and Copywrongs
</em>,
87–93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2417 "eventyr" med opphavsrett og patent.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2566427"></a>
2418 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627032" href=
"#id2627032" class=
"para">52</a>]
</sup>
2421 J. A. Aberdeen,
<em class=
"citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2422 Motion Picture Producers
</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment,
2000) and
2423 expanded texts posted at "The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion Picture
2424 Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws," available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
11</a>. For a discussion of
2425 the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits imposed by
2426 Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast
2427 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright"
2428 (September
2002), University of Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in
2429 Law and Economics, Working Paper No.
159.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627086" href=
"#id2627086" class=
"para">53</a>]
</sup>
2432 Marc Wanamaker, "The First Studios,"
<em class=
"citetitle">The Silents
2433 Majority
</em>, arkivert på
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
12</a>.
2434 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627229" href=
"#id2627229" class=
"para">54</a>]
</sup>
2436 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S.
6330
2437 and H.R.
19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents,
59th Cong.
59,
1st
2438 sess. (
1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2439 chairman), reprinted in
<em class=
"citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2440 Act
</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2441 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints,
1976).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627242"></a>
2442 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627260" href=
"#id2627260" class=
"para">55</a>]
</sup>
2445 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
223 (statement of
2446 Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
2447 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627271" href=
"#id2627271" class=
"para">56</a>]
</sup>
2450 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
226 (statement of
2451 Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
2452 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627282" href=
"#id2627282" class=
"para">57</a>]
</sup>
2455 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
23 (statement of
2456 John Philip Sousa, composer).
2457 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627300" href=
"#id2627300" class=
"para">58</a>]
</sup>
2461 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
283–84
2462 (statement of Albert Walker, representative of the Auto-Music Perforating
2463 Company of New York).
2464 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627305" href=
"#id2627305" class=
"para">59</a>]
</sup>
2467 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
376 (prepared
2468 memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
2469 Graphophone Company Association).
2470 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2566550" href=
"#id2566550" class=
"para">60</a>]
</sup>
2474 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S.
2499, S.
2900, H.R.
243, and
2475 H.R.
11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents,
60th Cong.,
1st sess.,
2476 217 (
1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2477 <em class=
"citetitle">Legislative History of the
1909 Copyright Act
</em>,
2478 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2480 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627445" href=
"#id2627445" class=
"para">61</a>]
</sup>
2483 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R.
2512, House Committee on
2484 the Judiciary,
90th Cong.,
1st sess., House Document no.
83, (
8 March
2485 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627481" href=
"#id2627481" class=
"para">62</a>]
</sup>
2487 See
17 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>, sections
106 and
110. At
2488 the beginning, record companies printed "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast"
2489 and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to play a record on a
2490 radio station. Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument that a warning
2491 attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio station. See
2492 <em class=
"citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2493 Co
</em>. v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Whiteman
</em>,
114 F.
2d
86 (
2nd
2494 Cir.
1940). See also Randal C. Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag:
2495 Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright,"
2496 <em class=
"citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review
</em> 70 (
2003):
281.
2497 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627506"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627514"></a>
2498 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627666" href=
"#id2627666" class=
"para">63</a>]
</sup>
2500 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV: Hearing on S.
1006 Before the
2501 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2502 on the Judiciary,
89th Cong.,
2nd sess.,
78 (
1966) (statement of Rosel
2503 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627639"></a>
2504 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627688" href=
"#id2627688" class=
"para">64</a>]
</sup>
2507 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2508 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2509 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627705" href=
"#id2627705" class=
"para">65</a>]
</sup>
2512 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2513 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2514 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627733" href=
"#id2627733" class=
"para">66</a>]
</sup>
2517 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
169 (joint statement of Arthur B. Krim,
2518 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2519 Artists Television, Inc.).
2520 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627757" href=
"#id2627757" class=
"para">67</a>]
</sup>
2522 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2523 president i Screen Actors Guild).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627739"></a>
2524 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2566468" href=
"#id2566468" class=
"para">68</a>]
</sup>
2526 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
216 (statement of Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2527 acting assistant attorney general).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627760"></a>
2528 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627798" href=
"#id2627798" class=
"para">69</a>]
</sup>
2531 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association,
<em class=
"citetitle">The
2532 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet
—The Myth of Free
2533 Information
</em>, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
13</a>. "The threat of
2534 piracy
—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2535 compensation
—has grown with the Internet."
2536 </p></div></div></div><div class=
"chapter" title='Kapittel
5. Kapittel fem:
"Piratvirksomhet"'
><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"piracy"></a>Kapittel
5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"
</h2></div></div></div><p>
2537 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2538 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2539 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2540 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2541 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2544 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of "taking" that is
2545 more directly related to the Internet. That taking, too, seems wrong to
2546 many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before we paint this taking
2547 "piracy," however, we should understand its nature a bit more. For the harm
2548 of this taking is significantly more ambiguous than outright copying, and
2549 the law should account for that ambiguity, as it has so often done in the
2552 </p><div class=
"section" title=
"5.1. Piracy I"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title" style=
"clear: both"><a name=
"piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I
</h2></div></div></div><p>
2553 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2554 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2555 copy it, and sell it
—all without the permission of a copyright
2556 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $
4.6 billion
2557 every year to physical piracy
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2627789" href=
"#ftn.id2627789" class=
"footnote">70</a>]
</sup> (that
2558 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2559 loses $
3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2561 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2562 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2563 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2565 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2566 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2567 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2568 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2569 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2570 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2573 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2574 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2575 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2576 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule. The copy shops
2577 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2578 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2579 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2580 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2581 legal wrong as well.
2584 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2585 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose not to
2586 protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate nation,
2587 but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2589 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2590 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2591 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2592 intellectual property law.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628001" href=
"#ftn.id2628001" class=
"footnote">71</a>]
</sup> In my view,
2593 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2594 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2595 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2597 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2598 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2599 American CDs at
50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2600 American CDs at $
15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2601 otherwise would have had.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628046" href=
"#ftn.id2628046" class=
"footnote">72</a>]
</sup>
2603 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2604 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2605 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2606 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, "You wouldn't go into Barnes
2607 & Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why should it
2608 be any different with on-line music?" The difference is, of course, that
2609 when you take a book from Barnes
& Noble, it has one less book to
2610 sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network, there is
2611 not one less CD that can be sold. The physics of piracy of the intangible
2612 are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2615 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2616 right of a very special sort, it
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>is
</em></span> a property
2617 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2618 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2619 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2620 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2621 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to "take"
2622 copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner wants to sell. But
2623 where the law does not give people the right to take content, it is wrong to
2624 take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If we have a property
2625 system, and that system is properly balanced to the technology of a time,
2626 then it is wrong to take property without the permission of a property
2627 owner. That is exactly what "property" means.
2629 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2630 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese "steal" Windows,
2631 that makes the Chinese dependent on Microsoft. Microsoft loses the value of
2632 the software that was taken. But it gains users who are used to life in the
2633 Microsoft world. Over time, as the nation grows more wealthy, more and more
2634 people will buy software rather than steal it. And hence over time, because
2635 that buying will benefit Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If
2636 instead of pirating Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux
2637 operating system, then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying
2638 Microsoft. Without piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628141"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628147"></a>
2639 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628154"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628165"></a>
2641 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2642 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2643 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2644 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2645 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2646 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2648 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2649 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2650 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2651 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2652 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2653 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2654 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2655 to say who gets access to what
—at least ordinarily. And if the law
2656 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2657 access, then violating the law is still wrong.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627924"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628190"></a>
2658 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628211"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628217"></a>
2662 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2663 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2664 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2665 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2666 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2667 to something that the law says he should not have. Nothing has changed to
2668 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2670 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2671 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all "piracy" is. Or at
2672 least, not all "piracy" is wrong if that term is understood in the way it is
2673 increasingly used today. Many kinds of "piracy" are useful and productive,
2674 to produce either new content or new ways of doing business. Neither our
2675 tradition nor any tradition has ever banned all "piracy" in that sense of
2678 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2679 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2680 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2681 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2683 For (
1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2684 controlling industry; and (
2) like the original recording industry, it
2685 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (
3) unlike cable TV, no
2686 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2688 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2689 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2690 </p></div><div class=
"section" title=
"5.2. Piracy II"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title" style=
"clear: both"><a name=
"piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piracy II
</h2></div></div></div><p>
2692 The key to the "piracy" that the law aims to quash is a use that "rob[s] the
2693 author of [his] profit."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628285" href=
"#ftn.id2628285" class=
"footnote">73</a>]
</sup> This means we
2694 must determine whether and how much p2p sharing harms before we know how
2695 strongly the law should seek to either prevent it or find an alternative to
2696 assure the author of his profit.
2698 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2699 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations. Like
2700 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2701 Internet as well
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628309" href=
"#ftn.id2628309" class=
"footnote">74</a>]
</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2702 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2703 independently.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628338"></a>
2705 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July
1999, Napster
2706 amassed over
10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2707 there were close to
80 million registered users of the system.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628351" href=
"#ftn.id2628351" class=
"footnote">75</a>]
</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2708 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2709 service. It boasts over
100 million members.) These services' systems are
2710 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2711 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2712 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend
—
2713 or your
20,
000 best friends.
2715 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2716 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September
2002
2717 estimated that
60 million Americans had downloaded music
—28 percent of
2718 Americans older than
12.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628387" href=
"#ftn.id2628387" class=
"footnote">76</a>]
</sup> A survey by
2719 the NPD group quoted in
<em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em> estimated
2720 that
43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2721 May
2003.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628414" href=
"#ftn.id2628414" class=
"footnote">77</a>]
</sup> The vast majority of these
2722 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2723 being "taken" on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness of
2724 file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2727 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2728 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2729 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2730 might think. So consider
—a bit more carefully than the polarized
2731 voices around this debate usually do
—the kinds of sharing that file
2732 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2736 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold. Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2738 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"A"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
2740 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2741 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2742 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2743 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2744 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2745 would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2746 of purchasing.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628468"></a>
2747 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
2750 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2751 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2752 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2753 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending
2754 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2755 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2756 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2757 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
2760 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2761 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2762 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2763 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2764 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2765 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2766 solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix
2767 of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still
2768 technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is
2769 not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero
—the same
2770 harm that occurs when I sell my collection of
1960s
45-rpm records to a
2772 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
2777 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2778 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2779 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2780 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2782 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2783 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2784 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628536" href=
"#ftn.id2628536" class=
"footnote">78</a>]
</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2785 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2786 exposure to music is good) and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2787 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2788 question to answer
—and certainly much more difficult than the current
2789 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2791 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2792 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2793 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2794 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2795 type A sharing is a kind of "theft" that is "devastating" the industry.
2797 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2798 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2799 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2800 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst
& Young put it, "Rather
2801 than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought
2802 it."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628581" href=
"#ftn.id2628581" class=
"footnote">79</a>]
</sup> The labels claimed that every
2803 album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
11.4 percent
2804 in
1981, the industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the
2805 problem, and banning or regulating technology was the answer.
2807 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2808 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record turnaround. "In
2809 the end," Cap Gemini concludes, "the `crisis'
… was not the fault of
2810 the tapers
—who did not [stop after MTV came into being]
—but had
2811 to a large extent resulted from stagnation in musical innovation at the
2812 major labels."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628056" href=
"#ftn.id2628056" class=
"footnote">80</a>]
</sup>
2814 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2815 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2816 in particular, and society in general
—or at least the society that
2817 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2818 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR
—the question is not simply
2819 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2820 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>how
</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2821 other types of sharing are.
2823 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2824 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause. The
2825 "net harm" to the industry as a whole is the amount by which type A sharing
2826 exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records through sampling
2827 than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks would actually
2828 benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have little
2829 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>static
</em></span> reason to resist them.
2832 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2833 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2836 In
2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by
8.9 percent, from
882
2837 million to
803 million units; revenues fell
6.7 percent.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628676" href=
"#ftn.id2628676" class=
"footnote">81</a>]
</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2838 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2839 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2840 more than
20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since
1999. That no
2841 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2842 account for at least some of the loss. "From
1999 to
2001, the average price
2843 of a CD rose
7.2 percent, from $
13.04 to $
14.19."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628719" href=
"#ftn.id2628719" class=
"footnote">82</a>]
</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2844 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2845 <em class=
"citetitle">BusinessWeek
</em> notes, "The soundtrack to the film
2846 <em class=
"citetitle">High Fidelity
</em> has a list price of $
18.98. You could
2847 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $
19.99."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628752" href=
"#ftn.id2628752" class=
"footnote">83</a>]
</sup>
2852 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2853 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2854 RIAA estimates that
803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that
2.1
2855 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although
2.6 times the total
2856 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just
6.7
2859 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2860 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2861 industry constantly asks, "What's the difference between downloading a song
2862 and stealing a CD?"
—but their own numbers reveal the difference. If I
2863 steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking is a lost
2864 sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is absolutely
2865 clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download were a lost
2866 sale
—if every use of Kazaa "rob[bed] the author of [his]
2867 profit"
—then the industry would have suffered a
100 percent drop in
2868 sales last year, not a
7 percent drop. If
2.6 times the number of CDs sold
2869 were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped by just
6.7 percent,
2870 then there is a huge difference between "downloading a song and stealing a
2873 These are the harms
—alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2874 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2875 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2877 One benefit is type C sharing
—making available content that is
2878 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2879 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2880 are no longer commercially available.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628775" href=
"#ftn.id2628775" class=
"footnote">84</a>]
</sup>
2881 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2882 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2883 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2884 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2885 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>to the company
</em></span> to make it available.
2887 In real space
—long before the Internet
—the market had a simple
2888 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2889 of used book and used record stores in America today.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628832" href=
"#ftn.id2628832" class=
"footnote">85</a>]
</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2890 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2891 this content,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2892 copyright
</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2893 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2894 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2895 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2896 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628879"></a><p>
2897 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2898 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2899 available isn't making money from making the content available. It is also
2900 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2901 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my
1949 recording
2902 of Bernstein's "Two Love Songs," I still have it. That difference would
2903 matter economically if the owner of the copyright were selling the record in
2904 competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the class of content that
2905 is not currently commercially available. The Internet is making it
2906 available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with the market.
2908 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
2909 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
2910 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
2911 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
2912 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
2916 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
2917 sharing to occur
—the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
2918 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
2919 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
2920 for example, released his first novel,
<em class=
"citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
2921 Kingdom
</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
2922 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
2923 would be a great advertisement for the "real" book. People would read part
2924 on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or not. If they liked
2925 it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's content is type D
2926 content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread, then both he and
2927 society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a great book!)
2929 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
2930 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
2931 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
2932 important in order to protect type A content.
2934 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
2935 says, "This is how much we've lost," we must also ask, "How much has society
2936 gained from p2p sharing? What are the efficiencies? What is the content that
2937 otherwise would be unavailable?"
2939 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
2940 of the "piracy" that file sharing enables is plainly legal and good. And
2941 like the piracy I described in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#pirates" title='Kapittel
4. Kapittel fire:
"Pirater"'
>4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new way of
2942 spreading content caused by changes in the technology of distribution. Thus,
2943 consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood, radio, the recording
2944 industry, and cable TV, the question we should be asking about file sharing
2945 is how best to preserve its benefits while minimizing (to the extent
2946 possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The question is one of
2947 balance. The law should seek that balance, and that balance will be found
2950 Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling? Er ikke angrepsmålet
2951 bare det du kaller type A-deling?
2953 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
2954 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
2955 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
2956 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
2957 technology to block the transfer of
99.4 percent of identified infringing
2958 material, the district court told counsel for Napster
99.4 percent was not
2959 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements "down to
2960 zero."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628989" href=
"#ftn.id2628989" class=
"footnote">86</a>]
</sup>
2962 If
99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
2963 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
2964 that a p2p system is used
100 percent of the time in compliance with the
2965 law, any more than there is a way to assure that
100 percent of VCRs or
100
2966 percent of Xerox machines or
100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
2967 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p. The court's ruling means that
2968 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
2969 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
2970 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
2972 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
2973 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
2974 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
2975 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology. In this adjustment,
2976 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
2977 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
2980 So, as we've seen, when "mechanical reproduction" threatened the interests
2981 of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers against the
2982 interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to composers, but
2983 also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but at a price set
2984 by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the recordings made by
2985 these recording artists, and they complained to Congress that their
2986 "creative property" was not being respected (since the radio station did not
2987 have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast), Congress rejected their
2988 claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
2990 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
2991 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
2992 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
2993 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
2994 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
2999 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3000 served two important goals
—indeed, the two central goals of any
3001 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3002 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content. Second, the law assured
3003 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3004 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3005 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3006 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3007 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3008 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3009 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3010 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>compensation
</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3011 control over the future (cable).
3012 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2629096"></a><p>
3013 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3014 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3015 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3016 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3017 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3018 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3019 device that Sony built had a "record" button, the device could be used to
3020 record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore benefiting from the
3021 copyright infringement of its customers. It should therefore, Disney and
3022 Universal claimed, be partially liable for that infringement.
3025 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3026 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3027 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3028 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3029 only if there were a special "copy me" signal on the line. It was clear that
3030 there were many television shows that did not grant anyone permission to
3031 copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of shows would not
3032 have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious preference, Sony
3033 could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity for copyright
3034 infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal wanted to hold
3035 it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3037 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3038 called VCRs "tapeworms." He warned, "When there are
20,
30,
40 million of
3039 these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of `tapeworms,'
3040 eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious asset the
3041 copyright owner has, his copyright."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629158" href=
"#ftn.id2629158" class=
"footnote">87</a>]
</sup>
3042 "One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and creative
3043 judgment," he told Congress, "to understand the devastation on the
3044 after-theater marketplace caused by the hundreds of millions of tapings that
3045 will adversely impact on the future of the creative community in this
3046 country. It is simply a question of basic economics and plain common
3047 sense."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629174" href=
"#ftn.id2629174" class=
"footnote">88</a>]
</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later
3048 show, percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or
3049 more
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629184" href=
"#ftn.id2629184" class=
"footnote">89</a>]
</sup> — a use the Court would
3050 later hold was not "fair." By "allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the
3051 means of an exemption from copyright infringementwithout creating a
3052 mechanism to compensate copyrightowners," Valenti testified, Congress would
3053 "take from the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive
3054 right to control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and
3055 thereby profit from its reproduction."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629079" href=
"#ftn.id2629079" class=
"footnote">90</a>]
</sup>
3057 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3058 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3059 its jurisdiction
—leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3060 refers to it as the "Hollywood Circuit"
—held that Sony would be liable
3061 for the copyright infringement made possible by its machines. Under the
3062 Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar technology
—which Jack
3063 Valenti had called "the Boston Strangler of the American film industry"
3064 (worse yet, it was a
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Japanese
</em></span> Boston Strangler of the
3065 American film industry)
—was an illegal technology.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629218" href=
"#ftn.id2629218" class=
"footnote">91</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2629243"></a>
3068 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit. And in
3069 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3070 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3071 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
3072 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3073 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3074 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3075 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3076 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3077 technology.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629269" href=
"#ftn.id2629269" class=
"footnote">92</a>]
</sup>
3078 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3079 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision. But as with
3080 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3081 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this "taking"
3082 notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a pattern is clear:
3083 </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 "røvet"
</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>
3084 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3085 content was distributed.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629396" href=
"#ftn.id2629396" class=
"footnote">93</a>]
</sup> In each case,
3086 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a "free ride" on
3087 someone else's work.
3090 In
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>none
</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3091 Congress eliminate all free riding. In
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>none
</em></span> of these
3092 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3093 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3094 case, the copyright owners complained of "piracy." In every case, Congress
3095 acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of the "pirates."
3096 In each case, Congress allowed some new technology to benefit from content
3097 made before. It balanced the interests at stake.
3100 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3101 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3102 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3103 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3104 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3105 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $
15 million
3106 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3107 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3109 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3110 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3111 "has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible
3112 uses of his work."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629477" href=
"#ftn.id2629477" class=
"footnote">94</a>]
</sup> Instead, the
3113 particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by balancing the
3114 good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the burdens such an
3115 exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically been done
3116 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>after
</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled into the mix
3117 of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3119 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3120 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3121 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3122 become a tool for "stealing" from artists. But neither should the law become
3123 a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or more accurately,
3124 distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the last chapter of
3125 this book, we should be securing income to artists while we allow the market
3126 to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute content. This
3127 will require changes in the law, at least in the interim. These changes
3128 should be designed to balance the protection of the law against the strong
3129 public interest that innovation continue.
3133 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3134 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3135 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network. Left to
3136 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these
3137 "potential public benefits," as John Schwartz writes in
<em class=
"citetitle">The New
3138 York Times
</em>, "could be delayed in the P2P fight."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629528" href=
"#ftn.id2629528" class=
"footnote">95</a>]
</sup> Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the
3139 copyright warriors raise a different argument. "All this hand waving about
3140 balance and incentives," they say, "misses a fundamental point. Our
3141 content," the warriors insist, "is our
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>property
</em></span>. Why
3142 should we wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have
3143 to wait before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why
3144 should Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask
3145 whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?"
3147 "Det er
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>vår eiendom
</em></span>," insisterer krigerne. "og den bør
3148 være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen eiendom er beskyttet."
3149 </p></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2627789" href=
"#id2627789" class=
"para">70</a>]
</sup>
3152 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3153 <em class=
"citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report
2003</em>,
3154 July
2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
3155 #
14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, "Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,"
3156 <em class=
"citetitle">Financial Times
</em>,
14 February
2003,
11.
3157 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628001" href=
"#id2628001" class=
"para">71</a>]
</sup>
3159 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3160 <em class=
"citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?
</em> (New York: The New
3161 Press,
2003),
10–13,
209. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3162 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3163 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3164 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3165 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3166 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3167 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3168 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3169 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3170 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3171 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3172 framework.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2627306"></a>
3173 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628046" href=
"#id2628046" class=
"para">72</a>]
</sup>
3175 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3176 Liebowitz,
<em class=
"citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy
</em> (New York:
3177 Amacom,
2002),
144–90. "In some instances
… the impact of
3178 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3179 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3180 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3181 pirating were not an option." Ibid.,
149.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628010"></a>
3182 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628285" href=
"#id2628285" class=
"para">73</a>]
</sup>
3185 <em class=
"citetitle">Bach
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Longman
</em>,
98
3186 Eng. Rep.
1274 (
1777).
3187 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628309" href=
"#id2628309" class=
"para">74</a>]
</sup>
3189 See Clayton M. Christensen,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
3190 Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
3191 Business
</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
2000). Professor Christensen
3192 examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
3193 frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
3194 for their own products. This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
3195 reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
3196 Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig,
<em class=
"citetitle">Future
</em>,
3197 89–92,
139.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628055"></a>
3198 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628351" href=
"#id2628351" class=
"para">75</a>]
</sup>
3201 See Carolyn Lochhead, "Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,"
3202 <em class=
"citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle
</em>,
24 September
2002, A1; "Rock
3203 'n' Roll Suicide,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New Scientist
</em>,
6 July
2002,
42;
3204 Benny Evangelista, "Napster Names CEO, Secures New Financing,"
3205 <em class=
"citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle
</em>,
23 May
2003, C1; "Napster's
3206 Wake-Up Call,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Economist
</em>,
24 June
2000,
23; John
3207 Naughton, "Hollywood at War with the Internet" (London)
3208 <em class=
"citetitle">Times
</em>,
26 July
2002,
18.
3209 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628387" href=
"#id2628387" class=
"para">76</a>]
</sup>
3213 See Ipsos-Insight,
<em class=
"citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3214 Distribution
</em> (September
2002), reporting that
28 percent of
3215 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3216 and
30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3218 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628414" href=
"#id2628414" class=
"para">77</a>]
</sup>
3221 Amy Harmon, "Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New
3222 York Times
</em>,
6 June
2003, A1.
3223 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628536" href=
"#id2628536" class=
"para">78</a>]
</sup>
3225 Se Liebowitz,
<em class=
"citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy
</em>,
3226 148–49.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628327"></a>
3227 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628581" href=
"#id2628581" class=
"para">79</a>]
</sup>
3230 See Cap Gemini Ernst
& Young,
<em class=
"citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3231 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis
</em> (
2003),
3. This report
3232 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3233 cassette taping in the
1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3234 cassette-shape skull and the caption "Home taping is killing music." At the
3235 time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment
3236 conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In
1988,
40 percent of consumers
3237 older than ten had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office
3238 of Technology Assessment,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology
3239 Challenges the Law
</em>, OTA-CIT-
422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
3240 Government Printing Office, October
1989),
145–56.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628056" href=
"#id2628056" class=
"para">80</a>]
</sup>
3243 U.S. Congress,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying
</em>,
4.
3244 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628676" href=
"#id2628676" class=
"para">81</a>]
</sup>
3247 See Recording Industry Association of America,
<em class=
"citetitle">2002 Yearend
3248 Statistics
</em>, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
15</a>. A later report
3249 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3250 America,
<em class=
"citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy
</em>,
25 June
2003,
3251 available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
16</a>:
3252 "In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen by
26
3253 percent from
1.16 billion units in to
860 million units in
2002 in the
3254 United States (based on units shipped). In terms of sales, revenues are
3255 down
14 percent, from $
14.6 billion in to $
12.6 billion last year (based on
3256 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3257 a $
39 billion industry in
2000 down to a $
32 billion industry in
2002 (based
3258 on U.S. dollar value of shipments)."
3259 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628719" href=
"#id2628719" class=
"para">82</a>]
</sup>
3260 Jane Black, "Big Music's Broken Record," BusinessWeek online,
13. februar
3261 2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
3262 #
17</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2628733"></a>
3263 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628752" href=
"#id2628752" class=
"para">83</a>]
</sup>
3267 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628775" href=
"#id2628775" class=
"para">84</a>]
</sup>
3270 By one estimate,
75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3271 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law
—Coming
3272 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3273 the Judiciary,
107th Cong.,
1st sess. (
3 April
2001) (prepared statement of
3274 the Future of Music Coalition), available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
18</a>.
3275 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628832" href=
"#id2628832" class=
"para">85</a>]
</sup>
3278 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3279 existence, in
2002, there were
7,
198 used book dealers in the United States,
3280 an increase of
20 percent since
1993. See Book Hunter Press,
<em class=
"citetitle">The
3281 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market
</em> (
2002),
3282 available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
3283 #
19</a>. Used records accounted for $
260 million in sales in
2002. See
3284 National Association of Recording Merchandisers, "
2002 Annual Survey
3285 Results," available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
3287 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628989" href=
"#id2628989" class=
"para">86</a>]
</sup>
3290 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at
34-
35
3291 (N.D. Cal.,
11 July
2001), nos. MDL-
00-
1369 MHP, C
99-
5183 MHP, available at
3292 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
21</a>. For an account
3293 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn,
<em class=
"citetitle">All
3294 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster
</em> (New
3295 York: Crown Business,
2003),
269–82.
3296 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629158" href=
"#id2629158" class=
"para">87</a>]
</sup>
3299 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S.
1758
3300 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
97th Cong.,
1st and
2nd sess.,
3301 459 (
1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3303 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629174" href=
"#id2629174" class=
"para">88</a>]
</sup>
3306 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders),
475.
3307 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629184" href=
"#id2629184" class=
"para">89</a>]
</sup>
3310 <em class=
"citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc
</em>. v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Sony
3311 Corp. of America
</em>,
480 F. Supp.
429, (C.D. Cal.,
1979).
3312 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629079" href=
"#id2629079" class=
"para">90</a>]
</sup>
3315 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders),
485 (testimony of Jack
3317 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629218" href=
"#id2629218" class=
"para">91</a>]
</sup>
3320 <em class=
"citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc
</em>. mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Sony
3321 Corp. of America
</em>,
659 F.
2d
963 (
9th Cir.
1981).
3322 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629269" href=
"#id2629269" class=
"para">92</a>]
</sup>
3325 <em class=
"citetitle">Sony Corp. of America
</em> mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Universal City
3326 Studios, Inc
</em>.,
464 U.S.
417,
431 (
1984).
3327 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629396" href=
"#id2629396" class=
"para">93</a>]
</sup>
3329 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3330 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3331 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3332 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3333 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of
1992 (Title
17 of the
3334 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>), Pub. L. No.
102-
563,
106 Stat.
3335 4237, codified at
17 U.S.C. §
1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3336 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3337 Lessig,
<em class=
"citetitle">Future
</em>,
71. See also Picker, "From Edison to
3338 the Broadcast Flag,"
<em class=
"citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review
</em>
3339 70 (
2003):
293–96.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2629011"></a>
3340 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629477" href=
"#id2629477" class=
"para">94</a>]
</sup>
3343 <em class=
"citetitle">Sony Corp. of America
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Universal City
3344 Studios, Inc
</em>.,
464 U.S.
417, (
1984).
3345 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629528" href=
"#id2629528" class=
"para">95</a>]
</sup>
3348 John Schwartz, "New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software Echoes Past
3349 Efforts,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
22 September
2003, C3.
3350 </p></div></div></div></div><div class=
"part" title='Del II.
"Eiendom"'
><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h1 class=
"title"><a name=
"c-property"></a>Del II. "Eiendom"
</h1></div></div></div><div class=
"partintro" title='
"Eiendom"'
><div></div><p>
3354 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3355 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3356 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker. Markeder
3357 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3360 But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a "property" right is a bit
3361 misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of property.
3362 Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any expression is very
3363 odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you put in
3364 your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I take it,
3365 you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good
3366 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>idea
</em></span> you had to put a picnic table in the
3367 backyard
—by, for example, going to Sears, buying a table, and putting
3368 it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking then?
3370 The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas,
3371 though that's an important difference. The point instead is that in the
3372 ordinary case
—indeed, in practically every case except for a narrow
3373 range of exceptions
—ideas released to the world are free. I don't take
3374 anything from you when I copy the way you dress
—though I might seem
3375 weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a
3376 woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
3377 copy the way someone else dresses), "He who receives an idea from me,
3378 receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
3379 taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629610" href=
"#ftn.id2629610" class=
"footnote">96</a>]
</sup>
3381 The exceptions to free use are ideas and expressions within the reach of the
3382 law of patent and copyright, and a few other domains that I won't discuss
3383 here. Here the law says you can't take my idea or expression without my
3384 permission: The law turns the intangible into property.
3386 But how, and to what extent, and in what form
—the details, in other
3387 words
—matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
3388 intangible into property emerged, we need to place this "property" in its
3389 proper context.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629655" href=
"#ftn.id2629655" class=
"footnote">97</a>]
</sup>
3391 My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding
3392 part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of "copyright material is
3393 property" in context. Where did the idea come from? What are its limits? How
3394 does it function in practice? After these stories, the significance of this
3395 true statement
—"copyright material is property"
— will be a bit
3396 more clear, and its implications will be revealed as quite different from
3397 the implications that the copyright warriors would have us draw.
3398 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629610" href=
"#id2629610" class=
"para">96</a>]
</sup>
3401 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (
13. august
1813) i
3402 <em class=
"citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
</em>, vol.
6 (Andrew
3403 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds.,
1903),
330,
333–34.
3404 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629655" href=
"#id2629655" class=
"para">97</a>]
</sup>
3407 As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
3408 intangible. A property right is simply a right that an individual has
3409 against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not attach
3410 to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to
3411 which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff, "What
3412 Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Arizona Law
3413 Review
</em> 45 (
2003):
373,
429 n.
241.
3414 </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=
"id2629702"></a><p>
3415 William Shakespeare skrev
<em class=
"citetitle">Romeo og Julie
</em> i
3416 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
1597. Det var det ellevte store
3417 skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
3418 til
1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
3419 kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en
1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
3420 vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
3421 som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: "Jeg likte det, men
3422 Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer."
3425 I
1774, nesten
180 år etter at
<em class=
"citetitle">Romeo og Julie
</em> ble
3426 skrevet, mente mange at "opphavsretten" kun tilhørte én eneste utgiver i
3427 London, John Tonson.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629738" href=
"#ftn.id2629738" class=
"footnote">98</a>]
</sup> Tonson var den
3428 mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629768" href=
"#ftn.id2629768" class=
"footnote">99</a>]
</sup>, som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele
3429 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde en evigvarende rett over "kopier"
3430 av bøker de hadde fått av forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at
3431 ingen andre kunne publisere kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på
3432 klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller
3433 billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3435 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året
1774 for alle som vet litt om
3436 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er
1710, da
3437 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3438 "Statute of Anne" og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være beskyttet i
3439 fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom forfatteren ennå
3440 levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før
1710 skulle ha en ekstraperiode
3441 på
22 tillegsår.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2629806" href=
"#ftn.id2629806" class=
"footnote">100</a>]
</sup> På grunn av denne
3442 loven, så skulle
<em class=
"citetitle">Rome og Julie
</em> ha falt i det fri i
3443 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
1774?
3445 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3446 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3447 engelskmennene vedtok "Statute of Anne", var det ingen annen lovgivning om
3448 opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var lisensieringsloven
3449 av
1662, utløpt i
1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol over publiseringen,
3450 noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva ble publisert. Men
3451 etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa at utgiverne hadde
3452 en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2629846"></a>
3454 At det ikke fantes noen
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>positiv
</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3455 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3456 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3457 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3458 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3459 dommerne sedvanerett."Common law" angir bakgrunnen for de lovgivendes
3460 lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at bakgrunnen bare
3461 hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var det virkelige
3462 spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov beskyttet
3463 opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3466 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller "bokselgere," som de ble
3467 kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere, Særlig fra
3468 Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England hadde økt
3469 veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til "The Conger", som
3470 derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov for å gi dem
3471 eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i "Statute of
3474 "Statute of Anne" ga forfatteren eller "eieren" av en bok en eksklusiv rett
3475 til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til bokhandernes forferdelse en
3476 viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne retten skulle vare. Etter dette
3477 gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som
3478 helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne hadde tenkt.
3480 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3481 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3482 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?
</em></span>
3484 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3485 krav. Ta
<em class=
"citetitle">romeo og Julie
</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3486 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3487 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3488 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3489 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3490 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3491 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3492 finnes for å tillate at noen "stjeler" Shakespeares verk?
3494 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3495 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da "Statute of Anne" ble
3496 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3499 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3500 begrepet "copyright" i stadig videre forstand. Men i
1710 var det ikke så
3501 mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble født som et
3502 svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å reprodusere en
3503 bok. I
1710 var "kopi-rett" en rett til å bruke en bestemt maskin til å
3504 replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover dette svært smale
3505 formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et verk kunne
3506 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>brukes
</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor samling av
3507 restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv rett til å
3508 kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å fremføre, og
3511 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3512 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3513 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3514 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3515 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3516 lov til å lage filmer. "Kopi-retten" var bare en eksklusiv rett til å
3517 trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3518 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2629991"></a><p>
3519 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3520 en lang og stygg erfaring med "eksklusive rettigheter," spesielt "enerett"
3521 gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot
3522 kronens praksis med å dele ut monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som
3523 allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen
3524 og monopol til Darcy for å lage spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte
3525 å kjempe tilbake mot denne makten hos kronen. I
1656 ble "Statute of
3526 Monopolis" vedtatt for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye
3527 oppfinnelser. Og i
1710 var parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende
3528 monopolet på publisering.
3530 Dermed ble "kopi-retten", når den sees på som en monopolrett, en rettighet
3531 som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden om at "det er
3532 min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid," prøv hvor overbevisende det er når
3533 men sier "det er mitt monopol, og jeg skal ha det for alltid.") Staten ville
3534 beskytte eneretten, men bare så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så
3535 skadene særinteresserte kunne skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3537 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3538 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3539 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3540 England. Medlemmene i "the Conger" ble av en voksende mengde sett på som
3541 monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens undertrykkelse, de
3542 solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en monopolskinntekt. Men
3543 monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem som "gamle
3544 patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten"; de var "menn som derfor
3545 ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630055" href=
"#ftn.id2630055" class=
"footnote">101</a>]
</sup>
3547 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3548 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3549 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3550 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3551 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3553 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3554 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3555 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3556 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3557 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3558 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3559 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3560 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3562 Når
1731 (
1710+
21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3563 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3564 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt "Statute of Anne", og fortsatte å kreve
3565 en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
1735 og
1737 de
3566 prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen år var ikke nok,
3567 sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3569 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3571 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
3572 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3573 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3574 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3575 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3576 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3577 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630133" href=
"#ftn.id2630133" class=
"footnote">102</a>]
</sup>
3578 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3579 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3580 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: "Statute of Anne" ga
3581 forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3582 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3583 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3584 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. "Statute of
3585 Anne", hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor betydde ikke det
3586 at beskyttelsen gitt av "Statute of Anne" utløp, at beskyttelsen fra
3587 sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde de rett til å fordømme
3588 publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om "Statute of Anne" sa at de var
3589 falt i det fri. Dette, mente de, var den eneste måten å beskytte
3592 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3593 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3594 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, "var utgiverne
… like
3595 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2628618" href=
"#ftn.id2628618" class=
"footnote">103</a>]
</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3596 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3597 forfatterens verk ga.
3599 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3600 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630222" href=
"#ftn.id2630222" class=
"footnote">104</a>]
</sup>
3602 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons "the Conger". Han startet in karriere i
3603 Edinburgh i
1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av standardverk
3604 falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630244" href=
"#ftn.id2630244" class=
"footnote">105</a>]
</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for
3605 litterære skotter." "Blant dem," skriver professor Mark Rose, var "den unge
3606 James Boswell som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel
3607 antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630263" href=
"#ftn.id2630263" class=
"footnote">106</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630272"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630278"></a>
3609 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3610 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av "de mest
3611 populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3612 eiendom."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630296" href=
"#ftn.id2630296" class=
"footnote">107</a>]
</sup> Bøkene hans var mellom
30%
3613 og
50% billigere enn "the Conger"s, og han baserte sin rett til denne
3614 konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være "Statute of Anne", var falt i det
3617 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot "pirater" som
3618 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3619 i kampen mellom
<em class=
"citetitle">Millar
</em> og
3620 <em class=
"citetitle">Taylor
</em>.
3622 Millar var en bokhandler som i
1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3623 Thomsons dikt "The Seasons". Millar hadde da full beskyttelse gjennom
3624 "Statute of Anne", men etter at denne beskyttelsen var uløpt, begynte Robert
3625 Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til sak, og hevdet han
3626 hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva "Statute of Anne"
3627 sa.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630341" href=
"#ftn.id2630341" class=
"footnote">108</a>]
</sup>
3628 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3629 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3630 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3631 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse "Statute of Anne" gav
3632 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3633 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3634 mot pirater. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet Taylor å
3635 reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav sedvaneretten
3636 bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3639 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3640 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3641 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3642 kjempet for i
1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3643 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3644 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3645 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3646 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3647 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3648 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630408"></a><p>
3649 Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
3650 der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3651 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630423"></a><p>
3652 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3653 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3654 Beckett.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630437" href=
"#ftn.id2630437" class=
"footnote">109</a>]
</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3655 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3656 <em class=
"citetitle">Millar
</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3657 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3658 slags høyesterett. I februar
1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3659 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3661 Rettssaken
<em class=
"citetitle">Donaldson
</em> mot
3662 <em class=
"citetitle">Beckett
</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3663 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3664 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av "Statute of
3665 Anne". Etter at "Statute of Anne" var blitt vedtatt, skulle den eneste
3666 lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor, mente de, i tråd
3667 med vilkårene i "Statute of Anne", falle i det fri så fort
3668 beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3670 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3671 huset, og ble først stemt over av "juslorder", medlemmer av enspesiell
3672 rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3673 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at "juslordene" hadde stemt, stemte resten av
3677 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3678 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3679 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (
22 mot
3680 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3681 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3682 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3684 "Å falle i det fri". Før rettssaken
<em class=
"citetitle">Donaldson
</em> mot
3685 <em class=
"citetitle">Beckett
</em> var det ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle
3686 i det fri innebar. Før
1774 var det jo en allmenn oppfatning om at
3687 kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter
1774 ble Public Domain født.For første
3688 gang i angloamerikansk historie var den lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk
3689 utgått, og de største verk i engelsk historie - inkludert Shakespeare,
3690 Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var frie.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630533"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630540"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630546"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630552"></a>
3691 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630558"></a>
3693 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3694 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3695 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3696 <em class=
"citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser
</em> skrev "Ingen privatsak har noen
3697 gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt prøvet i
3698 Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker." "Stor glede i Edinburgh
3699 etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630587" href=
"#ftn.id2630587" class=
"footnote">110</a>]
</sup>
3701 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3702 motsatt retning.
<em class=
"citetitle">Morning Chronicle
</em> skrev:
3703 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
3704 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen
… er verdier til nesten
200 000 pund, som
3705 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3706 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3707 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3708 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3709 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630197" href=
"#ftn.id2630197" class=
"footnote">111</a>]
</sup>
3710 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3713 Ruinert er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å si at endringen
3714 var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne ikke lenger kunnen
3715 kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og utvikle seg. Kulturen
3716 i England var etter dette
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>fri
</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at
3717 kopiretten ble ignorert, for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett
3718 over trykkingen. Og heller ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles,
3719 for selv etter at boken var falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men
3720 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>fri
</em></span> i betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger
3721 var kontrollert av en liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville
3722 dette markedet vokse og utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den
3723 engelske kulturen ble nå formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det
3724 skulle formes - gjennom valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av
3725 *memes* de gjentok og beundret. Valg i en
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>konkurrerende
3726 sammenheng
</em></span>, ikke der hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som
3727 skulle være tilgjengelig for folket og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt
3728 av noen få, på tros av flertallets ønsker.
3730 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3731 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3732 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3733 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629738" href=
"#id2629738" class=
"para">98</a>]
</sup>
3736 Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med
1700-tallets litterære
3737 storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke"ferdige versjoner" av
3738 klassiske verk. I tillegg til
<em class=
"citetitle">Romeo og Julie
</em>, utga
3739 han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er hjertet av den engelske
3740 kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, og
3741 John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: "Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,"
3742 <em class=
"citetitle">American Scholar
</em> 61:
3 (
1992):
424-
31.
3743 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629768" href=
"#id2629768" class=
"para">99</a>]
</sup>
3746 Lyman Ray Patterson,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3747 Perspective
</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press,
1968),
3749 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2629806" href=
"#id2629806" class=
"para">100</a>]
</sup>
3751 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3752 en "opphavsrettslov." Se Vaidhyanathan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyrights and
3753 Copywrongs
</em>,
40.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2629816"></a>
3754 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630055" href=
"#id2630055" class=
"para">101</a>]
</sup>
3758 Philip Wittenberg,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3759 Property
</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc.,
1937),
31.
3760 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630133" href=
"#id2630133" class=
"para">102</a>]
</sup>
3763 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3764 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3765 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3766 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3767 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London,
1735), in Brief Amici
3768 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al.,
8,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
3769 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
537 U.S.
186 (
2003) (No.
01-
618).
3770 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2628618" href=
"#id2628618" class=
"para">103</a>]
</sup>
3772 Lyman Ray Patterson, "Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,"
3773 <em class=
"citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review
</em> 40 (
1987):
28. For en
3774 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan,
37–48.
3775 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2629778"></a>
3776 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630222" href=
"#id2630222" class=
"para">104</a>]
</sup>
3779 For a compelling account, see David Saunders,
<em class=
"citetitle">Authorship and
3780 Copyright
</em> (London: Routledge,
1992),
62–69.
3781 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630244" href=
"#id2630244" class=
"para">105</a>]
</sup>
3784 Mark Rose,
<em class=
"citetitle">Authors and Owners
</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3785 University Press,
1993),
92.
3786 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630263" href=
"#id2630263" class=
"para">106</a>]
</sup>
3790 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630296" href=
"#id2630296" class=
"para">107</a>]
</sup>
3793 Lyman Ray Patterson,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3794 Perspective
</em>,
167 (quoting Borwell).
3795 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630341" href=
"#id2630341" class=
"para">108</a>]
</sup>
3798 Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3799 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Wayne Law
3800 Review
</em> 29 (
1983):
1152.
3801 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630437" href=
"#id2630437" class=
"para">109</a>]
</sup>
3805 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630587" href=
"#id2630587" class=
"para">110</a>]
</sup>
3809 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630197" href=
"#id2630197" class=
"para">111</a>]
</sup>
3813 </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>
3814 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3815 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3816 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3817 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3820 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3821 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3823 I
1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3824 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3825 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3826 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3827 scenen.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630738"></a>
3830 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3831 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3832 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk
<em class=
"citetitle">The
3833 Simpsons
</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3834 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3836 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3837 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3838 med
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpson
</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3839 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3840 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er "rimelig bruk" eller det
3841 foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3843 Else kontaktet
<em class=
"citetitle">Simpson
</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3844 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3845 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3846 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3847 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3848 programmet.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630800"></a>
3850 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3851 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3852 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3853 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3854 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630820"></a>
3856 Deretter, fortalte Else: "skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi
… at
3857 Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk
— ihvertfall at noen [hos Fox]
3858 trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk." Som det andre krevde Fox "ti tusen
3859 dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt sekundene med
…
3860 fullstendig tilfeldig
<em class=
"citetitle">Simpson
</em> som var i et hjørne i
3863 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3864 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3865 "det må være en feil her
… Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på dette."
3866 Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid etter ringte
3867 Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
3870 "Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran meg," sa
3871 han. "Ja, du har riktige opplysninger," sa hun. Det ville koste $
10 000 å
3872 bruke dette lille klippet av
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpson
</em>, plassert
3873 bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om
3874 det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med å si "Og om du siterer meg,
3875 vil du høre fra våre advokater." En av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at
3876 "De bryr seg ikke i det heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene."
3878 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3879 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3880 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3881 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer
<em class=
"citetitle">The Day After
3882 Trinity
</em> fra ti år tidligere.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630898"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2630904"></a>
3884 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
3885 rettighetene til
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em>. Rettighetene er deres
3886 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
3887 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
3888 <em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
3889 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
3890 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
3891 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
3893 For eksempel "offentlig fremvisning"* av
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpson
</em>
3894 er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine
3895 favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og selger billetter til "Mine
3896 <em class=
"citetitle">Simpson
</em>-favoritter", så må du ha tillatelse fra
3897 rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser det)
3898 kreve hvor mye han vil; $
10ellr $
1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge loven.
3900 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
3901 første tanke "rimelig bruk".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2630961" href=
"#ftn.id2630961" class=
"footnote">112</a>]
</sup> Elses bruk
3902 av
4,
5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
3903 <em class=
"citetitle">Simpsons
</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på "rimelig
3904 bruk" av
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em>— og "rimelig bruk" krever
3905 ingen tillatelse fra noen.
3909 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på "fair use". Og her er
3911 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
3912 <em class=
"citetitle">Simpsons
</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
3913 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
3914 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
3915 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var "rimelig bruk",
3916 men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og dette er
3918 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"1"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
3921 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en "Errors
3922 and Omissions"-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert "visual cue sheet" med
3923 alle kilder og lisens-status på alle scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på
3924 "fair use", og å påstå at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall
3926 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
3928 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
3929 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
3930 ulisensiert bruk av
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em>, på samme måte som
3931 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av
<em class=
"citetitle">Star
3932 Wars
</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
3933 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
3934 av
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
3935 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
3936 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
3937 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
3941 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School
…
3942 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
3943 "depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life", uavhengig av
3944 sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke ned til hvem
3945 som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
3947 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
3950 Spørsmålet om "fair use" dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten av prosjektet,
3951 når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
3952 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
3953 I teorien betyr "fair use" at du ikke trenger tillatelse. Teorien støtter
3954 derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis
3955 fungerer "fair use" helt annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt
3956 de fryktelige konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere
3957 ikke stoler på "fair use". Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
3960 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
3961 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
3962 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
3963 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
3964 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2630961" href=
"#id2630961" class=
"para">112</a>]
</sup>
3967 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er "fair use", og
3968 hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard A. Posner og William
3969 F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of
3970 <em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> " (utkast arkivert hos forfatteren),
3971 University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
3972 </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="id2631150
"></a><a class="indexterm
" name="id2631157
"></a><p>
3973 In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an
3974 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
3975 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
3976 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
3977 anticipation of the power of networks.
3978 </p><a class="indexterm
" name="id2631172
"></a><p>
3979 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
3980 emerging market for CD-ROM technology—not to distribute film, but to
3981 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult. In 1993, he
3982 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
3983 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
3984 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
3985 and interviews with figures important to his career.
3986 </p><a class="indexterm
" name="id2631180
"></a><p>
3987 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
3988 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
3989 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
3990 include them on the CD.
3994 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
3995 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
3996 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
3997 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
3998 permission for that content.
3999 </p><a class="indexterm
" name="id2631214
"></a><p>
4000 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. "Our goal was
4001 that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's films," Alben
4002 told me. It was here that the problem arose. "No one had ever really done
4003 this before," Alben explained. "No one had ever tried to do this in the
4004 context of an artistic look at an actor's career."
4005 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631230"></a><p>
4006 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked,
4007 "Well, what will it take?"
4008 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631241"></a><p>
4009 Alben replied, "Well, we're going to have to clear rights from everyone who
4010 appears in these films, and the music and everything else that we want to
4011 use in these film clips." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2631253" href=
"#ftn.id2631253" class=
"footnote">113</a>]
</sup>
4013 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4014 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4015 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4016 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4019 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4020 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4021 recounted just what they did:
4022 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4023 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips. We made some
4024 artistic decisions about what film clips to include
—of course we were
4025 going to use the "Make my day" clip from
<em class=
"citetitle">Dirty
4026 Harry
</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4027 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission. And then you
4028 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4032 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4033 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4034 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4035 was about $
600. So we had to identify the people
—some of them were
4036 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4037 crashing through the glass
—is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4038 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4039 just started calling people.
4040 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631313"></a><p>
4041 Some actors were glad to help
—Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4042 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared. Others were
4043 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, "Hey, can I pay you $
600
4044 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $
1,
200?" And they would say,
4045 "Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get $
1,
200." And some of course were a
4046 bit difficult (estranged ex-wives, in particular). But eventually, Alben and
4047 his team had cleared the rights to this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint
4050 It was one
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>year
</em></span> later
—"and even then we weren't
4051 sure whether we were totally in the clear."
4052 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631360"></a><p>
4053 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4054 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4055 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4056 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4057 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4058 and said, "Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the music,
4059 there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the actors." But we
4060 just broke it down. We just put it into its constituent parts and said,
4061 "Okay, there's this many actors, this many directors,
… this many
4062 musicians," and we just went at it very systematically and cleared the
4064 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4068 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4069 and it sold very well.
4070 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631395"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631401"></a><p>
4071 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4072 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4073 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, "There is nothing so
4074 useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4075 all."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2631414" href=
"#ftn.id2631414" class=
"footnote">114</a>]
</sup> Did it make sense, I asked Alben,
4076 that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4078 For, as he acknowledged, "very few
… have the time and resources, and
4079 the will to do this," and thus, very few such works would ever be made. Does
4080 it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of what anybody really
4081 thought they were ever giving rights for originally, that you would have to
4082 go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4083 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4084 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4085 gets paid very well.
… And then when
30 seconds of that performance
4086 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4087 don't think that that person
… should be compensated for that.
4088 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4089 Or at least, is this
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>how
</em></span> the artist should be
4090 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4091 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4092 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4093 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4094 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4095 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4096 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4098 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4099 mechanism
—where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4100 subject to estranged former spouses
—you'd see a lot more of this work,
4101 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4102 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4103 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4104 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4105 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4106 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4107 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4108 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4109 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, "Oh, I want
4110 a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to cost
4111 me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for money," then
4112 it becomes difficult to put one of these things together.
4113 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631514"></a><p>
4114 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4115 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4116 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4117 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4118 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high? These costs are the
4119 burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat for a moment, and
4120 get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of these rights, and
4121 the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost to negotiate
4122 them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and imagine the
4123 pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from Los Angeles
4124 to San Francisco.) These rights might well have once made sense; but as
4125 circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a
4126 well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and
4127 ask, "Does this still make sense?"
4130 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4131 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4132 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4133 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4134 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4135 Fairbank, had produced.
4137 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4138 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4139 <em class=
"citetitle">60 Minutes
</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4140 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4141 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631567"></a><p>
4142 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4143 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4144 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4145 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4146 tale med et spørsmål: "Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp brutt
4148 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631587"></a><p>
4149 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4150 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4151 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law. Of course,
4152 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4153 violation (the presence of
250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4154 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4155 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4156 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4157 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4158 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4159 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4160 couldn't easily do them legally.
4162 We live in a "cut and paste" culture enabled by technology. Anyone building
4163 a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom that the cut and paste
4164 architecture of the Internet created
—in a second you can find just
4165 about any image you want; in another second, you can have it planted in your
4168 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4169 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4170 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4171 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4172 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4173 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4174 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4175 and music.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631615"></a>
4177 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4178 to be "legal," the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4179 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4180 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4181 rules, it doesn't get released.
4183 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4184 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4185 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4186 the "free" use be free as in "free beer." Instead, the system could simply
4187 make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate artists without requiring
4188 an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for example, that says "the
4189 royalty owed the copyright owner of an unregistered work for the derivative
4190 reuse of his work will be a flat
1 percent of net revenues, to be held in
4191 escrow for the copyright owner." Under this rule, the copyright owner could
4192 benefit from some royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full
4193 property right (meaning the right to name his own price) unless he registers
4196 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4197 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4198 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists. What reason
4199 would anyone have to oppose it?
4202 In February
2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4203 the comic genius of
<em class=
"citetitle">Saturday Night Live
</em> and Austin
4204 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4205 together to form a "unique filmmaking pact." Under the agreement, DreamWorks
4206 "will acquire the rights to existing motion picture hits and classics, write
4207 new storylines and
—with the use of stateof-the-art digital
4208 technology
—insert Myers and other actors into the film, thereby
4209 creating an entirely new piece of entertainment."
4211 The announcement called this "film sampling." As Myers explained, "Film
4212 Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin on existing films and
4213 allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap artists have been
4214 doing this for years with music and now we are able to take that same
4215 concept and apply it to film." Steven Spielberg is quoted as saying, "If
4216 anyone can create a way to bring old films to new audiences, it is Mike."
4218 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4219 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4220 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4221 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4222 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4223 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4224 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4225 famous
—and presumably rich.
4227 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4228 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of "fair use." Much
4229 of "sampling" should be considered "fair use." But few would rely upon so
4230 weak a doctrine to create. That leads to the second reason that the
4231 privilege is reserved for the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights
4232 for the creative reuse of content are astronomically high. These costs
4233 mirror the costs with fair use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair
4234 use rights or pay a lawyer to track down permissions so you don't have to
4235 rely upon fair use rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of
4236 paying lawyers
—again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the
4238 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2631253" href=
"#id2631253" class=
"para">113</a>]
</sup>
4240 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4241 publicity
—rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4242 of his image. But these rights, too, burden "Rip, Mix, Burn" creativity, as
4243 this chapter evinces.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631182"></a>
4244 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2631414" href=
"#id2631414" class=
"para">114</a>]
</sup>
4247 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4248 <em class=
"citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4249 Acquisition
</em>, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
22</a>.
4250 </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>
4251 In April
1996, millions of "bots"
—computer codes designed to "spider,"
4252 or automatically search the Internet and copy content
—began running
4253 across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information
4254 onto a small set of computers located in a basement in San Francisco's
4255 Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of the Internet, they started
4256 again. Over and over again, once every two months, these bits of code took
4257 copies of the Internet and stored them.
4259 By October
2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4260 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4261 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4262 technology called "the Way Back Machine," you could enter a Web page, and
4263 see all of its copies going back to
1996, as well as when those pages
4266 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated. In
4267 the dystopia described in
<em class=
"citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4268 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4269 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4273 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4274 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4275 printed on the date published on the paper.
4277 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4278 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4279 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4280 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library
—constantly
4281 updated, without any reliable memory.
4283 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4284 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4285 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4286 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4287 forget.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2631797" href=
"#ftn.id2631797" class=
"footnote">115</a>]
</sup>
4289 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4290 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4291 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in
1965, or to Bull Connor's
4292 water cannon in
1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4293 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4294 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4295 and remember
—not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4296 something close to the truth.
4298 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4299 it. That's not quite correct. We
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>all
</em></span> forget
4300 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4301 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4302 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4303 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4307 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4308 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4309 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4310 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4311 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4312 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4313 the Internet
—the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4315 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4316 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4317 researcher. In the
1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4318 success. It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4319 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4320 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4321 Internet. By December of
2002, the archive had over
10 billion pages, and it
4322 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4324 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4325 history. At the end of
2002, it held "two hundred and thirty terabytes of
4326 material"
—and was "ten times larger than the Library of Congress." And
4327 this was just the first of the archives that Kahle set out to build. In
4328 addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been constructing the Television
4329 Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more ephemeral than the
4330 Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was constructed through
4331 television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is available for anyone
4332 to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each evening by Vanderbilt
4333 University
—thanks to a specific exemption in the copyright law. That
4334 content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a very low fee. "But
4335 other than that, [television] is almost unavailable," Kahle told me. "If you
4336 were Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are
4337 just a graduate student?" As Kahle put it,
4338 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631898"></a><p>
4340 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4341 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4342 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4343 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4344 between the two, the
<em class=
"citetitle">60 Minutes
</em> episode that came out
4345 after it
… it would be almost impossible.
… Those materials
4346 are almost unfindable.
…
4347 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4348 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4349 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4350 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4351 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4352 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4353 media on twentieth-century America?
4355 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4356 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4357 libraries. These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4358 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4359 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4361 These rules applied to film as well. But in
1915, the Library of Congress
4362 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4363 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4364 deposits
—for an unlimited time at no cost. In
1915 alone, there were
4365 more than
5,
475 films deposited and "borrowed back." Thus, when the
4366 copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The copy
4367 exists
—if it exists at all
—in the library archive of the film
4368 company.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2631869" href=
"#ftn.id2631869" class=
"footnote">116</a>]
</sup>
4370 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4371 originally not copyrighted
—there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4372 so there was no fear of "theft." But as technology enabled capturing,
4373 broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required they make a
4374 copy of each broadcast for the work to be "copyrighted." But those copies
4375 were simply kept by the broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the
4376 government didn't demand them. The content of this part of American culture
4377 is practically invisible to anyone who would look.
4380 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September
11,
2001, he and his
4381 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4382 around the world and hit the Record button. After September
11, Kahle,
4383 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4384 world and, beginning October
11,
2001, made their coverage during the week
4385 of September
11 available free on-line. Anyone could see how news reports
4386 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4388 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4389 archive of film includes close to
45,
000 "ephemeral films" (meaning films
4390 other than Hollywood movies, films that were never copyrighted), Kahle
4391 established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle digitize
1,
300 films in
4392 this archive and post those films on the Internet to be downloaded for
4393 free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies of these films as
4394 stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he made a significant
4395 chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4396 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4397 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4398 copies to enable other films to be made. Either way, the archive enabled
4399 access to this important part of our culture. Want to see a copy of the
4400 "Duck and Cover" film that instructed children how to save themselves in the
4401 middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can download the film
4402 in a few minutes
—for free.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2631974"></a>
4404 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4405 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4406 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4407 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4408 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4410 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4411 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4412 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture. Not
4413 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4414 second life that all creative property has
—a noncommercial life.
4417 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4418 creative property goes through different "lives." In its first life, if the
4419 creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the commercial market
4420 is successful for the creator. The vast majority of creative property
4421 doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For that content,
4422 commercial life is extremely important. Without this commercial market,
4423 there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4425 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4426 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4427 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4428 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4429 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4430 even if that information is no longer sold.
4432 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4433 quickly (the average today is after about a year
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2632081" href=
"#ftn.id2632081" class=
"footnote">117</a>]
</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4434 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4435 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4436 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4437 the spread and stability of culture.
4439 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4440 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4441 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4442 these
—television, movies, music, radio, the Internet
—there is no
4443 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4444 replaced libraries with Barnes
& Noble superstores. With this culture,
4445 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4446 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4449 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4450 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4451 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4452 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4453 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4454 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4455 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4457 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4458 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4459 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4460 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4461 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4462 moving images and sound.
4464 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4465 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4466 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4468 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4469 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4470 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4471 … and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4472 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4473 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4474 be able to be afforded by a small company. So we're at a turning point in
4475 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4476 different life, based on this, is
… thrilling. It could be one of the
4477 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4478 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4480 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4482 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4483 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4484 libraries or archives could be.
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>When
</em></span> the commercial
4485 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4486 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4487 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4488 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4489 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4490 become unimaginable for much of our past
—a future
4491 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>for
</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4492 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4494 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4495 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4496 these "archives," as warm as the idea of a "library" might seem, the
4497 "content" that is collected in these digital spaces is also someone's
4498 "property." And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and
4499 others would exercise.
4500 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2631797" href=
"#id2631797" class=
"para">115</a>]
</sup>
4503 The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
4504 changes its own press releases without notice. A May
13,
2003, press release
4505 stated, "Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." That was later changed,
4506 without notice, to "Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." E-mail from
4507 Brewster Kahle,
1 December
2003.
4508 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2631869" href=
"#id2631869" class=
"para">116</a>]
</sup>
4511 Doug Herrick, "Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at the
4512 Library of Congress,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Film Library Quarterly
</em> 13
4513 nos.
2–3 (
1980):
5; Anthony Slide,
<em class=
"citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A
4514 History of Film Preservation in the United States
</em> ( Jefferson,
4515 N.C.: McFarland
& Co.,
1992),
36.
4516 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2632081" href=
"#id2632081" class=
"para">117</a>]
</sup>
4519 Dave Barns, "Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar
4520 Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Chicago
4521 Tribune
</em>,
5 September
1997, at Metro Lake
1L. Of books published
4522 between
1927 and
1946, only
2.2 percent were in print in
2002. R. Anthony
4523 Reese, "The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,"
4524 <em class=
"citetitle">Boston College Law Review
</em> 44 (
2003):
593 n.
51.
4525 </p></div></div></div><div class=
"chapter" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"property-i"></a>Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
</h2></div></div></div><p>
4526 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4527 America since
1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4528 administration
—literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4529 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4530 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4531 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4532 Washington.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632190"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632236"></a>
4534 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4535 Association. It was formed in
1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4536 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism. The
4537 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4538 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4539 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4540 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4541 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4542 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632255"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632262"></a>
4543 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632268"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632274"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632280"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632287"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632293"></a>
4547 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4548 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4549 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4550 Southerner
—the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4551 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4552 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4553 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4554 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4555 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4557 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4558 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4559 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4560 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4561 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4562 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of "creative
4565 In
1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4566 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4567 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4568 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4569 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4570 animates this entire debate:
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4571 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4572 owners in the nation
</em></span>. That is the issue. That is the
4573 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4574 debates to follow must rest.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2632349" href=
"#ftn.id2632349" class=
"footnote">118</a>]
</sup>
4575 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4577 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4578 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The "central
4579 theme" to which "reasonable men and women" will return is this: "Creative
4580 property owners must be accorded the same rights and protections resident in
4581 all other property owners in the nation." There are no second-class
4582 citizens, Valenti might have continued. There should be no second-class
4585 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4586 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4587 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4588 made by
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>anyone
</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4589 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4590 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4591 scope of "creative property." His views have
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>no
</em></span>
4592 reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition, even if the subtle pull
4593 of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that tradition, at least in
4596 While "creative property" is certainly "property" in a nerdy and precise
4597 sense that lawyers are trained to understand,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2632401" href=
"#ftn.id2632401" class=
"footnote">119</a>]
</sup> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that "creative
4598 property owners" have been "accorded the same rights and protection resident
4599 in all other property owners." Indeed, if creative property owners were
4600 given the same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a
4601 radical, and radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4603 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4604 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4605 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4606 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4607 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4610 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4611 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4612 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history. We have
4613 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4614 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4615 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4616 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4617 for new creators to create. Creativity depends upon the owners of
4618 creativity having less than perfect control.
4620 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4621 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4622 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4623 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.) But what's good for the MPAA is
4624 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4625 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4626 threaten the old. To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4627 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4628 Constitution itself.
4630 The framers of our Constitution loved "property." Indeed, so strongly did
4631 they love property that they built into the Constitution an important
4632 requirement. If the government takes your property
—if it condemns your
4633 house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm
—it is required,
4634 under the Fifth Amendment's "Takings Clause," to pay you "just compensation"
4635 for that taking. The Constitution thus guarantees that property is, in a
4636 certain sense, sacred. It cannot
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>ever
</em></span> be taken from the
4637 property owner unless the government pays for the privilege.
4640 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4641 calls "creative property." In the clause granting Congress the power to
4642 create "creative property," the Constitution
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>requires
</em></span>
4643 that after a "limited time," Congress take back the rights that it has
4644 granted and set the "creative property" free to the public domain. Yet when
4645 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term "takes" your
4646 copyright and turns it over to the public domain, Congress does not have any
4647 obligation to pay "just compensation" for this "taking." Instead, the same
4648 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4649 your "creative property" right without any compensation at all.
4651 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4652 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4653 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4654 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4655 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4656 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4658 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong. There
4659 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong. The
4660 Constitution of
1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4661 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4662 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4663 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4664 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4665 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4666 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4668 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4669 try to understand
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>why
</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4670 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4671 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4672 creative property there must be a public domain?
4674 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4675 these "creative property" rights, and the control that they enabled. Once
4676 we see clearly how differently these rights have been defined, we will be in
4677 a better position to ask the question that should be at the core of this
4678 war: Not
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>whether
</em></span> creative property should be protected,
4679 but how. Not
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>whether
</em></span> we will enforce the rights the law
4680 gives to creative-property owners, but what the particular mix of rights
4681 ought to be. Not
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>whether
</em></span> artists should be paid, but
4682 whether institutions designed to assure that artists get paid need also
4683 control how culture develops.
4688 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4689 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4690 narrow language of the law allows. In
<em class=
"citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4691 Cyberspace
</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4692 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4693 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4694 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4695 </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
4696 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>
4697 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4698 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4699 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right. For
4700 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.) The ovals represent
4701 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated
— either
4702 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4703 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4704 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4705 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4706 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $
150,
000 fine. The
4707 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4708 by the state.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632308"></a>
4710 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4711 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4712 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4713 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4714 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4715 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4716 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4717 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4719 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4720 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4721 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms
—it is
4722 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4723 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4724 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4725 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4727 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4728 "architecture"
—the physical world as one finds it
—is a
4729 constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your ability to get
4730 across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability of a community
4731 to integrate its social life. As with the market, architecture does not
4732 effect its constraint through ex post punishments. Instead, also as with the
4733 market, architecture effects its constraint through simultaneous
4734 conditions. These conditions are imposed not by courts enforcing contracts,
4735 or by police punishing theft, but by nature, by "architecture." If a
4736 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it is the law of gravity that enforces
4737 this constraint. If a $
500 airplane ticket stands between you and a flight
4738 to New York, it is the market that enforces this constraint.
4743 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4744 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4745 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4747 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4748 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4749 have to consider how these four modalities interact. Whether or not there
4750 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4751 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4752 regulator (whether controlling or freeing) must consider how these four in
4753 particular interact.
4754 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxdrivespeed"></a><p>
4755 So, for example, consider the "freedom" to drive a car at a high speed. That
4756 freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that say how fast you
4757 can drive in particular places at particular times. It is in part restricted
4758 by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most rational drivers;
4759 governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum rate at which the
4760 driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the market: Fuel
4761 efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline indirectly
4762 constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or may not
4763 constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at
50 mph by a school in your own
4764 neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4765 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4768 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4769 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4770 in affecting the three.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2632718" href=
"#ftn.id2632718" class=
"footnote">120</a>]
</sup> The law, in
4771 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4772 particular modality. Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4773 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4774 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4775 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4776 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4777 more strict
—a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4778 limit, for example
—so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4780 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632739"></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>
4781 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4782 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4783 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4784 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4785 modality might be displaced by another.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2632783" href=
"#ftn.id2632783" class=
"footnote">121</a>]
</sup>
4786 </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>
4787 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4788 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4789 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4792 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4793 </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>
4796 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4797 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4798 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4799 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4800 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4801 norms we all recognize
—kids, for example, taping other kids'
4802 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4803 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4804 this form of infringement.
4806 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4807 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4808 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4809 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4810 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4811 of anarchy after the Internet.
4814 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4815 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4816 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4817 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4818 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4820 </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>
4821 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4822 warriors. Indeed, in a "White Paper" prepared by the Commerce Department
4823 (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in
1995, this mix of
4824 regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4825 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4826 effected, the White Paper argued (
1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4827 property law, (
2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4828 (
3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4829 material, and (
4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4832 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed
—if it was to
4833 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4834 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4835 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4836 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4837 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4838 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4839 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4840 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4841 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4842 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4843 U.S. steel industry.
4845 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4846 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4847 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4848 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4849 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4850 "architecture of revenue."
4852 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4853 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4854 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4855 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4856 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as
20 percent of
4857 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4858 cameras.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633003" href=
"#ftn.id2633003" class=
"footnote">122</a>]
</sup> Does anyone believe the
4859 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4860 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4861 trucks from roads
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>for the purpose of
</em></span> protecting the
4862 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
4863 weakened the "stickiness" of television advertising (if a boring commercial
4864 comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and it may well be that
4865 this change has weakened the television advertising market. But does anyone
4866 believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce commercial television?
4867 (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a second, or to switch to only
4868 ten channels within an hour?)
4870 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no. In a free
4871 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
4872 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
4873 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
4874 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
4875 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in
1991, in a memo criticizing software
4876 patents, "established companies have an interest in excluding future
4877 competitors."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633053" href=
"#ftn.id2633053" class=
"footnote">123</a>]
</sup> And relative to a
4878 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
4879 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
4880 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
4881 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
4882 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
4883 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2633072"></a>
4885 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
4886 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
4887 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
4888 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
4889 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
4890 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
4891 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
4893 In the context of laws regulating speech
—which include, obviously,
4894 copyright law
—that duty is even stronger. When the industry
4895 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
4896 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
4897 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
4898 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
4899 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
4900 Constitution: "Congress shall make no law
… abridging the freedom of
4901 speech." So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that would "abridge"
4902 the freedom of speech, it should ask
— carefully
—whether such
4903 regulation is justified.
4906 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
4907 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are "justified." My argument
4908 is about their effect. For before we get to the question of justification, a
4909 hard question that depends a great deal upon your values, we should first
4910 ask whether we understand the effect of the changes the content industry
4913 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
4914 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxddt"></a><p>
4915 In
1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In
1948, Swiss chemist Paul
4916 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
4917 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the
1950s, the insecticide was widely
4918 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
4919 increase farm production.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2633149"></a>
4921 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
4922 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
4923 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
4924 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2633167"></a><p>
4925 But in
1962, Rachel Carson published
<em class=
"citetitle">Silent Spring
</em>,
4926 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
4927 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
4928 reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2633183"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2633189"></a>
4930 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
4931 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
4932 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
4933 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
4934 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
4935 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
4939 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
4940 appeals when he argues that we need an "environmentalism" for
4941 culture.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633218" href=
"#ftn.id2633218" class=
"footnote">124</a>]
</sup> His point, and the point I
4942 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
4943 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
4944 that music should be given away "for free." The point is that some of the
4945 ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended consequences for
4946 the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural environment. And
4947 just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria or an attack on
4948 farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of regulations
4949 protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack on authors.
4950 It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should be aware of
4951 our actions' effects on the environment.
4953 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
4954 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
4955 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
4956 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
4957 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
4958 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
4959 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
4960 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
4963 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
4964 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
4965 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2633263"></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>
4966 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
4967 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of "creative
4968 property" rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English aim to
4969 avoid overly powerful publishers.
4971 The power to establish "creative property" rights is granted to Congress in
4972 a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article I, section
4973 8, clause
8 of our Constitution states that:
4976 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
4977 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
4978 to their respective Writings and Discoveries. We can call this the
4979 "Progress Clause," for notice what this clause does not say. It does not say
4980 Congress has the power to grant "creative property rights." It says that
4981 Congress has the power
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>to promote progress
</em></span>. The grant
4982 of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a public one, not the purpose of
4983 enriching publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
4985 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
4986 chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#founders" title=
"Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
4987 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
4988 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
4989 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
4990 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
4991 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend "to Authors"
4994 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
4995 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
4996 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
4997 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
4998 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
4999 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5000 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5001 states
—including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5002 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5003 select the president. In each case, a
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>structure
</em></span> built
5004 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5005 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5007 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call "copyright"
5008 today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they ever
5009 considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need to put our
5010 "copyright" in context: We need to see how it has changed in the
210 years
5011 since they first struck its design.
5014 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5015 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5016 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5017 </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>
5018 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5019 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1442"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.6. "Opphavsrett" 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>
5021 La meg forklare hvordan.
5023 </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>
5024 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5025 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5026 had confronted in
1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5027 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5028 rights that already protected creative authorship.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633421" href=
"#ftn.id2633421" class=
"footnote">125</a>]
</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5029 domain in the United States in
1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5030 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5031 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5032 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5033 to reprint and distribute works.
5035 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5036 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5037 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections. Just
5038 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5039 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5042 In
1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5043 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5044 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5045 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5046 work passed into the public domain.
5048 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første
10 årene til
5049 republikken, så ble kun
5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5050 opphavsrettsregimet. Av alle verker skapt i USA både før
1790 og fra
1790
5051 fram til
1800, så ble
95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5052 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt
20 år, og som oftest etter
5053 14 år.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633486" href=
"#ftn.id2633486" class=
"footnote">126</a>]
</sup>
5056 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5057 for opphavsrett. Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5058 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5059 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5060 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5062 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5063 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5064 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5065 work to pass into the public domain.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633553" href=
"#ftn.id2633553" class=
"footnote">127</a>]
</sup>
5067 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5068 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5069 print after one year.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633582" href=
"#ftn.id2633582" class=
"footnote">128</a>]
</sup> When that
5070 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5071 books are no longer
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>effectively
</em></span> controlled by
5072 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5073 sell the books as used books; that use
—because it does not involve
5074 publication
—is effectively free.
5076 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5077 changed once. In
1831, the term was increased from a maximum of
28 years to
5078 a maximum of
42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from
14 years to
5079 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5080 again. In
1909, Congress extended the renewal term of
14 years to
28 years,
5081 setting a maximum term of
56 years.
5083 Then, beginning in
1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5084 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5085 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5086 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5087 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years. In
1976,
5088 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years. And in
1998,
5089 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5090 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5093 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5094 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5095 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or
70
5096 percent of the time since
1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5097 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5098 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5101 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5102 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5103 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5104 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5105 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5106 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5107 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5109 The United States abandoned this sensible system in
1976. For all works
5110 created after
1978, there was only one copyright term
—the maximum
5111 term. For "natural" authors, that term was life plus fifty years. For
5112 corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in
1992, Congress
5113 abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
1978. All
5114 works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term then
5115 available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5117 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5118 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5119 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5120 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5121 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be "limited,"
5122 we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5124 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5125 dramatic. In
1973, more than
85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5126 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in
1973 was
5127 just
32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5128 average term of copyright is now the maximum term. In thirty years, then,
5129 the average term has tripled, from
32.2 years to
95 years.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633685" href=
"#ftn.id2633685" class=
"footnote">129</a>]
</sup>
5130 </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>
5131 The "scope" of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law. The
5132 scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those changes are not
5133 necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the changes if we're
5134 to keep this debate in context.
5136 In
1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only "maps, charts,
5137 and books." That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5138 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5139 author the exclusive right to "publish" copyrighted works. That means
5140 someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work without
5141 the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a copyright
5142 was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not extend to
5143 what lawyers call "derivative works." It would not, therefore, interfere
5144 with the right of someone other than the author to translate a copyrighted
5145 book, or to adapt the story to a different form (such as a drama based on a
5148 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5149 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5150 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5151 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5152 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5153 "publish" the work, but also the exclusive right of control over any
5154 "copies" of that work. And most significant for our purposes here, the right
5155 gives the copyright owner control over not only his or her particular work,
5156 but also any "derivative work" that might grow out of the original work. In
5157 this way, the right covers more creative work, protects the creative work
5158 more broadly, and protects works that are based in a significant way on the
5159 initial creative work.
5162 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5163 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5164 complete removal of the renewal requirement in
1992. In addition to the
5165 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5166 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5167 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5168 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5169 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright
</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5170 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5171 government before a copyright could be secured.
5173 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5174 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5175 years of the Republic,
95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5176 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5177 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5178 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5179 marked as copyrighted
—that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5180 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5181 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5182 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5185 All of these "formalities" were abolished in the American system when we
5186 decided to follow European copyright law. There is no requirement that you
5187 register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now is automatic; the
5188 copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a ©; and the
5189 copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy available for
5192 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5194 If, in
1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the
5 percent who actually
5195 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5196 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5197 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5198 that kind of unfair competition. In
1790, there were
174 publishers in the
5199 United States.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633823" href=
"#ftn.id2633823" class=
"footnote">130</a>]
</sup> The Copyright Act was
5200 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5201 market in the United States
—publishers.
5205 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5206 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5207 unregulated by the
1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5208 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5209 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5210 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5212 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5213 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5214 note to your spouse, every doodle,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>every
</em></span> creative act
5215 that's reduced to a tangible form
—all of this is automatically
5216 copyrighted. There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5217 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5219 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5220 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5221 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5223 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5224 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5225 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of "derivative rights."
5226 If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your book without
5227 permission. No one can translate it without permission. CliffsNotes can't
5228 make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of these derivative
5229 uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright holder. The
5230 copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to your
5231 writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large proportion of
5232 the writings inspired by them.
5234 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5235 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5236 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright. If I write a
5237 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5238 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5239 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5240 the verbatim original work.
5243 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5244 culture
—at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5245 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5246 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5247 work. But whatever
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>that
</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5248 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5249 all
—they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5250 protect derivative rights at all.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633904" href=
"#ftn.id2633904" class=
"footnote">131</a>]
</sup>
5251 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5252 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5254 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5255 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5256 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5257 book.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2633950" href=
"#ftn.id2633950" class=
"footnote">132</a>]
</sup> These two different uses of my
5258 creative work are treated the same.
5260 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5261 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5262 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called "Mickey
5263 Mouse," why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse toys and be the one to
5264 trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5266 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5267 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5268 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5270 </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>
5271 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5272 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5273 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5274 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2634001" href=
"#ftn.id2634001" class=
"footnote">133</a>]
</sup>
5278 "Copies." That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5279 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>copy
</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5280 argument at the start of this chapter, that "creative property" deserves the
5281 "same rights" as all other property, it is the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>obvious
</em></span>
5282 that we need to be most careful about. For while it may be obvious that in
5283 the world before the Internet, copies were the obvious trigger for copyright
5284 law, upon reflection, it should be obvious that in the world with the
5285 Internet, copies should
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>not
</em></span> be the trigger for
5286 copyright law. More precisely, they should not
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>always
</em></span>
5287 be the trigger for copyright law.
5289 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5290 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5291 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5292 copyright automatically applies,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2634062" href=
"#ftn.id2634062" class=
"footnote">134</a>]
</sup>
5293 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5294 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5297 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5299 </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>
5302 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5303 its potential
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>uses
</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5304 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5305 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5306 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5307 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5308 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5309 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5310 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5311 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5312 </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>
5313 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5314 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5315 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5316 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5317 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5318 diagram on next page).
5320 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5321 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som "rimelig bruk".
5322 </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
5323 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>
5324 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5325 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated. You
5326 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5327 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5328 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5329 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5330 over such "fair uses" for public policy (and possibly First Amendment)
5332 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1542"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".
</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
5333 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>
5336 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5337 sorts: (
1) unregulated uses, (
2) regulated uses, and (
3) regulated uses that
5338 are nonetheless deemed "fair" regardless of the copyright owner's views.
5340 Enter the Internet
—a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5341 copyrighted work produces a copy.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2634008" href=
"#ftn.id2634008" class=
"footnote">135</a>]
</sup> And
5342 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5343 network, the scope of category
1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5344 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5345 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5346 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5347 copyright, because each use also makes a copy
—category
1 gets sucked
5348 into category
2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5349 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category
3, fair uses, to bear the
5350 burden of this shift.
5353 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5354 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5355 plausible
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright
</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5356 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5357 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5358 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5359 use
—reading
— could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5360 those uses produced a copy.
5362 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5363 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5364 only once a month, then
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright law
</em></span> would aid the
5365 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5366 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5367 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5368 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5369 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5370 the copyright owner's wish.
5372 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5373 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5374 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5377 First, making category
1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5378 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5379 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5380 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5381 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5384 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5385 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5386 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5387 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>any
</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5388 machine. "Copy and paste" and "cut and paste" become crimes. Tinkering with
5389 a story and releasing it to others exposes the tinkerer to at least a
5390 requirement of justification. However troubling the expansion with respect
5391 to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily troubling with respect
5392 to transformative uses of creative work.
5395 Third, this shift from category
1 to category
2 puts an extraordinary burden
5396 on category
3 ("fair use") that fair use never before had to bear. If a
5397 copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read a book
5398 on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a violation of
5399 my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation about whether I
5400 have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet, reading did not
5401 trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need for a fair use
5402 defense. The right to read was effectively protected before because reading
5405 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5406 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5407 use
—never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5408 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5409 when the vast majority of uses are
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>unregulated
</em></span>. But
5410 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5411 fair use are not enough.
5413 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5414 business of making "trailer" advertisements for movies available to video
5415 stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way to sell
5416 videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors, put the
5417 trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5419 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in
1997, it began to
5420 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews. The
5421 idea was to expand their "selling by sampling" technique by giving on-line
5422 stores the same ability to enable "browsing." Just as in a bookstore you can
5423 read a few pages of a book before you buy the book, so, too, you would be
5424 able to sample a bit from the movie on-line before you bought it.
5427 In
1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5428 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5429 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5430 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5431 talk about the matter
—he had built a business on distributing this
5432 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5433 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5434 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately. Video Pipeline thought it
5435 was within their "fair use" rights to distribute the clips as they had. So
5436 they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these rights were in
5439 Disney countersued
—for $
100 million in damages. Those damages were
5440 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had "willfully infringed" on
5441 Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of willful infringement, it
5442 can award damages not on the basis of the actual harm to the copyright
5443 owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the statute. Because Video
5444 Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of Disney movies to enable
5445 video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney was now suing Video
5446 Pipeline for $
100 million.
5448 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5449 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5450 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5451 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5452 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5453 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5454 Disney's permission.
5456 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5457 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5458 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5459 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5460 "first-sale doctrine" would free the seller to use the video as he wished,
5461 including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of the entire
5462 movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for Disney to
5463 centralize control over access to this content. Because each use of the
5464 Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5465 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5466 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5470 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5471 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes
& Noble has the right to say you
5472 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right. But
5473 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes
& Noble
5474 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores. Competition
5475 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5476 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5477 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5478 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5479 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5480 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5483 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5484 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5485 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5486 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5487 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5488 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5489 </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>
5490 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5491 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5492 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5493 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5495 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5496 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law. The law,
5497 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5498 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5499 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5500 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2634519"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5501 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5502 Brothers) og Warner Brothers. Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5503 <em class=
"citetitle">Casablanca
</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte. De skrev et
5504 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5505 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2634566" href=
"#ftn.id2634566" class=
"footnote">136</a>]
</sup>
5507 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt. De advarte
5508 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene "var brødre lenge før dere var
5509 det".
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2634588" href=
"#ftn.id2634588" class=
"footnote">137</a>]
</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor ordet
5510 <em class=
"citetitle">Brothers
</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på å
5511 forsøke å kontrollere
<em class=
"citetitle">Casablanca
</em>, så ville
5512 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over
<em class=
"citetitle">Brothers
</em>.
5514 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5515 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5516 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5517 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5519 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5520 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5521 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5522 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5523 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5524 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5525 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5526 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2634646"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2634654"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5527 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5529 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form. En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5530 som Adobe har publisert. Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5531 bruker å levere e-bøker. Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5532 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5534 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5537 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5538 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5539 <em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5540 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5541 <em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em> is not yet within the public
5542 domain. Consider
<em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em> first. If you click on
5543 my e-book copy of
<em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em>, you'll see a fancy
5544 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5545 </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>
5546 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5547 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5548 </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>
5551 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5552 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5553 text to the clipboard.) I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5554 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5555 button to hear
<em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em> read aloud through the
5558 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5559 Aristoteles
<em class=
"citetitle">Politikk
</em> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2634778"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2634784"></a>
5560 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1621"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"
</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>
5561 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5562 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5563 </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>
5564 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5565 e-book version of my last book,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em>:
5566 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1631"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".
</b></p><div class=
"figure-contents"><div><img src=
"images/1631.png" alt='List of the permissions for
"The Future of Ideas".'
></div></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p>
5567 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5570 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls "permissions"
— as if
5571 the publisher has the power to control how you use these works. For works
5572 under copyright, the copyright owner certainly does have the power
—up
5573 to the limits of the copyright law. But for work not under copyright, there
5574 is no such copyright power.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2634864" href=
"#ftn.id2634864" class=
"footnote">138</a>]
</sup> When my
5575 e-book of
<em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em> says I have the permission to
5576 copy only ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that
5577 really means is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control
5578 how I use the book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would
5581 The control comes instead from the code
—from the technology within
5582 which the e-book "lives." Though the e-book says that these are permissions,
5583 they are not the sort of "permissions" that most of us deal with. When a
5584 teenager gets "permission" to stay out till midnight, she knows (unless
5585 she's Cinderella) that she can stay out till
2 A.M., but will suffer a
5586 punishment if she's caught. But when the Adobe eBook Reader says I have the
5587 permission to make ten copies of the text into the computer's memory, that
5588 means that after I've made ten copies, the computer will not make any
5589 more. The same with the printing restrictions: After ten pages, the eBook
5590 Reader will not print any more pages. It's the same with the silly
5591 restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud button to read my
5592 book aloud
—it's not that the company will sue you if you do; instead,
5593 if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine simply won't
5597 These are
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>controls
</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5598 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5599 to type "Warner Brothers," erased "Brothers" from the sentence.
5600 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2634919"></a>
5602 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5603 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>law
</em></span> as copyright
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>code
</em></span>. The
5604 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5605 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5606 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5607 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5608 technology have no similar built-in check.
5610 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5611 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5612 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5613 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5616 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5619 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5620 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5621 Adobe site was a copy of
<em class=
"citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5622 Wonderland
</em>. This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5623 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5624 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2634976"></a>
5625 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1641"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".
</b></p><div class=
"figure-contents"><div><img src=
"images/1641.png" alt=
"List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"."></div></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p>
5628 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5629 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the "permissions"
5630 indicated, not allowed to "read aloud"!
5632 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission. For the
5633 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5634 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5635 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5636 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5639 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5640 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5641 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5642 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5643 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5644 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5645 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5646 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5647 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5648 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5650 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5651 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5652 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5653 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control. That incentive
5654 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5655 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635042"></a><p>
5656 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5657 of mine that makes the same point.
5658 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxaibo"></a><p>
5659 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named "Aibo." The Aibo learns tricks,
5660 cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and that doesn't
5661 leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5664 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5665 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5666 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set up aibopet.com
5667 (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and on that site he
5668 provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks in addition to
5669 the ones Sony had taught it.
5671 "Teach" here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute computers. You
5672 teach a computer how to do something by programming it differently. So to
5673 say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to teach the dog to do
5674 new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving information to users
5675 of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer "dog" to make it do new
5676 tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5678 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5679 <em class=
"citetitle">hack
</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5680 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5681 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5682 <em class=
"citetitle">hack
</em> is a much more positive
5683 term.
<em class=
"citetitle">Hack
</em> just means code that enables the program
5684 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5685 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5686 run, or "drive," the printer. If you discovered that, you'd later be happy
5687 to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a driver to enable
5688 the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5690 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5691 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5692 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5693 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5696 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5697 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5698 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5699 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5701 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635138"></a><p>
5703 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5704 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5705 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5706 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5707 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5708 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5709 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5710 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5711 that the owner of aibopet.com thought,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5712 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?
</em></span>
5714 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show
— not
5715 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5716 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5717 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5718 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5719 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5720 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5721 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5724 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April
2001.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635183" href=
"#ftn.id2635183" class=
"footnote">139</a>]
</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5725 paper to be submitted at conference. The paper was intended to describe the
5726 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5727 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5729 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5730 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5731 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5732 standard that would allow the content owner to say "this music cannot be
5733 copied," and have a computer respect that command. The technology was to be
5734 part of a "trusted system" of control that would get content owners to trust
5735 the system of the Internet much more.
5737 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition. In
5738 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5739 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5740 problems to the consortium.
5744 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5745 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5746 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5747 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5749 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5750 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5751 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5752 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5753 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5754 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5756 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5757 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5758 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5759 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5760 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5762 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5763 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5764 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5765 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
5766 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5767 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5768 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5769 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5770 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5771 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5772 RIAA lawyer that read:
5773 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
5775 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5776 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5777 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5778 Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").
5779 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5780 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5781 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5782 information an offense.
5784 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5785 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5786 response was to find technologies that might compensate. These new
5787 technologies would be copyright protection technologies
— technologies
5788 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5789 were designed as
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>code
</em></span> to modify the original
5790 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>code
</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5791 for copyright owners.
5793 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5794 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5795 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>legal code
</em></span> intended to buttress
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>software
5796 code
</em></span> which itself was intended to support the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>legal
5797 code of copyright
</em></span>.
5799 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5800 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5801 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5802 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5803 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5804 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5807 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5808 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5809 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5810 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5811 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5812 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5813 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5814 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5815 system was circumvented.
5817 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5818 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5819 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5820 distributing a circumvention technology. Thus, even though he was not
5821 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5822 others to infringe others' copyright.
5824 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in
1981 by
5825 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5826 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5827 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5828 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5829 "
<em class=
"citetitle">Mr. Rogers
</em>," for example, had testified in that case
5830 that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
5831 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635412"></a>
5832 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
5833 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5834 "Neighborhood" at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it's
5835 a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them
5836 at appropriate times. I have always felt that with the advent of all of this
5837 new technology that allows people to tape the "Neighborhood" off-the-air,
5838 and I'm speaking for the "Neighborhood" because that's what I produce, that
5839 they then become much more active in the programming of their family's
5840 television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by
5841 others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been "You are an
5842 important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions."
5843 Maybe I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a
5844 person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy
5845 way, is important.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635438" href=
"#ftn.id2635438" class=
"footnote">140</a>]
</sup>
5846 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5849 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5850 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5853 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5854 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635472"></a>
5856 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5858 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5859 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
5860 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
5861 copyrighted material
—a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
5862 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
5863 use
—a good end.
5866 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
5867 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
5868 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
5869 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
5870 </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>
5871 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
5872 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
5873 technologies) are illegal. Flash:
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
5874 circumvention
</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
5875 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
5876 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635530"></a>
5878 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
5879 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
5880 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
5881 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
5882 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
5885 This is how
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>code
</em></span> becomes
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>law
</em></span>. The
5886 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
5887 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
5888 the code extends the law
—increasing its regulation, even if the
5889 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
5890 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
5891 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect
—at
5892 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
5893 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
5895 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
5896 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
5897 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
5898 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
5899 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
5900 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
5901 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
5902 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
5907 For example, imagine you were part of a
<em class=
"citetitle">Star Trek
</em> fan
5908 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
5909 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
5910 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
5911 continue it.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635591" href=
"#ftn.id2635591" class=
"footnote">141</a>]
</sup>
5913 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
5914 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
5915 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
5916 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
5917 wished without fear of legal control.
5919 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
5920 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
5921 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
5922 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
5923 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
5924 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed. The law of
5925 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
5928 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
5929 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
5930 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
5931 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
5932 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
5933 is, in effect, what is happening here.
5934 </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>
5936 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically
—tripled in the past
5937 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well
—from
5938 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
5939 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
5940 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
5941 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
5942 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
5943 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
5944 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
5945 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
5946 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
5947 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
5948 to copyright's control.
5950 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
5951 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
5952 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
5953 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
5954 about all the other changes I have described.
5956 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media. In
5957 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
5958 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media. Before
5959 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
5960 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
5961 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June
2003,
5962 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
5963 three companies control more than percent of the media.
5965 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
5967 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
5968 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership, "five
5969 companies control
85 percent of our media sources."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635700" href=
"#ftn.id2635700" class=
"footnote">142</a>]
</sup> The five recording labels of Universal Music Group,
5970 BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and EMI control
84.8
5971 percent of the U.S. music market.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635712" href=
"#ftn.id2635712" class=
"footnote">143</a>]
</sup> The
5972 "five largest cable companies pipe programming to
74 percent of the cable
5973 subscribers nationwide."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635725" href=
"#ftn.id2635725" class=
"footnote">144</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635735"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635741"></a>
5974 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635747"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635753"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635760"></a>
5977 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
5978 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
5979 seventy-five stations. Today
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>one
</em></span> company owns more than
5980 1,
200 stations. During that period of consolidation, the total number of
5981 radio owners dropped by
34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
5982 broadcasters control
74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
5983 four companies control
90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
5986 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well. Today, there are
5987 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
5988 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
5989 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
5990 States. The top ten film studios receive
99 percent of all film revenue. The
5991 ten largest cable companies account for
85 percent of all cable
5992 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
5993 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected
— by the
5996 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
5997 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
5998 article about Rupert Murdoch,
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635791"></a>
5999 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
6000 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6001 integration. They supply content
—Fox movies
… Fox TV shows
6002 … Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6003 sell the content to the public and to advertisers
—in newspapers, on
6004 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6005 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6006 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6007 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6008 system will serve the same function in the United States.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635816" href=
"#ftn.id2635816" class=
"footnote">145</a>]
</sup>
6009 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6010 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6011 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6012 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6013 thousand words could do:
6014 </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>
6017 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe? Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6018 som blir distribuert? Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6019 distribuere innhold?
6021 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe. Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6022 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur. Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6023 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6024 begynt å endre mening.
6026 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6028 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635895"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635901"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635908"></a><p>
6029 I
1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for
<em class=
"citetitle">All in the
6030 Family
</em>. Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6031 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten. Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6032 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første. ABC ble fra seg. Du får
6033 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear. Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6036 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6037 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6038 andre. Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6039 nettverk-kontroll.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635941" href=
"#ftn.id2635941" class=
"footnote">146</a>]
</sup>
6044 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6045 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6046 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6047 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as
1992, because of these rules,
6048 the vast majority of prime time television
—75 percent of it
—was
6049 "independent" of the networks.
6051 In
1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence. After
6052 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance. In
1985, there were
6053 twenty-five independent television production studios; in
2002, only five
6054 independent television studios remained. "In
1992, only
15 percent of new
6055 series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last year,
6056 the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6057 quintupled to
77 percent." "In
1992,
16 new series were produced
6058 independently of conglomerate control, last year there was one."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2635971" href=
"#ftn.id2635971" class=
"footnote">147</a>]
</sup> In
2002,
75 percent of prime time television was
6059 owned by the networks that ran it. "In the ten-year period between
1992 and
6060 2002, the number of prime time television hours per week produced by network
6061 studios increased over
200%, whereas the number of prime time television
6062 hours per week produced by independent studios decreased
63%."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2636014" href=
"#ftn.id2636014" class=
"footnote">148</a>]
</sup>
6063 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636022"></a><p>
6064 Today, another Norman Lear with another
<em class=
"citetitle">All in the
6065 Family
</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6066 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6067 increasingly owned by the network.
6069 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6070 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre. Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6071 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636046"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636052"></a>
6072 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
6073 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6074 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6075 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6076 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6077 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6078 you have less than a handful.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2636070" href=
"#ftn.id2636070" class=
"footnote">149</a>]
</sup>
6079 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6080 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6081 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous. Increasingly
6082 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6083 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6084 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6085 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6086 consequence
—not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6087 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6088 the environment for a democracy.
6089 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636094"></a><p>
6090 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6091 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the "Innovator's
6092 Dilemma": the fact that large traditional firms find it rational to ignore
6093 new, breakthrough technologies that compete with their core business. The
6094 same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media companies
6095 would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2636122" href=
"#ftn.id2636122" class=
"footnote">150</a>]
</sup> Lumbering giants not only don't, but should not,
6096 sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants, there will be far too
6097 little sprinting.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636151"></a>
6099 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6100 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6101 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6103 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6106 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6107 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6108 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6111 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6112 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6113 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6114 drugs
—though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6115 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6116 is so great as to make waging the war insane. When you add together the
6117 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6118 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6119 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6120 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6121 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6122 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6123 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6125 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6126 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6127 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6129 Beginning in
1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6130 media campaign as part of the "war on drugs." The campaign produced scores
6131 of short film clips about issues related to illegal drugs. In one series
6132 (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar, discussing the idea of
6133 legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the collateral damage from the
6134 war. One advances an argument in favor of drug legalization. The other
6135 responds in a powerful and effective way against the argument of the
6136 first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6137 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6140 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6141 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6143 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6144 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6145 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6149 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6150 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6151 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6154 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6155 "controversial" ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6156 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6157 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6158 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6159 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6160 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case. And the courts will
6161 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2636253" href=
"#ftn.id2636253" class=
"footnote">151</a>]
</sup>
6163 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well
—if we lived in a
6164 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6165 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6166 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6167 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6168 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6169 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6170 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6171 </p></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>
6172 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6173 warriors that the government should "protect my property." In the abstract,
6174 it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No sane sort who is
6175 not an anarchist could disagree.
6178 But when we see how dramatically this "property" has changed
— when we
6179 recognize how it might now interact with both technology and markets to mean
6180 that the effective constraint on the liberty to cultivate our culture is
6181 dramatically different
—the claim begins to seem less innocent and
6182 obvious. Given (
1) the power of technology to supplement the law's control,
6183 and (
2) the power of concentrated markets to weaken the opportunity for
6184 dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively expanded "property" rights
6185 granted by copyright fundamentally changes the freedom within this culture
6186 to cultivate and build upon our past, then we have to ask whether this
6187 property should be redefined.
6189 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6190 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6191 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6194 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6195 notwithstanding. And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6196 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6197 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6198 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6199 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6200 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6201 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6202 regulation
—a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6204 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6205 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6206 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6207 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6208 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6209 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6210 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6211 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>reductions
</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6212 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6215 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6216 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6217 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6218 together they produce an astonishing conclusion:
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Never in our
6219 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6220 our culture than now
</em></span>.
6222 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6223 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6224 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6225 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6226 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6227 networks.
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Never
</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6228 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6229 remotely as long. This form of regulation
—a tiny regulation of a tiny
6230 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding
—is now a
6231 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6232 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6233 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6234 known.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2636457" href=
"#ftn.id2636457" class=
"footnote">152</a>]
</sup>
6236 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6238 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6239 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6240 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6241 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6242 undergone. In
1790, the law looked like this:
6243 </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>
6245 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6246 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6247 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6248 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6251 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6252 </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>
6253 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law
—if published,
6254 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6255 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6258 In
1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6259 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6260 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded. Thus by
1975,
6261 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6263 </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>
6264 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6265 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6266 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6267 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6269 </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>
6271 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6272 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity
— commercial or
6273 not, transformative or not
—with the same rules designed to regulate
6274 commercial publishers.
6276 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6277 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6278 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6279 actually does any good.
6281 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying. But I
6282 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6283 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6284 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6285 chapters
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#recorders" title=
"Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6286 <a class=
"xref" href=
"#transformers" title=
"Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6287 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6288 transformation. More commercial transformative work would be created if
6289 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6291 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6292 copyright is a kind of "property," and of course, as with any property, the
6293 state ought to protect it. But first impressions notwithstanding,
6294 historically, this property right (as with all property rights
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2636807" href=
"#ftn.id2636807" class=
"footnote">153</a>]
</sup>) has been crafted to balance the important need to
6295 give authors and artists incentives with the equally important need to
6296 assure access to creative work. This balance has always been struck in light
6297 of new technologies. And for almost half of our tradition, the "copyright"
6298 did not control
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>at all
</em></span> the freedom of others to build
6299 upon or transform a creative work. American culture was born free, and for
6300 almost
180 years our country consistently protected a vibrant and rich free
6304 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6305 the scope of the interests protected by "property." The very birth of
6306 "copyright" as a statutory right recognized those limits, by granting
6307 copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the story of chapter
6308 6). The tradition of "fair use" is animated by a similar concern that is
6309 increasingly under strain as the costs of exercising any fair use right
6310 become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
7). Adding statutory rights
6311 where markets might stifle innovation is another familiar limit on the
6312 property right that copyright is (chapter
8). And granting archives and
6313 libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of property notwithstanding, is
6314 a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a culture (chapter
9). Free
6315 cultures, like free markets, are built with property. But the nature of the
6316 property that builds a free culture is very different from the extremist
6317 vision that dominates the debate today.
6319 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6320 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6321 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6322 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6323 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6324 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6325 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6326 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6327 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6329 </p></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2632349" href=
"#id2632349" class=
"para">118</a>]
</sup>
6332 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R.
4783, H.R.
4794,
6333 H.R.
4808, H.R.
5250, H.R.
5488, and H.R.
5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6334 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6335 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives,
97th Cong.,
2nd
6336 sess. (
1982):
65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6337 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2632401" href=
"#id2632401" class=
"para">119</a>]
</sup>
6340 Lawyers speak of "property" not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle of
6341 rights that are sometimes associated with a particular object. Thus, my
6342 "property right" to my car gives me the right to exclusive use, but not the
6343 right to drive at
150 miles an hour. For the best effort to connect the
6344 ordinary meaning of "property" to "lawyer talk," see Bruce Ackerman,
6345 <em class=
"citetitle">Private Property and the Constitution
</em> (New Haven:
6346 Yale University Press,
1977),
26–27.
6347 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2632718" href=
"#id2632718" class=
"para">120</a>]
</sup>
6350 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6351 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6352 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6353 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6354 more timidly expressed. See Lawrence Lessig,
<em class=
"citetitle">Code: And Other
6355 Laws of Cyberspace
</em> (New York: Basic Books,
1999):
90–95;
6356 Lawrence Lessig, "The New Chicago School,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Journal of Legal
6357 Studies
</em>, June
1998.
6358 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2632783" href=
"#id2632783" class=
"para">121</a>]
</sup>
6360 Some people object to this way of talking about "liberty." They object
6361 because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any
6362 particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the government. For
6363 instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think it is meaningless
6364 to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge has washed out, and
6365 it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk about this as a loss
6366 of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of politics with the vagaries
6367 of ordinary life. I don't mean to deny the value in this narrower view,
6368 which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do, however, mean to argue
6369 against any insistence that this narrower view is the only proper view of
6370 liberty. As I argued in
<em class=
"citetitle">Code
</em>, we come from a long
6371 tradition of political thought with a broader focus than the narrow question
6372 of what the government did when. John Stuart Mill defended freedom of
6373 speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds, not from the fear of
6374 government prosecution; John Stuart Mill,
<em class=
"citetitle">On Liberty
</em>
6375 (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co.,
1978),
19. John R. Commons famously
6376 defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints imposed by the
6377 market; John R. Commons, "The Right to Work," in Malcom Rutherford and
6378 Warren J. Samuels, eds.,
<em class=
"citetitle">John R. Commons: Selected
6379 Essays
</em> (London: Routledge:
1997),
62. The Americans with
6380 Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical disabilities
6381 by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby making access
6382 to those places easier;
42 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>,
6383 section
12101 (
2000). Each of these interventions to change existing
6384 conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The effect of those
6385 interventions should be accounted for in order to understand the effective
6386 liberty that each of these groups might face.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2632844"></a>
6387 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633003" href=
"#id2633003" class=
"para">122</a>]
</sup>
6390 See Geoffrey Smith, "Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?"
6391 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
6392 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger, "Can
6393 Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?" Forbes.com,
6 October
2003, available at
6394 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
24</a>.
6395 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633053" href=
"#id2633053" class=
"para">123</a>]
</sup>
6398 Fred Warshofsky,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Patent Wars
</em> (New York: Wiley,
6399 1994),
170–71.
6400 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633218" href=
"#id2633218" class=
"para">124</a>]
</sup>
6403 Se for eksempel James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6404 Environmentalism for the Net?"
<em class=
"citetitle">Duke Law Journal
</em> 47
6406 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633421" href=
"#id2633421" class=
"para">125</a>]
</sup>
6408 William W. Crosskey,
<em class=
"citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6409 of the United States
</em> (London: Cambridge University Press,
1953),
6410 vol.
1,
485–86: "extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the supreme
6411 Law of the Land,'
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had, or were
6412 supposed by some to have, under the Common Law
</em></span>" (emphasis
6413 added). <a class="indexterm
" name="id2633437
"></a>
6414 </p></div><div class="footnote
"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2633486
" href="#id2633486
" class="para
">126</a>] </sup>
6417 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6418 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle
">A
6419 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6420 <em class="citetitle
">The Creation of an Industry, 1630–1865</em> (New
6421 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6422 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6423 <em class="citetitle
">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6424 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7–10 (2002), available at
6425 <a class="ulink
" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/
" target="_top
">link #25</a>. Thus, the
6426 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6427 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6428 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6429 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6430 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div class="footnote
"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2633553
" href="#id2633553
" class="para
">127</a>] </sup>
6433 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6434 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6435 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6436 "Study No.
31: Renewal of Copyright,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Studies on
6437 Copyright
</em>, vol.
1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute,
1963),
6438 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6439 Richard A. Posner, "Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,"
6440 <em class=
"citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review
</em> 70 (
2003):
471,
6441 498–501, and accompanying figures.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633582" href=
"#id2633582" class=
"para">128</a>]
</sup>
6444 Se Ringer, kap.
9, n.
2.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633685" href=
"#id2633685" class=
"para">129</a>]
</sup>
6447 These statistics are understated. Between the years
1910 and
1962 (the first
6448 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6449 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6450 "Indefinitely Renewable Copyright," loc. cit.
6451 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633823" href=
"#id2633823" class=
"para">130</a>]
</sup>
6454 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, "Poets, Pirates, and the Creation of
6455 American Literature,"
29 <em class=
"citetitle">New York University Journal of
6456 International Law and Politics
</em> 255 (
1997), and James Gilraeth,
6457 ed., Federal Copyright Records,
1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
1987).
6459 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633904" href=
"#id2633904" class=
"para">131</a>]
</sup>
6461 Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Legal
6462 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=
"id2633931"></a>
6463 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2633950" href=
"#id2633950" class=
"para">132</a>]
</sup>
6466 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6467 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6468 First Amendment) between mere "copies" and derivative works. See Jed
6469 Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality,"
6470 <em class=
"citetitle">Yale Law Journal
</em> 112 (
2002):
1–60 (see
6471 especially pp.
53–59).
6472 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2634001" href=
"#id2634001" class=
"para">133</a>]
</sup>
6475 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6476 regulates more than "copies"
—a public performance of a copyrighted
6477 song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se doesn't make
6478 a copy;
17 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>, section
106(
4). And it
6479 certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a "copy";
17 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
6480 Code
</em>, section
112(a). But the presumption under the existing law
6481 (which regulates "copies;"
17 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>,
6482 section
102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right.
6483 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2634062" href=
"#id2634062" class=
"para">134</a>]
</sup>
6486 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6487 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6488 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6489 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6490 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2634008" href=
"#id2634008" class=
"para">135</a>]
</sup>
6493 I don't mean "nature" in the sense that it couldn't be different, but rather
6494 that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical networks need not
6495 make copies of content they transmit, and a digital network could be
6496 designed to delete anything it copies so that the same number of copies
6498 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2634566" href=
"#id2634566" class=
"para">136</a>]
</sup>
6501 Se David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Law and
6502 Contemporary Problems
</em> 44 (
1981):
172–73.
6503 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2634588" href=
"#id2634588" class=
"para">137</a>]
</sup>
6505 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyrights and
6506 Copywrongs
</em>,
1–3.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2634578"></a>
6507 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2634864" href=
"#id2634864" class=
"para">138</a>]
</sup>
6510 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6511 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6512 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6513 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6514 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6515 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6516 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635183" href=
"#id2635183" class=
"para">139</a>]
</sup>
6518 See Pamela Samuelson, "Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,"
6519 <em class=
"citetitle">Science
</em> 293 (
2001):
2028; Brendan I. Koerner,
"Play
6520 Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog New Tricks,"
6521 <em class=
"citetitle">American Prospect
</em>, January
2002; "Court Dismisses
6522 Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Intellectual Property
6523 Litigation Reporter
</em>,
11 December
2001; Bill Holland, "Copyright
6524 Act Raising Free-Speech Concerns,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Billboard
</em>, May
6525 2001; Janelle Brown, "Is the RIAA Running Scared?" Salon.com, April
2001;
6526 Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Frequently Asked Questions about
6527 <em class=
"citetitle">Felten and USENIX
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">RIAA
</em>
6528 Legal Case," available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
6529 #
27</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635221"></a>
6530 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635438" href=
"#id2635438" class=
"para">140</a>]
</sup>
6533 <em class=
"citetitle">Sony Corporation of America
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Universal
6534 City Studios, Inc
</em>.,
464 U.S.
417,
455 fn.
27 (
1984). Rogers
6535 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner,
<em class=
"citetitle">Fast
6536 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR
</em>
6537 (New York: W. W. Norton,
1987),
270–71.
6538 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635591" href=
"#id2635591" class=
"para">141</a>]
</sup>
6541 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, "Legal Fictions,
6542 Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Loyola of Los
6543 Angeles Entertainment Law Journal
</em> 17 (
1997):
651.
6544 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635700" href=
"#id2635700" class=
"para">142</a>]
</sup>
6547 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6548 Transportation Committee,
108th Cong.,
1st sess. (
22 May
2003) (statement
6549 of Senator John McCain).
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635712" href=
"#id2635712" class=
"para">143</a>]
</sup>
6552 Lynette Holloway, "Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to Slide,"
6553 <em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
23 December
2002.
6554 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635725" href=
"#id2635725" class=
"para">144</a>]
</sup>
6557 Molly Ivins, "Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Charleston
6558 Gazette
</em>,
31 May
2003.
6559 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635816" href=
"#id2635816" class=
"para">145</a>]
</sup>
6561 James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Atlantic Monthly
</em>
6562 (September
2003):
89.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2635831"></a>
6563 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635941" href=
"#id2635941" class=
"para">146</a>]
</sup>
6566 Leonard Hill, "The Axis of Access," remarks before Weidenbaum Center Forum,
6567 "Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry," St. Louis, Missouri,
3 April
6568 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
28</a>; for the Lear story,
6569 not included in the prepared remarks, see
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
29</a>).
6570 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2635971" href=
"#id2635971" class=
"para">147</a>]
</sup>
6573 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6574 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee,
108th Cong.,
1st
6575 sess. (
2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6576 the Consumer Federation of America), available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6577 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6578 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia,
27 February
2003.
6579 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2636014" href=
"#id2636014" class=
"para">148</a>]
</sup>
6583 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2636070" href=
"#id2636070" class=
"para">149</a>]
</sup>
6586 "Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Now with Bill
6587 Moyers
</em>, Bill Moyers,
25 April
2003, redigert avskrift
6588 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
6590 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2636122" href=
"#id2636122" class=
"para">150</a>]
</sup>
6593 Clayton M. Christensen,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6594 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6595 Business
</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6596 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6597 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, "The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and
6598 Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Research
6599 Policy
</em> 14 (
1985):
235–51. For a more recent study, see
6600 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6601 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market
—and How to
6602 Successfully Transform Them
</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6603 2001).
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2636253" href=
"#id2636253" class=
"para">151</a>]
</sup>
6605 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February
2003, sought to place ads that
6606 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6607 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as "against [their]
6608 policy." The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without reviewing
6609 them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the ads and
6610 accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and returned
6611 the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine,
15 October
2003. These
6612 restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for example,
6613 Nat Ives, "On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection
6614 from TV Networks,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
13 March
2003,
6615 C4. Outside of election-related air time there is very little that the FCC
6616 or the courts are willing to do to even the playing field. For a general
6617 overview, see Rhonda Brown, "Ad Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial
6618 Advertising on Television and Radio,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Yale Law and Policy
6619 Review
</em> 6 (
1988):
449–79, and for a more recent summary of
6620 the stance of the FCC and the courts, see
<em class=
"citetitle">Radio-Television News
6621 Directors Association
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">FCC
</em>,
184 F.
3d
6622 872 (D.C. Cir.
1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as
6623 the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco
6624 transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel
6625 buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, "Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni
6626 Rejects Ad," 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
6627 the criticism was "too controversial."
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636301"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636310"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636316"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636322"></a>
6628 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636328"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636335"></a>
6629 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2636457" href=
"#id2636457" class=
"para">152</a>]
</sup>
6631 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans "fire kapitulasjoner" for
6632 opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan,
159–60.
6633 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636279"></a>
6634 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2636807" href=
"#id2636807" class=
"para">153</a>]
</sup>
6636 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6637 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6638 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, "The Disintegration of Property,"
6639 in
<em class=
"citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property
</em>, J. Roland Pennock and John
6640 W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
1980).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2636819"></a>
6641 </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>
6642 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6643 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6644 the Peruvian Andes.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2636957" href=
"#ftn.id2636957" class=
"footnote">154</a>]
</sup> The valley is
6645 extraordinarily beautiful, with "sweet water, pasture, an even climate,
6646 slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent
6647 fruit." But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an
6648 opportunity. "In the Country of the Blind," he tells himself, "the One-Eyed
6649 Man is King." So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life as a
6652 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6653 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are "blind."
6654 They don't have the word
<em class=
"citetitle">blind
</em>. They think he's just
6655 thick. Indeed, as they increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the
6656 sound of grass being stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to
6657 control him. He, in turn, becomes increasingly frustrated. "`You don't
6658 understand,' he cried, in a voice that was meant to be great and resolute,
6659 and which broke. `You are blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'"
6663 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6664 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6665 a young woman who to him seems "the most beautiful thing in the whole of
6666 creation," understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of what he
6667 sees "seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she listened to his
6668 description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet white-lit
6669 beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence." "She did not believe," Wells
6670 tells us, and "she could only half understand, but she was mysteriously
6673 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his "mysteriously delighted" love,
6674 the father and the village object. "You see, my dear," her father instructs,
6675 "he's an idiot. He has delusions. He can't do anything right." They take
6676 Nunez to the village doctor.
6678 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. "His brain is
6679 affected," he reports.
6681 "What affects it?" the father asks. "Those queer things that are called the
6682 eyes
… are diseased
… in such a way as to affect his brain."
6684 The doctor continues: "I think I may say with reasonable certainty that in
6685 order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and easy
6686 surgical operation
—namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6690 "Thank Heaven for science!" says the father to the doctor. They inform Nunez
6691 of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride. (You'll have
6692 to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I believe in free
6693 culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.) It sometimes happens
6694 that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
6695 "chimera." A chimera is a single creature with two sets of DNA. The DNA in
6696 the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of the skin. This
6697 possibility is an underused plot for murder mysteries. "But the DNA shows
6698 with
100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at
6700 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637052"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637061"></a><p>
6701 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible. A
6702 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6703 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6704 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6705 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a "person" should reflect this
6708 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6709 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6710 enough, "the copyright wars," the more I think we're dealing with a
6711 chimera. For example, in the battle over the question "What is p2p file
6712 sharing?" both sides have it right, and both sides have it wrong. One side
6713 says, "File sharing is just like two kids taping each others'
6714 records
—the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty years
6715 without any question at all." That's true, at least in part. When I tell my
6716 best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but rather than just send
6717 the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all relevant respects,
6718 just like what every executive in every recording company no doubt did as a
6721 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6722 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6723 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of "friends" beyond
6724 recognition to say "my ten thousand best friends" can get access. Whether or
6725 not sharing my music with my best friend is what "we have always been
6726 allowed to do," we have not always been allowed to share music with "our ten
6727 thousand best friends."
6729 Likewise, when the other side says, "File sharing is just like walking into
6730 a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with it,"
6731 that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally) releases a
6732 new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free copy to
6733 take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637088"></a>
6738 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6739 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6740 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6741 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6742 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6743 California law, at least, is $
1,
000. According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6744 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $
1,
500,
000 in damages.)
6746 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6747 is both
—both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6748 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6749 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6750 rules should govern it?
6752 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6753 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6754 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6755 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6756 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6757 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6758 been proposed or actually implemented.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2637158" href=
"#ftn.id2637158" class=
"footnote">155</a>]
</sup>
6760 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637241"></a><p>
6761 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6762 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6763 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6764 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6765 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6767 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake. Rather than
6768 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6769 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6770 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6771 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6772 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>either
</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6773 alternative. But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6774 of the two extremes.
6779 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6780 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6781 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6782 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6783 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6786 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to "steal" music. My focus
6787 instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this war will also
6788 kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so broadly among our
6789 citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation that this power will
6790 unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing of one cycle of
6791 innovation around technologies to distribute content. The law is responsible
6792 for this passing. As the vice president for global public policy at one of
6793 these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing the DMCA's added
6794 protection for copyrighted material,
6795 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
6796 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6797 and we want to protect those rights.
6799 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6800 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6801 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6802 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6805 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6806 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6807 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6808 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6809 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6810 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6811 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6812 everyone's interests.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2637337" href=
"#ftn.id2637337" class=
"footnote">156</a>]
</sup>
6813 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6814 In April
2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of "the
6815 major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637359"></a>
6817 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6818 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6819 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6820 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2636957" href=
"#id2636957" class=
"para">154</a>]
</sup>
6823 H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (
1904,
1911). Se H. G. Wells,
6824 <em class=
"citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other Stories
</em>, Michael
6825 Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press,
1996).
6826 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2637158" href=
"#id2637158" class=
"para">155</a>]
</sup>
6828 For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
6829 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, "Copyright
6830 and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,"
27 June
2003, available at
6831 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
33</a>. Reps. John
6832 Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill
6833 that would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
6834 punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
6835 "House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles
6836 Times
</em>,
17 July
2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
34</a>. Civil penalties are
6837 currently set at $
150,
000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
6838 legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
6839 user accused of sharing more than
600 songs through a family computer, see
6840 <em class=
"citetitle">RIAA
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
6841 re. Verizon Internet Services)
</em>,
240 F. Supp.
2d
24
6842 (D.D.C.
2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $
90
6843 million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
6844 in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $
12,
000 to
6845 $
17,
500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
6846 networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $
98 billion the RIAA
6847 could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
6848 "Downloading Could Lead to Fines," redandblack.com, August
2003, available
6849 at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
35</a>. For an
6850 example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the
6851 subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer identities,
6852 see James Collins, "RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,"
6853 <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=
"id2637224"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637233"></a>
6854 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2637337" href=
"#id2637337" class=
"para">156</a>]
</sup>
6857 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
6858 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
6859 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
6860 Committee on Commerce,
106th Cong.
29 (
1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
6861 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
6862 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>
6863 To fight "piracy," to protect "property," the content industry has launched
6864 a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
6865 government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
6866 and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these damages will be
6867 suffered most by our own people.
6869 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
6870 particular, the consequences for "free culture." But my aim now is to extend
6871 this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war justified?
6873 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
6874 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
6875 the property called "intellectual property" is at its greatest in our
6877 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637409"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637415"></a><p>
6878 Yet "common sense" does not see it this way. Common sense is still on the
6879 side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme claims of control
6880 in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical rejection of "piracy"
6885 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
6886 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
6887 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
6888 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
6889 today's monopolists of culture.
6890 </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>
6891 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
6892 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
6893 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
6894 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
6895 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
6896 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
6897 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
6898 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
6899 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
6900 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
6901 together a string
—a mash-up
— of songs from your favorite artists
6902 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
6904 This digital "capturing and sharing" is in part an extension of the
6905 capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and in
6906 part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it explodes
6907 the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of digital
6908 "capturing and sharing" promises a world of extraordinarily diverse
6909 creativity that can be easily and broadly shared. And as that creativity is
6910 applied to democracy, it will enable a broad range of citizens to use
6911 technology to express and criticize and contribute to the culture all
6915 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
6916 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
6917 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
6918 samling med naboer i en liten landsby. Forestill deg så den samme
6919 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
6921 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
6922 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
6923 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
6924 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
6925 cartoons from the
1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
6926 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
6927 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
6928 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
6929 presumptively illegal.
6931 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
6932 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
6933 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
6934 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh. The
6935 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter
3
6936 was just one) were threatened with a $
98 billion lawsuit for building search
6937 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com
—which
6938 defrauded investors of $
11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
6939 market capitalization of over $
200 billion
—received a fine of a mere
6940 $
750 million.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2637520" href=
"#ftn.id2637520" class=
"footnote">157</a>]
</sup> And under legislation
6941 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
6942 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $
250,
000 in
6943 damages for pain and suffering.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2637556" href=
"#ftn.id2637556" class=
"footnote">158</a>]
</sup> Can
6944 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
6945 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
6946 negligently butchering a patient?
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637593"></a>
6948 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
6949 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
6950 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
6951 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys "pirates." We
6952 make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a public domain, because the
6953 boundaries of the public domain are designed to be unclear. It never pays to
6954 do anything except pay for the right to create, and hence only those who can
6955 pay are allowed to create. As was the case in the Soviet Union, though for
6956 very different reasons, we will begin to see a world of underground
6957 art
—not because the message is necessarily political, or because the
6958 subject is controversial, but because the very act of creating the art is
6959 legally fraught. Already, exhibits of "illegal art" tour the United
6960 States.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2637142" href=
"#ftn.id2637142" class=
"footnote">159</a>]
</sup> In what does their "illegality"
6961 consist? In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that
6962 is critical or reflective.
6964 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
6965 law. I described that change in detail in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#property-i" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
>10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
6966 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
6967 file-sharing systems discovered in
2002, it is a trivial matter for
6968 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
6969 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
6970 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
6971 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
6973 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
6974 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
6975 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
6976 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
6977 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
6978 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
6979 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
6980 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
6981 them is not similarly free.
6983 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
6984 in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#recorders" title=
"Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
6985 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
6986 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
6987 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
6992 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
6993 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
6994 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad
—in practically
6995 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
6996 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
6997 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
6998 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7001 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7002 "breathing room" between regulation by the law and the access the law should
7003 allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal system has become
7004 that anyone actually believes this. The rules that publishers impose upon
7005 writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon filmmakers, the rules
7006 that newspapers impose upon journalists
— these are the real laws
7007 governing creativity. And these rules have little relationship to the "law"
7008 with which judges comfort themselves.
7010 For in a world that threatens $
150,
000 for a single willful infringement of
7011 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7012 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7013 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7014 her right to speak
—in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7015 that pass under the name "copyright" silence speech and creativity. And in
7016 that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to continue to believe
7017 they live in a culture that is free.
7019 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7020 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7022 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7023 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7024 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7025 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made
… you're not going to
7026 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7027 from a lawyer saying, "This has been cleared." You're not even going to get
7028 it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at which they
7030 </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>
7031 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story
—creativity
7032 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7033 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7034 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything. And
7035 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7038 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense. Indeed,
7039 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7040 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that,
188
7041 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7042 substituting "free market" every place I've spoken of "free culture." The
7043 point is the same, even if the interests affecting culture are more
7046 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7047 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7048 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary
—at a minimum, we
7049 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7050 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7051 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7052 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7053 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7054 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7055 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7056 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637789"></a><p>
7058 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7059 that I described in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#property-i" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
>10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7060 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7061 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7062 from last generation's dominant industries. That lesson has been taught
7063 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7064 capitalists a lesson. That lesson
—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7065 calls a "nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley
—has been
7068 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7069 <em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em> and which has progressed in a way
7070 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7071 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637841"></a><p>
7072 In
1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com was
7073 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7074 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7075 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7076 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7079 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7080 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7081 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7082 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7083 so on.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637864"></a>
7085 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7086 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7087 data. In January
2000, the company launched a service called
7088 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7089 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7090 the CD, and then give the user access to that content. So, for example, if
7091 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were
—at work or at
7092 home
—you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7093 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7096 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7097 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7098 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7099 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7102 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy
50,
000 CDs to
7103 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7104 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7105 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased
50,
000 CDs from a
7106 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7107 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7108 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7109 this was
50,
000 copies, it was
50,
000 copies directed at giving customers
7110 something they had already bought.
7111 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7112 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7113 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7114 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7115 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7116 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $
118 million. MP3.com
7117 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7118 $
54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7120 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før. Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7122 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7123 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7124 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7125 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7126 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7127 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7128 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7131 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7132 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7133 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7134 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7135 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem. Det får
7136 også du. Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7137 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7138 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637968"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637976"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637982"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637989"></a><p>
7139 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April
2003, Universal
7140 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7141 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7142 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638002" href=
"#ftn.id2638002" class=
"footnote">160</a>]
</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7143 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7144 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7145 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7146 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7147 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7148 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well. Your investment
7149 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit. So extreme has the
7150 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7151 that touch content. In an article in
<em class=
"citetitle">Business
2.0</em>,
7152 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW:
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638041"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638047"></a>
7153 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638057"></a><p>
7154 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7155 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7156 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7157 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7158 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7159 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players.
… <sup>[
<a name=
"id2637752" href=
"#ftn.id2637752" class=
"footnote">161</a>]
</sup>
7160 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7161 Dette er verden til mafiaen
—fylt med "penger eller livet"-trusler, som
7162 ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som loven gir
7163 rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som åpenbart
7164 og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å starte et
7165 selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av søksmål.
7170 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7171 enterprises. The point is the definition of "illegal." The law is a mess of
7172 uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to new
7173 technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and by
7174 embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes, that
7175 uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7176 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7177 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7178 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7179 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7180 and much less creativity.
7182 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7183 use. Whatever the "real" law is, realism about the effect of law in both
7184 contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation will
7185 systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7186 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7187 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7188 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7189 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7190 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7193 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7194 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7195 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture
—a culture in
7196 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7197 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7198 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7199 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7200 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7201 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7202 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7203 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7204 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7205 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity. Someone needs to do a lot of
7206 justifying to justify that result. The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7207 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7208 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7209 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7212 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7213 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7214 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7215 "bug." The efficient spread of content means that content distributors have
7216 a harder time controlling the distribution of content. One obvious response
7217 to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less efficient. If the
7218 Internet enables "piracy," then, this response says, we should break the
7219 kneecaps of the Internet.
7221 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7222 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7223 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7224 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638196" href=
"#ftn.id2638196" class=
"footnote">162</a>]
</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7225 explore a mandatory "broadcast flag" that would be required on any device
7226 capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would
7227 disable the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast
7228 flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers
7229 from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt down
7230 copyright violators and disable their machines.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638219" href=
"#ftn.id2638219" class=
"footnote">163</a>]
</sup>
7233 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7234 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7235 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7236 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7237 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7239 In March
2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7240 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7241 impose.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638242" href=
"#ftn.id2638242" class=
"footnote">164</a>]
</sup> Their argument was obviously
7242 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7243 protection should not do more harm than good.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638253"></a>
7245 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7246 innovation
—again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7249 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7250 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others. When
7251 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7252 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7254 As I described in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#property-i" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
>10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7255 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7256 <em class=
"citetitle">Digital Copyright
</em>,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638288" href=
"#ftn.id2638288" class=
"footnote">165</a>]
</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter
10
7257 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7258 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7259 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7260 case of the VCR) has been another.
7262 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7263 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7264 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7265 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7266 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7268 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638323" href=
"#ftn.id2638323" class=
"footnote">166</a>]
</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7269 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7270 here.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638359" href=
"#ftn.id2638359" class=
"footnote">167</a>]
</sup> But there is one example that
7271 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7276 As I described in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#pirates" title='Kapittel
4. Kapittel fire:
"Pirater"'
>4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7277 doesn't get paid for that "radio performance" unless he or she is also the
7278 composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a version of "Happy
7279 Birthday"
—to memorialize her famous performance before President
7280 Kennedy at Madison Square Garden
— then whenever that recording was
7281 played on the radio, the current copyright owners of "Happy Birthday" would
7282 get some money, whereas Marilyn Monroe would not.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638415"></a>
7284 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7285 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7286 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7287 more likely that her records would be purchased. Thus, the recording artist
7288 got something, even if only indirectly. Probably this reasoning had less to
7289 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7290 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7291 compensation to the recording artists.
7293 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7294 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7295 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum. Thus, I can
7296 "tune in" to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting in San
7297 Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular radio
7298 station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7300 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7301 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7302 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7303 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7304 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7305 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7306 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7307 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7308 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7309 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7314 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7315 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7316 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7317 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7318 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7319 struggle to enable FM radio,
7320 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7321 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7322 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7323 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7324 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7325 restrictions.
… Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7326 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7327 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7328 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7329 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7330 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7331 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7332 shackles.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638073" href=
"#ftn.id2638073" class=
"footnote">168</a>]
</sup>
7333 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7334 This potential for FM radio was never realized
—not because Armstrong
7335 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7336 "vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638264" href=
"#ftn.id2638264" class=
"footnote">169</a>]
</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7338 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7339 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7340 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7341 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7342 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7345 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7346 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7347 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7348 radio in
1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7349 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7350 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7351 it plays her hypothetical recording of "Happy Birthday" on the air,
7352 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Internet radio does
</em></span>. Not only is the law not neutral
7353 toward Internet radio
—the law actually burdens Internet radio more
7354 than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7356 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7357 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7358 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7359 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $
1 million a
7360 year.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638558" href=
"#ftn.id2638558" class=
"footnote">170</a>]
</sup> A regular radio station
7361 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7363 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7364 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7365 would have to collect the following data from
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>every listening
7366 transaction
</em></span>:
7367 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"1"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7369 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7370 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7371 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7372 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7373 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7375 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7376 tidspunkt for sending;
7377 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7378 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7379 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7380 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7381 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7382 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7383 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7384 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7385 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7386 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7387 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7388 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7389 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7391 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7392 spillende plateartist;
7393 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7394 tittel på album i butikker;
7395 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7397 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7398 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7399 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7401 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7402 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7403 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7404 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7405 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7406 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7407 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7408 kanal eller program;
7409 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7410 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7411 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7412 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7413 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7414 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7415 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7416 unik bruker-identifikator;
7417 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7418 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7419 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7420 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7421 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7422 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7423 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7424 pay a
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee
</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7427 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7428 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7429 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7430 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638780"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638786"></a><p>
7431 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7432 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7433 Real Networks, told me,
7434 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7436 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7437 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7438 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7439 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7440 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA,
… "How do you come up
7441 with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio? Because
7442 here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay, and that
7443 should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high, you're
7444 going to drive the small webcasters out of business.
…"
7446 And the RIAA experts said, "Well, we don't really model this as an industry
7447 with thousands of webcasters,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>we think it should be an industry
7448 with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate and it's a
7449 stable, predictable market
</em></span>." (Emphasis added.)
7450 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7451 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7452 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7453 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7454 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7455 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7456 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7457 </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>
7458 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7459 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7460 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7462 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7463 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7464 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7467 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7468 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7469 of citizens. According to
<em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em>,
43
7470 million Americans downloaded music in May
2002.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638874" href=
"#ftn.id2638874" class=
"footnote">171</a>]
</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those
43 million Americans
7471 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform
20 percent of
7472 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7473 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7474 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7475 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7476 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7477 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7479 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7480 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7481 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7482 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($
15,
000,
000) or almost all
7483 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7484 in damages ($
250,
000 in legal fees) led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7485 money he had in the world ($
12,
000) to make the suit go away. The same
7486 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7487 2003, the RIAA sued
261 individuals
—including a twelve-year-old girl
7488 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7489 file sharing was.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638549" href=
"#ftn.id2638549" class=
"footnote">172</a>]
</sup> As these scapegoats
7490 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7491 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7492 Jordan, paid her life savings of $
2,
000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7493 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7494 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7495 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7497 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7498 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7499 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was
1.5
7500 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7501 consumption to just
30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7502 of prohibition, consumption was up to
70 percent of the preprohibition
7503 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7504 were criminals.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638956" href=
"#ftn.id2638956" class=
"footnote">173</a>]
</sup> We have launched a war
7505 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that
7
7506 percent (or
16 million) Americans now use.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638969" href=
"#ftn.id2638969" class=
"footnote">174</a>]
</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in
1979 of
14 percent of
7507 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7508 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7509 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2638986" href=
"#ftn.id2638986" class=
"footnote">175</a>]
</sup> We pride ourselves on our "free society," but an
7510 endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a
7511 result, a huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law.
7512 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2639002"></a>
7514 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7515 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7516 about the importance of "ethics." As my colleague Charlie Nesson told a
7517 class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of students who
7518 have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and sometimes
7519 drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven cars. These
7520 are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the norm. And then we,
7521 as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to behave
7522 ethically
—how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds separate, or
7523 honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your case is
7524 over. Generations of Americans
—more significantly in some parts of
7525 America than in others, but still, everywhere in America today
—can't
7526 live their lives both normally and legally, since "normally" entails a
7527 certain degree of illegality.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638914"></a>
7529 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7530 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7531 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7532 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7533 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7534 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed. Alternatively, if the costs
7535 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7536 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7541 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7542 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7543 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7544 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7545 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7547 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7548 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7549 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7550 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7551 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7552 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7553 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7554 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7555 the extreme of regulation they impose. Twenty million Americans have come
7556 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of "sharing." We
7557 need to be able to call these twenty million Americans "citizens," not
7560 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7561 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7562 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7563 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7564 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7565 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7566 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7567 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7568 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7570 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7573 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7574 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought. The law
7575 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7576 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7577 and buy jazz records to replace them. That "use" of the recordings is free.
7579 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7580 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7581 copy-protection technologies, I am "free" to copy, or "rip," music from my
7582 records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed, Apple Corporation went so far as
7583 to suggest that "freedom" was a right: In a series of commercials, Apple
7584 endorsed the "Rip, Mix, Burn" capacities of digital technologies.
7585 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2639123"></a><p>
7586 This "use" of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large process
7587 at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing them in one
7588 archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program called
7589 Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach, Baroque,
7590 Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others
—the potential is
7591 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7592 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7593 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7596 This use is enabled by unprotected media
—either CDs or records. But
7597 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7598 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7599 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7600 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7601 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7602 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7605 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7606 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7607 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7608 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7609 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7610 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7611 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7612 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7613 part of a massively complex "digital rights management" system.
7615 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7616 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7617 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7618 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7619 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7620 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7623 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7624 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7625 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7626 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7627 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7628 reason to pursue this alternative
—namely, freedom. The choice, in
7629 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7630 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7632 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7633 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7634 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7635 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7636 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7637 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7640 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7641 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7642 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7643 as criminals and their own survival.
7645 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7646 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7647 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7648 important as our tradition of free culture. There's one more aspect to this
7649 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7650 directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7651 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the "collateral damage" that
7652 "arises whenever you turn a very large percentage of the population into
7653 criminals." This is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally.
7654 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2639135"></a>
7656 "Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter," forklarer von Lohmann,
7657 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2639251"></a>
7658 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7659 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7660 one degree or another.
… If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7661 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7662 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7663 continue to receive Internet access?
… Our sensibilities change as
7664 soon as we think, "Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a lawbreaker."
7665 Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done is turn a remarkable
7666 percentage of the American Internet-using population into "lawbreakers."
7667 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7668 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7669 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7670 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7672 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in
2003 as the RIAA
7673 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7674 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7675 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7676 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7680 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7681 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7682 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7683 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7684 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7685 for $
2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7686 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2639303" href=
"#ftn.id2639303" class=
"footnote">176</a>]
</sup>
7689 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7690 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7691 to track Napster users.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2639344" href=
"#ftn.id2639344" class=
"footnote">177</a>]
</sup> Using a
7692 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7693 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7694 MP3s will have the same "fingerprint."
7696 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7697 CD to your daughter
—a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7698 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7699 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7700 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7701 if the college network is "cooperating" with the RIAA's espionage, and she
7702 hasn't properly protected her content from the network (do you know how to
7703 do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to identify your daughter as
7704 a "criminal." And under the rules that universities are beginning to
7705 deploy,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2639202" href=
"#ftn.id2639202" class=
"footnote">178</a>]
</sup> your daughter can lose the
7706 right to use the university's computer network. She can, in some cases, be
7709 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7710 lawyer for her (at $
300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7711 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7712 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7713 university might not believe her. It might treat this "contraband" as
7714 presumptive of guilt. And as any number of college students have already
7715 learned, our presumptions about innocence disappear in the middle of wars of
7716 prohibition. This war is no different. Says von Lohmann,
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2639438"></a>
7717 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7718 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7719 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7720 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7721 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7722 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7723 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7724 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7725 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7726 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7727 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7728 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7729 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7730 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use.
… If forty to
7731 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7732 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7734 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7735 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered "criminals" under the
7736 law, and when the law could achieve the same objective
— securing
7737 rights to authors
—without these millions being considered "criminals,"
7738 who is the villain? Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war
7739 on our own people or a concerted effort through our democracy to change our
7741 </p></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2637520" href=
"#id2637520" class=
"para">157</a>]
</sup>
7743 Se Lynne W. Jeter,
<em class=
"citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7744 WorldCom
</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley
& Sons,
2003),
176,
204;
7745 for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, "MCI Wins
7746 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement" (
7. juli
2003),
7747 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
7748 #
37</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637544"></a>
7749 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2637556" href=
"#id2637556" class=
"para">158</a>]
</sup>
7750 The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7751 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July
2003. For an
7752 overview, see Tanya Albert, "Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,' Say
7753 Tort Reformers," amednews.com,
28 July
2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
38</a>, and "Senate Turns Back
7754 Malpractice Caps," CBSNews.com,
9 July
2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
39</a>. President Bush has
7755 continued to urge tort reform in recent months.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2637580"></a>
7756 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2637142" href=
"#id2637142" class=
"para">159</a>]
</sup>
7760 Se Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Wired
</em>,
7761 7. juli
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
40</a>. For en oversikt over
7762 utstillingen, se
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
7764 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638002" href=
"#id2638002" class=
"para">160</a>]
</sup>
7767 See Joseph Menn, "Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Los
7768 Angeles Times
</em>,
23 April
2003. For a parallel argument about the
7769 effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see Janelle Brown, "The
7770 Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized," Salon.com,
1 June
2001, available
7771 at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
42</a>. See also
7772 Jon Healey, "Online Music Services Besieged,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles
7773 Times
</em>,
28 May
2001.
7774 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2637752" href=
"#id2637752" class=
"para">161</a>]
</sup>
7776 Rafe Needleman, "Driving in Cars with MP3s,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Business
7777 2.0</em>,
16. juni
2003, tilgjengelig via
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
43</a>. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad
7778 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638089"></a>
7779 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638196" href=
"#id2638196" class=
"para">162</a>]
</sup>
7781 "Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World," GartnerG2 and the
7782 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School (
2003),
7783 33–35, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
7785 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638219" href=
"#id2638219" class=
"para">163</a>]
</sup>
7788 GartnerG2,
26–27.
7789 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638242" href=
"#id2638242" class=
"para">164</a>]
</sup>
7792 See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes, February
7793 2002 (Entertainment).
7794 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638288" href=
"#id2638288" class=
"para">165</a>]
</sup>
7796 Jessica Litman,
<em class=
"citetitle">Digital Copyright
</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7797 Prometheus Books,
2001).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638295"></a>
7798 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638323" href=
"#id2638323" class=
"para">166</a>]
</sup>
7801 The only circuit court exception is found in
<em class=
"citetitle">Recording Industry
7802 Association of America (RIAA)
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7803 Systems
</em>,
180 F.
3d
1072 (
9th Cir.
1999). There the court of
7804 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7805 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7806 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7807 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7808 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7809 <em class=
"citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7810 Inc
</em>. v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Grokster, Ltd
</em>.,
259 F. Supp.
2d
7811 1029 (C.D. Cal.,
2003), where the court found the link between the
7812 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7813 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7814 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638359" href=
"#id2638359" class=
"para">167</a>]
</sup>
7816 For example, in July
2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
7817 Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R.
5211), which would immunize
7818 copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
7819 copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In August
7820 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate that
7821 technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films broadcast on
7822 TV (i.e., computers) respect a "broadcast flag" that would disable copying
7823 of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings
7824 introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act,
7825 which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital media
7826 devices. See GartnerG2, "Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
7827 World,"
27 June
2003,
33–34, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
44</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638367"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638392"></a>
7828 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638073" href=
"#id2638073" class=
"para">168</a>]
</sup>
7832 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638264" href=
"#id2638264" class=
"para">169</a>]
</sup>
7836 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638558" href=
"#id2638558" class=
"para">170</a>]
</sup>
7838 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
7839 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
7840 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford),
3 July
7841 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
7842 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected. See Jonathan
7843 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
7844 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
7845 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, "Copyright as Entry
7846 Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Antitrust
7847 Bulletin
</em> (Summer/Fall
2002):
461: "This was not confusion, these
7848 are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are protected
7849 from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes, this is
7850 done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the
7851 play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral
7852 way."
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638594"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2638603"></a>
7853 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638874" href=
"#id2638874" class=
"para">171</a>]
</sup>
7855 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, "The Music Downloading Deluge," Pew Internet
7856 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
7857 American Life Project reported that
37 million Americans had downloaded
7858 music files from the Internet by early
2001.
7859 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638549" href=
"#id2638549" class=
"para">172</a>]
</sup>
7862 Alex Pham, "The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,"
7863 <em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles Times
</em>,
10 September
2003, Business.
7864 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638956" href=
"#id2638956" class=
"para">173</a>]
</sup>
7867 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, "Alcohol Consumption During
7868 Prohibition,"
<em class=
"citetitle">American Economic Review
</em> 81, no.
2
7870 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638969" href=
"#id2638969" class=
"para">174</a>]
</sup>
7873 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
7874 Committee,
108th Cong.,
1st sess. (
5 March
2003) (statement of John
7875 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
7876 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2638986" href=
"#id2638986" class=
"para">175</a>]
</sup>
7879 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, "Tax Compliance,"
7880 <em class=
"citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature
</em> 36 (
1998):
818 (survey
7881 of compliance literature).
7882 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2639303" href=
"#id2639303" class=
"para">176</a>]
</sup>
7885 See Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
7886 Calif.,
12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Washington
7887 Post
</em>,
10 September
2003, E1; Chris Cobbs, "Worried Parents Pull
7888 Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry Cracking Down on File
7889 Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs to Avoid Being Sued,"
7890 <em class=
"citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune
</em>,
30 August
2003, C1;
7891 Jefferson Graham, "Recording Industry Sues Parents,"
<em class=
"citetitle">USA
7892 Today
</em>,
15 September
2003,
4D; John Schwartz, "She Says She's No
7893 Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
7894 25 September
2003, C1; Margo Varadi, "Is Brianna a Criminal?"
7895 <em class=
"citetitle">Toronto Star
</em>,
18 September
2003, P7.
7896 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2639344" href=
"#id2639344" class=
"para">177</a>]
</sup>
7899 See "Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses Some
7900 Methods Used," CNN.com, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
47</a>.
7901 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2639202" href=
"#id2639202" class=
"para">178</a>]
</sup>
7904 See Jeff Adler, "Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,"
7905 <em class=
"citetitle">Boston Globe
</em>,
18 May
2003, City Weekly,
1; Frank
7906 Ahrens, "Four Students Sued over Music Sites; Industry Group Targets File
7907 Sharing at Colleges,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>,
4 April
2003,
7908 E1; Elizabeth Armstrong, "Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,"
7909 <em class=
"citetitle">Christian Science Monitor
</em>,
2 September
2003,
20;
7910 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, "Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola; Two
7911 Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Chicago
7912 Tribune
</em>,
16 July
2003,
1C; Beth Cox, "RIAA Trains Antipiracy
7913 Guns on Universities,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Internet News
</em>,
30 January
7914 2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
7915 #
48</a>; Benny Evangelista, "Download Warning
101: Freshman Orientation
7916 This Fall to Include Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,"
7917 <em class=
"citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle
</em>,
11 August
2003, E11; "Raid,
7918 Letters Are Weapons at Universities,"
<em class=
"citetitle">USA Today
</em>,
26
7920 </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>
7921 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
7922 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
7923 hvordan du slokker den. Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
7924 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
7926 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi. I panikk griper
7927 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe
—eller før
7928 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe
—er bøtten i svevet. Bensinen er på
7929 tur mot den brennende bilen. Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
7930 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
7932 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt
— og vi fokuserer alle på feil
7933 ting. Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
7934 virksomheter. Uten tvil kan de true artister. Men teknologier endrer seg.
7935 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
7936 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet. Dette er en brann som overlatt til
7937 seg selv vil brenne ut.
7941 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
7942 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
7943 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det. Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
7944 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot. For
7945 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
7946 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
7948 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
7949 viktige og fundametale problemet. Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
7950 bensin på denne brannen.
7952 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå. Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
7953 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning. Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
7954 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
7955 som består. Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
7956 burde holde øynene på veien.
7958 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene. Det har også vært
7959 min falitt. I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
7960 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten. Vi
7961 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
7963 </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>
7964 In
1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
7965 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
7966 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
7967 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
7968 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
7969 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
7971 It didn't work
—at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
7972 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
7973 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
7974 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
7977 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
7978 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
7979 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
7980 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
7981 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
7982 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
7983 accessible
—technically accessible
—today.
7985 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
7986 as Disney's. Hawthorne's
<em class=
"citetitle">Scarlet Letter
</em> had passed
7987 into the public domain in
1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
7988 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
7989 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
7990 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
7991 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
7992 successfully (
<em class=
"citetitle">Cinderella
</em>), sometimes not
7993 (
<em class=
"citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame
</em>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Treasure
7994 Planet
</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
7996 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2639683"></a><p>
7997 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
7998 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
7999 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8000 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8001 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the "noncommercial
8002 publishing industry," which before the Internet was limited to people with
8003 large egos or with political or social causes. But with the Internet, it
8004 includes a wide range of individuals and groups dedicated to spreading
8005 culture generally.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2639713" href=
"#ftn.id2639713" class=
"footnote">179</a>]
</sup>
8007 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In
1998, Robert Frost's collection
8008 of poems
<em class=
"citetitle">New Hampshire
</em> was slated to pass into the
8009 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8010 library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#property-i" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
>10</a>, in
1998, for the
8011 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8012 copyrights
—this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8013 any works more recent than
1923 to his collection until
2019. Indeed, no
8014 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8015 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8016 period, more than
1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8020 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8021 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8022 Mary Bono, says, believed that "copyrights should be forever."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2639768" href=
"#ftn.id2639768" class=
"footnote">180</a>]
</sup>
8025 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8026 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8027 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8028 passed in
1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8029 would make Eldred a felon
—whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8030 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8032 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8033 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8034 interpretation. And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8035 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8036 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8037 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
8038 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science
… by
8039 securing for limited Times to Authors
… exclusive Right to their
8040 … Writings.
…
8041 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8042 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8043 Article I, section
8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8044 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something
—for
8045 example, to regulate "commerce among the several states" or "declare War."
8046 But here, the "something" is something quite specific
—to "promote
8047 … Progress"
—through means that are also specific
— by
8048 "securing" "exclusive Rights" (i.e., copyrights) "for limited Times."
8050 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8051 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8052 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8053 requirement that terms be "limited" will have no practical effect. If every
8054 time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power to extend its
8055 term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8056 forbids
—perpetual terms "on the installment plan," as Professor Peter
8057 Jaszi so nicely put it.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2639793"></a>
8059 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8060 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8061 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8062 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8063 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8064 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8065 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8066 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8068 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8069 government. "Corruption" not in the sense that representatives are bribed.
8070 Rather, "corruption" in the sense that the system induces the beneficiaries
8071 of Congress's acts to raise and give money to Congress to induce it to
8072 act. There's only so much time; there's only so much Congress can do. Why
8073 not limit its actions to those things it must do
—and those things that
8074 pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8076 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8077 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8078 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8079 example. Frost died in
1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8080 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8081 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8082 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8084 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $
100,
000 a year from three of
8085 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8086 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate. Your financial
8087 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8090 "Next year," the adviser announces, "our copyrights in works A, B, and C
8091 will expire. That means that after next year, we will no longer be receiving
8092 the annual royalty check of $
100,
000 from the publishers of those works.
8094 "There's a proposal in Congress, however," she continues, "that could change
8095 this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to extend the terms of copyright
8096 by twenty years. That bill would be extraordinarily valuable to us. So we
8097 should hope this bill passes."
8099 "Hope?" a fellow board member says. "Can't we be doing something about it?"
8101 "Well, obviously, yes," the adviser responds. "We could contribute to the
8102 campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure that they support
8105 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8106 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. "How much would we get if this
8107 extension were passed?" you ask the adviser. "How much is it worth?"
8109 "Well," the adviser says, "if you're confident that you will continue to get
8110 at least $
100,
000 a year from these copyrights, and you use the `discount
8111 rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (
6 percent), then this law
8112 would be worth $
1,
146,
000 to the estate."
8114 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8117 "So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than $
1,
000,
000 in
8118 campaign contributions if we were confident those contributions would assure
8119 that the bill was passed?"
8121 "Absolutely," the adviser responds. "It is worth it to you to contribute up
8122 to the `present value' of the income you expect from these copyrights. Which
8123 for us means over $
1,
000,
000."
8126 You quickly get the point
—you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8127 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8128 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8129 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8130 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8131 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8134 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8135 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8136 buy further extensions of copyright.
8138 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8139 Extension Act, this "theory" about incentives was proved real. Ten of the
8140 thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received the maximum
8141 contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the Senate, eight
8142 of the twelve sponsors received contributions.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2639979" href=
"#ftn.id2639979" class=
"footnote">181</a>]
</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent over $
1.5 million
8143 lobbying in the
1998 election cycle. They paid out more than $
200,
000 in
8144 campaign contributions.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2639994" href=
"#ftn.id2639994" class=
"footnote">182</a>]
</sup> Disney is
8145 estimated to have contributed more than $
800,
000 to reelection campaigns in
8146 the cycle.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640008" href=
"#ftn.id2640008" class=
"footnote">183</a>]
</sup>
8149 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8150 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8151 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8152 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8153 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8154 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8155 constitutional requirement that terms be "limited." If they could extend it
8156 once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8159 It was also my judgment that
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>this
</em></span> Supreme Court would
8160 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8161 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8162 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8163 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8164 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in
1995 to
8165 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8167 Since
1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8168 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8169 only "commerce among the several states" (aka "interstate commerce"), the
8170 Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include the power to regulate
8171 any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8173 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8174 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8175 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce. A Constitution
8176 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8178 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640074"></a><p>
8179 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8180 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>. The
8181 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8182 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8183 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8184 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8185 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8186 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8187 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8188 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8190 "We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments," the
8191 Chief Justice wrote.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640105" href=
"#ftn.id2640105" class=
"footnote">184</a>]
</sup> If anything
8192 Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be considered interstate
8193 commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's power. The decision in
8194 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> was reaffirmed five years later in
8195 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
</em>
8196 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Morrison
</em>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640132" href=
"#ftn.id2640132" class=
"footnote">185</a>]
</sup>
8199 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8200 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640152" href=
"#ftn.id2640152" class=
"footnote">186</a>]
</sup>
8201 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8202 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8203 extend an existing term, then there would be no "stopping point" to
8204 Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution expressly states that
8205 there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle applied to the power to
8206 grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not allowed to extend the
8207 term of existing copyrights.
8209 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>If
</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8210 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> stood for a principle. Many believed the
8211 decision in
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> stood for politics
—a
8212 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8213 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8214 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8215 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the "fidelity" in such an
8216 interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme Court decides
8217 cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily boring. I was
8218 not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if these nine
8219 Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8221 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8222 <em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8223 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8224 piracy. Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8225 piracy
—piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8226 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8227 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8228 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8229 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8230 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8231 these entities were using their power
—expressed through the power of
8232 lobbyists' money
—to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8233 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8234 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8236 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8237 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8238 domain is nothing more than "legal piracy."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640231" href=
"#ftn.id2640231" class=
"footnote">187</a>]
</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our
8239 constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8240 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8241 pirate's charter.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640256"></a>
8243 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8244 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8245 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8246 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8247 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8248 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8249 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8251 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8252 Mickey Mouse and "Rhapsody in Blue." These works are too valuable for
8253 copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright
8254 extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's. Forget Mickey
8255 Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the
1920s and
1930s
8256 that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes
8257 not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not
8258 famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8260 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (
1923 to
1942)
8261 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act,
2 percent of that
8262 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8263 that
2 percent who pushed the CTEA through. But the law and its effect were
8264 not limited to that
2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8265 generally.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640298" href=
"#ftn.id2640298" class=
"footnote">188</a>]
</sup>
8269 Think practically about the consequence of this extension
—practically,
8270 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In
1930,
8271 10,
047 books were published. In
2000,
174 of those books were still in
8272 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8273 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining
9,
873. What would you
8276 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the
9,
873 books were still
8277 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8278 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8279 authors of the
9,
873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8280 records for works published in
1930. That will produce a list of books still
8283 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8284 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8286 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8287 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8288 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8290 But there is no list. There may be a name from
1930, and then in
1959, of
8291 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8292 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8293 records
—especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8294 the current owner. And we're just talking about
1930!
8296 "But there isn't a list of who owns property generally," the apologists for
8297 the system respond. "Why should there be a list of copyright owners?"
8299 Well, actually, if you think about it, there
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>are
</em></span> plenty
8300 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8301 to cars. And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8302 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8303 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8304 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8307 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8308 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8309 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8310 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8311 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8312 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8313 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8314 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8315 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8317 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library. The
8318 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8319 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8320 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8321 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8322 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8323 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8324 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8327 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8328 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8329 creative works is much more dire.
8330 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640420"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640426"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640432"></a><p>
8331 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8332 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8333 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8334 1921 and
1951. Only one of these films,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Lucky
8335 Dog
</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8336 after
1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8337 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8338 of money. According to one estimate, "Roach has sold about
60,
000
8339 videocassettes and
50,
000 DVDs of the duo's silent films."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640460" href=
"#ftn.id2640460" class=
"footnote">189</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640476"></a>
8341 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8342 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8343 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8344 a whole generation of American film.
8347 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8348 continuing commercial value. The rest
—to the extent it survives at
8349 all
—sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8350 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8351 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8352 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8354 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs. For most
8355 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8356 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8357 $
10,
000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in
1993, it can now
8358 cost as little as $
100 to digitize one hour of mm film.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640513" href=
"#ftn.id2640513" class=
"footnote">190</a>]
</sup>
8361 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8362 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8363 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8364 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8365 locate the copyright owner.
8367 Or more accurately,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>owners
</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8368 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8369 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8370 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8371 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8374 "But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8375 copyright owner when she shows up?" Sure, if you want to commit a
8376 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8377 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8378 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8379 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8380 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8381 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8382 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8385 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8386 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8387 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8388 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8391 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8392 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8393 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8394 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8396 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8397 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8398 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8399 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8400 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an "engine of free expression."
8402 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8403 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8404 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8405 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving. And when a
8406 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8407 commercial life ends.
8409 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8410 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes
& Noble, and we don't
8411 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8412 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a
1930
8413 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8414 valuable
—for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8415 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8416 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8419 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression. In
8420 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8423 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8424 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8425 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright-related use
</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8426 exclusive right. When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8427 publisher. But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8428 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8429 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8430 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8432 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8433 film
—the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs
—were so high,
8434 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8435 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8436 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8437 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8439 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8440 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8441 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8442 interfered with anything.
8444 But this situation has now changed.
8446 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8447 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of. Digital
8448 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8449 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8450 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8451 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8452 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8453 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8454 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8458 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8459 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8460 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8461 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8462 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8463 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8464 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8465 radically different context.
8467 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8468 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8469 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8470 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright
</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8471 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8472 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8473 is serving no purpose
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>at all
</em></span> related to the spread of
8474 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8475 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8477 You may well ask, "But if digital technologies lower the costs for Brewster
8478 Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too. So won't
8479 Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture widely?"
8481 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8482 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes
& Noble offered
8483 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8484 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8485 what "the market" would demand. But if you think the role of a library is
8486 bigger than this
—if you think its role is to archive culture, whether
8487 there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or not
—then we
8488 can't count on the commercial market to do our library work for us.
8490 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8491 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8492 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8493 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8494 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture,
94 percent of the
8495 films, books, and music produced between and
1946 is not commercially
8496 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8497 value, then
6 percent is a failure to provide that value.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2640752" href=
"#ftn.id2640752" class=
"footnote">191</a>]
</sup>
8500 In January
1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8501 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8502 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8503 that we made were (
1) that extending existing terms violated the
8504 Constitution's "limited Times" requirement, and (
2) that extending terms by
8505 another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8507 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument. A
8508 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8509 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8510 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8511 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8513 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8514 be for "limited Times" only. His argument was as elegant as it was simple:
8515 If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no "stopping point" to
8516 Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. The power to extend existing
8517 terms means Congress is not required to grant terms that are "limited."
8518 Thus, Judge Sentelle argued, the court had to interpret the term "limited
8519 Times" to give it meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle
8520 argued, would be to deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8522 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8523 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8524 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8525 the court will sit "en banc" to hear the case.
8528 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc. This
8529 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8530 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8531 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8534 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8535 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8536 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8537 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8538 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8540 But in February
2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8541 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8542 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8544 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8545 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8546 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8547 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8548 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8549 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8550 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8551 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8553 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8554 burde ha vært vunnet. Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8555 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8557 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640871"></a><p>
8559 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8560 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8561 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8562 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8563 på grunn av sin støtte til oss. De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8564 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8566 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640894"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640900"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2640907"></a><p>
8567 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8568 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8569 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8570 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8571 få problemet til å virke "viktig" for Høyesterett. Det måtte synes som om
8572 dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur, ellers ville de
8573 aldri stemt mot "de mektigste mediaselskapene i verden".
8575 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8576 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8577 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8578 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be "right" as
8579 in "true," I thought, but it is "wrong" as in "it just shouldn't be that
8580 way." As I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of
8581 our Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8582 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8583 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8584 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8585 that we had to sell our case like soap. Just as a law that bans the
8586 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8587 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8588 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8589 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8590 put in the Constitution.
8592 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8593 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8594 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8595 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8596 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8599 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8600 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8601 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8602 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8603 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8604 simply the preference of a small political minority. Although my focus in
8605 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8606 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8607 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8608 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8609 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>law
</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8610 widest range of credible critics
—credible not because they were rich
8611 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8612 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8614 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8615 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8616 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November
1998,
8617 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8618 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, "Do you sometimes wonder why bills
8619 that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide easily
8620 through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit the
8621 general public seem to get bogged down?" The answer, as the editorial
8622 documented, was the power of money. Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8623 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8624 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8625 Schlafly argued.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641018"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641025"></a>
8627 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8628 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8629 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8630 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms. That strong
8631 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8633 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8634 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8635 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8636 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8637 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8638 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8639 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8640 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8641 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641054"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641062"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641068"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641075"></a>
8643 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8644 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8645 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8646 National Writers Union.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641088"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641096"></a>
8647 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641103"></a><p>
8648 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8649 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8650 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8651 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8652 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641117"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641123"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641130"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641136"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641142"></a><p>
8653 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8654 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8655 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8656 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8657 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8658 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8659 create. Such extensions were nothing more than "rent-seeking"
—the
8660 fancy term economists use to describe special-interest legislation gone
8663 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8664 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8665 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8666 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8667 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8668 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8669 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8670 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8671 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8672 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641153"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641184"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641190"></a>
8674 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8675 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8676 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8677 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8678 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8679 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8680 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8681 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8682 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641211"></a>
8684 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8685 well. Significantly, however, none of these "friends" included historians or
8686 economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were written
8687 exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright holders.
8689 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8690 law. The congressmen were not surprising either
—they were defending
8691 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8692 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8693 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8694 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8696 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8697 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work
— better
8698 than allowing it to fall into the public domain
—because if this
8699 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to "glorify
8700 drugs or to create pornography."
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2641241" href=
"#ftn.id2641241" class=
"footnote">192</a>]
</sup> That
8701 was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its "protection"
8702 of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license
8703 <em class=
"citetitle">Porgy and Bess
</em> to anyone who refuses to use African
8704 Americans in the cast.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2641266" href=
"#ftn.id2641266" class=
"footnote">193</a>]
</sup> That's their
8705 view of how this part of American culture should be controlled, and they
8706 wanted this law to help them effect that control.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641280"></a>
8708 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8709 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8710 making a choice about which speakers it will favor. Famous and beloved
8711 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8712 Congress and say, "Give us twenty years to control the speech about these
8713 icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone else."
8714 Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by giving them
8715 what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive right to speak
8716 in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is traditionally
8719 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8720 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8721 copyrights
—extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8722 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8723 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. Between
8724 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8725 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8726 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641306"></a><p>
8727 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8728 "the Conservatives." The other we called "the Rest." The Conservatives
8729 included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice
8730 Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five had been the most consistent in
8731 limiting Congress's power. They were the five who had supported the
8732 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez/Morrison
</em> line of cases that said that an
8733 enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure that Congress's powers had
8735 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641336"></a><p>
8737 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8738 Congress's power. These four
—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8739 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer
—had repeatedly argued that the
8740 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8741 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8742 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8743 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8744 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8746 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8747 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8748 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8749 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8750 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8751 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8752 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8753 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8754 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641380"></a><p>
8755 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8756 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8757 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8758 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8759 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8761 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8762 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8763 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8764 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8765 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8766 confident he would recognize limits here.
8768 This analysis of "the Rest" showed most clearly where our focus had to be:
8769 on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open these five and
8770 get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single overriding argument
8771 that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives' most important
8772 jurisprudential innovation
—the argument that Judge Sentelle had relied
8773 upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must be interpreted so
8774 that its enumerated powers have limits.
8777 This then was the core of our strategy
—a strategy for which I am
8778 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8779 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8780 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8781 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8782 that this power was supposed to be "limited." Our aim would be to get the
8783 Court to reconcile
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> with
8784 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8785 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8788 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8789 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8790 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8791 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8792 practice is unconstitutional.
8794 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8795 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in and in
1909. And of
8796 course, in
1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8797 regularly
—eleven times in forty years.
8800 But this "consistency" should be kept in perspective. Congress extended
8801 existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic. It then
8802 extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare extensions
8803 are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8804 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8805 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8806 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8807 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension. There was no reason it
8808 couldn't intervene here. Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8809 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8810 weeks, I was repeatedly "mooted" by lawyers who had volunteered to help in
8811 the case. Such "moots" are basically practice rounds, where wannabe justices
8812 fire questions at wannabe winners.
8814 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
8815 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
8816 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
8817 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
8818 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
8819 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
8820 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641499"></a><p>
8821 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
8822 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
8823 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
8824 of the moot, he let his concern speak:
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641512"></a>
8826 "I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be willing
8827 to upset this practice that the government says has been a consistent
8828 practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
8829 harm
—passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
8830 that, then we haven't any chance of winning."
8831 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641522"></a><p>
8833 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
8834 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
8835 thing
—not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
8836 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
8837 right thing
—not because of politics but because it is right. As I
8838 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
8839 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough. Let the
8840 politicians learn to see that it was also good. The night before the
8841 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
8842 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
8843 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
8844 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
8845 would be assured a seat.
8847 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
8848 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
8849 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
8850 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
8851 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
8852 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
8853 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
8854 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
8855 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
8856 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
8857 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
8859 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
8860 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
8861 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
8862 powers had any limit.
8864 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening. The history
8866 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
8867 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
8868 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
8869 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
8871 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8872 She was quite willing to concede "that this flies directly in the face of
8873 what the framers had in mind." But my response again and again was to
8874 emphasize limits on Congress's power.
8875 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
8877 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
8878 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
8879 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
8880 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8881 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
8882 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
8883 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
8884 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '
76 act,
8885 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
8886 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
8887 progress in science and the useful arts. I just don't see any empirical
8889 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8890 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
8892 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
8893 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all. Nothing
8894 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
8895 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
8896 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
8897 under the copyright laws.
8898 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641648"></a><p>
8899 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
8900 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
8901 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
8902 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
8903 was a swing and a miss.
8905 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
8906 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>
8907 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
8910 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
8911 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
8914 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
8915 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
8916 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
8918 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
8919 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
8920 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
8921 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
8922 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8923 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
8924 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
8926 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
8927 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
8928 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
8929 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
8930 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
8931 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8932 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal. Olson's
8933 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
8934 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
8935 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
8936 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
8937 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
8938 the Copyright and Patent Clause
— indeed, the very first case striking
8939 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
8940 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
8944 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
8945 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
8946 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
8948 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
8949 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
8950 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
8951 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
8952 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
8953 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
8954 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
8955 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
8956 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
8957 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court
—in
8958 particular, the Conservatives
—would feel itself constrained by the
8959 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
8961 The morning of January
15,
2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
8962 missed the
7:
00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
8963 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
8964 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
8965 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
8967 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
8968 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
8969 had been wrong in my reasoning.
8971 My
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>reasoning
</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
8972 in the world against
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>reasoning
</em></span>. And here was the last
8973 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
8975 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
8976 principle in this case from the principle in
8977 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
8978 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
8979 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
8984 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument. Consistent
8985 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
8986 Congress's power not limited here.
8988 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable
—for her, and for Justice
8989 Souter. Neither believes in
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>. It would be too
8990 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
8991 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
8993 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
8994 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
8995 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
8996 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
8997 simply
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument
</em></span>. There was no
8998 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together. There was
8999 therefore no principle that followed from the
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>
9000 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9001 context it would not.
9003 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9004 would respect? By what right did they
—the silent five
—get to
9005 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9006 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9007 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9008 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9009 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9010 will respect, that is the system we have.
9011 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641839"></a><p>
9012 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9013 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9014 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9015 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9016 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9017 parallel
—without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9018 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9019 the words were about patents or copyrights. The Court let Justice Stevens's
9020 charge go unanswered.
9021 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641858"></a><p>
9024 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9025 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9026 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9027 current term, a copyright gave an author
99.8 percent of the value of a
9028 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9029 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9030 Constitution said a term had to be "limited," and the existing term was so
9031 long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was unconstitutional.
9033 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9034 neither believed in the
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> case, neither was
9035 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9036 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9037 from Judge Sentelle. It was
<em class=
"citetitle">Hamlet
</em> without the
9040 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9041 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9042 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9044 It was first anger with the five "Conservatives." It would have been one
9045 thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9046 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9047 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9048 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9049 an act of integrity. These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9050 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is "originalism"
—to
9051 first understand the framers' text, interpreted in their context, in light
9052 of the structure of the Constitution. That method had produced
9053 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> and many other "originalist" rulings. Where was
9054 their "originalism" now?
9057 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9058 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9059 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9060 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9061 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9062 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9063 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9064 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9065 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9066 consistent with their own principles.
9068 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself. For I
9069 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9071 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2641957"></a><p>
9072 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9073 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular. Most have a
9074 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9075 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9076 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9077 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9078 simple application of a set of principles. I had an argument that followed
9079 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9083 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9084 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9085 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9086 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9087 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9088 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9089 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9090 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9091 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9092 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9093 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9094 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9095 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9096 on which a court should decide the issue.
9097 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642016"></a><p>
9098 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9099 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9100 Sullivan?
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642027"></a>
9102 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9103 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9104 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9105 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9107 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9108 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9109 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9110 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9113 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9114 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9115 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9116 was a mistake. "The Court is not ready," Peter Jaszi said; this issue should
9117 not be raised until it is.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642058"></a>
9120 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9121 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9122 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9123 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9124 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9125 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case
—a decision I
9126 had made four years before
—was wrong. While the reaction to the Sonny
9127 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9128 decision was mixed. No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9129 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9130 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9131 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9132 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9133 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9134 law.
<em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em> wrote in its editorial,
9135 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9136 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9137 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9138 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9139 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9140 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9142 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9143 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9144 images
—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9145 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,
“Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon
”</a>). The "powerful and wealthy" line is a bit unfair. But
9146 the punch in the face felt exactly like that.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642118"></a>
9147 </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=
"id2642138"></a></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p>
9148 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9149 <em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em>. That "grand experiment" we call
9150 the "public domain" is over? When I can make light of it, I think, "Honey, I
9151 shrunk the Constitution." But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9152 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9153 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9154 have made them see differently.
9155 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2639713" href=
"#id2639713" class=
"para">179</a>]
</sup>
9158 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9159 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9160 noncommercial pornographers
—people who were distributing porn but were
9161 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution. Such a
9162 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9163 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9164 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9165 Communications Decency Act of
1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9166 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9167 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9168 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9169 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9170 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2639768" href=
"#id2639768" class=
"para">180</a>]
</sup>
9173 The full text is: "Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to
9174 last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the
9175 Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our
9176 copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9177 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9178 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,"
144
9179 Cong. Rec. H9946,
9951-
2 (October
7,
1998).
9180 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2639979" href=
"#id2639979" class=
"para">181</a>]
</sup>
9182 Associated Press, "Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey Mouse
9183 Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators
20 More Years,"
9184 <em class=
"citetitle">Chicago Tribune
</em>,
17. oktober
1998,
22.
9185 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2639994" href=
"#id2639994" class=
"para">182</a>]
</sup>
9187 Se Nick Brown, "Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information Age,"
9188 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
9190 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640008" href=
"#id2640008" class=
"para">183</a>]
</sup>
9193 Alan K. Ota, "Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,"
9194 <em class=
"citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week
</em>,
8. august
1990,
9195 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
9197 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640105" href=
"#id2640105" class=
"para">184</a>]
</sup>
9199 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>,
514
9200 U.S.
549,
564 (
1995).
9201 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640132" href=
"#id2640132" class=
"para">185</a>]
</sup>
9204 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Morrison
</em>,
529
9206 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640152" href=
"#id2640152" class=
"para">186</a>]
</sup>
9209 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9210 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9211 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9212 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce
—the
9213 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9214 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9215 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9216 copyrights
—the limitation to "limited times" notwithstanding.
9217 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640231" href=
"#id2640231" class=
"para">187</a>]
</sup>
9220 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9221 <em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
537 U.S.
9222 186 (
2003) (No.
01-
618), n
.10, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
51</a>.
9223 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640298" href=
"#id2640298" class=
"para">188</a>]
</sup>
9225 The figure of
2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9226 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9227 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
9228 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
7, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
52</a>.
9229 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640460" href=
"#id2640460" class=
"para">189</a>]
</sup>
9232 See David G. Savage, "High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,"
9233 <em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles Times
</em>,
6 October
2002; David Streitfeld,
9234 "Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today
9235 on Striking Down Copyright Extension,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
9236 Tribune
</em>,
9 October
2002.
9237 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640513" href=
"#id2640513" class=
"para">190</a>]
</sup>
9240 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9241 Petitoners,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
9242 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
537 U.S.
186 (
2003) (No.
01-
618),
9243 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9244 Internet Archive,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
9245 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
53</a>.
9246 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2640752" href=
"#id2640752" class=
"para">191</a>]
</sup>
9249 Jason Schultz, "The Myth of the
1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,"
20 December
9250 2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
9252 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2641241" href=
"#id2641241" class=
"para">192</a>]
</sup>
9255 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al.,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
9256 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
537 U.S. (
2003) (No.
01-
618),
19.
9257 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2641266" href=
"#id2641266" class=
"para">193</a>]
</sup>
9260 Dinitia Smith, "Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse Joins
9261 the Fray,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
28 March
1998, B7.
9262 </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>
9263 The day
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9264 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9265 <em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> was denied
—meaning the case was really
9266 finally over
—fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9267 technologists at Disney World.) This was a particularly long flight to my
9268 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9269 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9270 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642182"></a><p>
9271 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9272 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9273 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9274 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy: "For all
9275 these years the act has impeded progress in science and the useful arts. I
9276 just don't see any empirical evidence for that." And so, having failed in
9277 the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I turned to an argument
9281 <em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em> published the piece. In it, I
9282 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9283 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9284 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9285 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9287 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name. Eric
9288 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9289 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9291 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9292 the "Public Domain Enhancement Act" or the "Copyright Term Deregulation
9293 Act." Either way, the essence of the idea is clear and obvious: Remove
9294 copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking access and the spread of
9295 knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows for those works where its
9296 worth is at least $
1. But for everything else, let the content go.
9297 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642238"></a><p>
9298 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9299 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9300 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9301 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9302 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9303 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9304 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9305 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9306 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9308 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9309 requirement. For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9310 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9311 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9312 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9313 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9314 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9315 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9316 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642281"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642287"></a><p>
9318 As I described in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#property-i" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
>10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in
1976,
9319 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9320 before a copyright is granted.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2642305" href=
"#ftn.id2642305" class=
"footnote">194</a>]
</sup> The
9321 Europeans are said to view copyright as a "natural right." Natural rights
9322 don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American tradition
9323 that required copyright owners to follow form if their rights were to be
9324 protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly respect the dignity of
9325 the author. My right as a creator turns on my creativity, not upon the
9326 special favor of the government.
9328 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9329 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9330 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread "Walt Disney
9331 creativity" is destroyed when there is no simple way to know what's
9332 protected and what's not.
9333 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642353"></a><p>
9334 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9335 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in
1908,
9336 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9337 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9338 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9339 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9340 <em class=
"citetitle">i
</em> or cross a
<em class=
"citetitle">t
</em> resulted in the
9341 loss of widows' only income.
9343 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9344 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9345 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9346 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9347 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9350 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9351 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9352 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9353 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9354 imposed upon creators.
9357 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in
1908, there was a moral
9358 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9359 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9360 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government. He has
9361 a property right over the table "naturally," and he can assert that right
9362 against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has informed the
9363 government of his ownership of the table.
9365 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9366 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9367 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9368 the special problems that creative property presents. The law of
9369 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9370 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9372 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9373 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9374 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9375 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license. In both
9376 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9377 registration
—both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9378 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9379 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9380 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9381 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9382 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9383 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9384 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9386 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9387 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9388 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9389 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9390 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9391 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9392 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9393 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9394 formalities. Complex, expensive,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>lawyer
</em></span> transactions
9395 take their place.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642455"></a>
9397 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9398 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't "get."
9399 Because we live in a system without formalities, there is no way easily to
9400 build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright terms were, as Justice
9401 Story said they would be, "short," then this wouldn't matter much. For
9402 fourteen years, under the framers' system, a work would be presumptively
9403 controlled. After fourteen years, it would be presumptively uncontrolled.
9405 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9406 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9407 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9408 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9409 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9410 in a way that has never been seen before
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>because there are no
9411 formalities
</em></span>.
9413 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9414 worth $
1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9415 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9416 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9417 extended copyright term.
9419 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9420 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9421 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9422 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9423 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $
1 to you.
9425 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9426 registrere verket at beløpet $
1 egentlig er misvisende? Er ikke
9427 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $
1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9431 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9432 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9433 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9434 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9435 the real problem of
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>governments
</em></span> standing at the core of
9436 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9437 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9438 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9439 registration. The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9440 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9441 system would move up to
98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9442 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9443 years. What do you think?
9444 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642542"></a><p>
9445 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9446 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9447 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9448 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9450 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9451 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9452 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9453 opphavsretter. I mai
2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9454 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, "vi er nære". Det oppstod en
9455 generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje her.
9456 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642575"></a>
9458 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9459 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9460 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9461 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9462 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9463 about what this debate is really about.
9466 The MPAA argued first that Congress had "firmly rejected the central concept
9467 in the proposed bill"
—that copyrights be renewed. That was true, but
9468 irrelevant, as Congress's "firm rejection" had occurred long before the
9469 Internet made subsequent uses much more likely. Second, they argued that
9470 the proposal would harm poor copyright owners
—apparently those who
9471 could not afford the $
1 fee. Third, they argued that Congress had determined
9472 that extending a copyright term would encourage restoration work. Maybe in
9473 the case of the small percentage of work covered by copyright law that is
9474 still commercially valuable, but again this was irrelevant, as the proposal
9475 would not cut off the extended term unless the $
1 fee was not paid. Fourth,
9476 the MPAA argued that the bill would impose "enormous" costs, since a
9477 registration system is not free. True enough, but those costs are certainly
9478 less than the costs of clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is
9479 not known. Fifth, they worried about the risks if the copyright to a story
9480 underlying a film were to pass into the public domain. But what risk is
9481 that? If it is in the public domain, then the film is a valid derivative
9484 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9485 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9486 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9487 they are free to give away their copyright or not
—a controversial
9488 claim in any case
—unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9491 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9492 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed. In the other,
9493 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9494 power of the opposition
—the power of the side that fought to defend
9495 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9496 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9497 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9499 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9500 boken har handlet om. For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9501 til å reagere. Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9502 med sunn fornuft. Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9508 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9509 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9510 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9511 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9512 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9513 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9514 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9515 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9518 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9519 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9520 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9521 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9522 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9523 what Kevin Kelly calls the "Dark Content" that fills archives around the
9524 world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should ask one
9525 simple question:
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642681"></a>
9527 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9529 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9530 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9531 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>their
</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9532 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9533 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9534 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9535 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9536 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>their
</em></span> permission first.
9538 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9539 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9540 the protection of "property" but the rejection of a tradition. Their aim is
9541 not simply to protect what is theirs.
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Their aim is to assure that
9542 all there is is what is theirs
</em></span>.
9545 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9546 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9547 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9548 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9549 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9551 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642734"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642741"></a><p>
9552 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9553 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom. MPAA
9554 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9555 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9556 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9558 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9559 "property" in intellectual property. Common sense supports it, and so long
9560 as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of the
9561 Internet. The consequence will be an increasing "permission society." The
9562 past can be cultivated only if you can identify the owner and gain
9563 permission to build upon his work. The future will be controlled by this
9564 dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9565 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2642305" href=
"#id2642305" class=
"para">194</a>]
</sup>
9568 Until the
1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9569 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9570 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9571 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the
1908 act, every text
9572 of the Convention has provided that "the enjoyment and the exercise" of
9573 rights guaranteed by the Convention "shall not be subject to any formality."
9574 The prohibition against formalities is presently embodied in Article
5(
2) of
9575 the Paris Text of the Berne Convention. Many countries continue to impose
9576 some form of deposit or registration requirement, albeit not as a condition
9577 of copyright. French law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of
9578 works in national repositories, principally the National Museum. Copies of
9579 books published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
9580 Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
9581 the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
9582 works. Paul Goldstein,
<em class=
"citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
9583 Cases and Materials
</em> (New York: Foundation Press,
2001),
9584 153–54.
</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><p>
9585 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9586 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten
9587 millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9588 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere. Viktigere er det at dette er
9589 17 millioner afrikanere.
9591 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9592 sykdommens utvikling. Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9593 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede. I USA øker
9594 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9595 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9598 Disse medisinene er dyre. Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9599 mellom $
10 000 og $
15 000 pr. person hvert år. I dag koster noen av dem $
25
9600 000 pr. år. Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen afrikansk stat råd
9601 til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere: $
15 000 er tredve
9602 ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er
9603 disse medisinene fullstendig utilgjengelig.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2642829" href=
"#ftn.id2642829" class=
"footnote">195</a>]
</sup>
9607 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9608 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9609 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9610 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser. De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9611 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet. Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9614 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9615 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9616 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9617 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9618 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9619 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9620 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9621 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9622 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9624 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9625 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9626 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9627 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9630 I
1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming. Landet vedtok en lov som
9631 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9632 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren. For eksempel,
9633 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9634 fra India. Dette kalles "parallellimport" og er generelt tillatt i
9635 internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den europeiske
9636 union.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2642906" href=
"#ftn.id2642906" class=
"footnote">196</a>]
</sup>
9638 Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9639 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9640 "Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika
… til å ikke tillate tvungen
9641 lisensiering eller parallellimport"
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2639819" href=
"#ftn.id2639819" class=
"footnote">197</a>]
</sup>
9642 Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant (USTR), ba myndighetene
9643 Sør-Afrika om å endre loven
—og for å legge press bak den
9644 forespørselen, listet USTR i
1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land som burde
9645 vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner. Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9646 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9647 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU. Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9648 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9649 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter
—farmasøytiske
9650 patenter. Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9651 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9652 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9653 Sør-Afrika.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2642972" href=
"#ftn.id2642972" class=
"footnote">198</a>]
</sup>
9655 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng. Det er ingen tvil om at
9656 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9657 til medisiner. Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9658 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9659 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9660 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9661 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9663 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9664 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9665 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9666 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9667 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde
15 til
9670 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9671 medisinselskapene i USA
— i hvert fall ikke betydelig. Det var jo ikke
9672 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9673 som medisinselskapene forlangte. Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9674 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene. Å blokkere for
9675 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9676 selskapene betydelig.
9678 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9679 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9680 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2643066" href=
"#ftn.id2643066" class=
"footnote">199</a>]
</sup> Det var på
9681 grunn av at "intellektuell eiendom" ville bli krenket at disse medisinene
9682 ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om viktigheten av
9683 "intellektuell eiendom" som fikk disse myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere
9684 mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9686 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk. En gang om tredve år vil våre
9687 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje? Hvordan
9688 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få
15
9689 til
30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9690 fordel var å opprettholde "ukrenkeligheten" til en idé? Hva slags
9691 berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i så
9692 mange døde? Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange dør
9693 for slik en abstraksjon?
9695 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene. Det gjør ikke jeg. De er selskaper, og
9696 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene. De presser på for
9697 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9698 som gjør at de tjener mest penger. Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9699 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system
— en
9700 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9702 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet. For
9703 medisinprodusentene ville elske
—sier de selv, og jeg tror dem
—
9704 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9705 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9706 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9710 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9711 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9712 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, "hvordan har det seg at du kan
9713 selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $
1 pr. pille, mens samme pille koster
9714 en amerikansker $
1500?" Da det ikke finnes et "kjapt svar" på det
9715 spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering av priser i Amerika.
9716 Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å sikre at det første
9717 steget ikke tas. De forsterker idéen om at eierrettigheter skal være
9718 ukrenkelige. De legger seg på en rasjonell strategi i en irrasjonell
9719 omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at kanskje millioner dør. Og den
9720 rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved hjel av dette
9721 ideal
—helligheten til en idé som kalles "immaterielle rettigheter".
9723 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si? Når den
9724 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9725 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det? Hva er argumentet?
9727 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9728 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9729 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9730 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9731 kultur perfekt og for alltid. En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9732 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9733 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9734 markedsprisen. En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9735 balansert politikk. For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9736 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9739 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse. Vi har mistet det
9740 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9741 ekstremisme. En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9742 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur
—sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9743 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9744 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte. En enkel idé blender oss, og
9745 under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi
9746 hadde fulgt med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at
9747 vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til
9748 idéer for et folk som dør uten dem. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om
9749 eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen
9750 over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
9751 demokratisk. Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
9752 som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
9753 denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9755 Så langt sover sunn fornuft. Det er intet opprør. Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9756 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot. Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9757 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9758 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene. De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9759 bekjempe "piratvirksomhet" og knuser kreativitetskultur. De forsvarer idéen
9760 om "kreativt eierskap", mens de endrer ekte skapere til moderne
9761 leilendinger. De blir fornærmet av idéen om at rettigheter skulle være
9762 balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne innholdskrigen selv hadde
9763 fordeler av et mer balansert ideal. Hykleriet rår. Men i en by som
9764 Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke til. Mektige lobbyister,
9765 kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn gir en "perfekt storm" for
9768 I august
2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual
9769 Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2643191" href=
"#ftn.id2643191" class=
"footnote">200</a>]
</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
9770 bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere "åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter
9771 for å skape goder for felleskapet". Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å
9772 produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av
9773 proprietære immaterielle rettigheter. Eksempler inkluderer internettet og
9774 verdensveven, begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag av protokoller i
9775 allemannseie. Det hadde med en begynnende trend for å støtte åpne
9776 akademiske tidsskrifter, og inkluderte Public Library of Science-prosjektet
9777 som jeg beskriver i etterordet. Det inkluderte et prosjekt for a utvikle
9778 enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få stor betydning i
9779 biomedisinsk forskning. (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av et konsortium av
9780 Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper, inkludert
9781 Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
9782 Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
9783 Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
9784 frigjorde tidlig på
1980-tallet. Og det inkluderte "åpen kildekode og fri
9785 programvare".
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643369"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643377"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643384"></a>
9787 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9788 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9789 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9790 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9791 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9793 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9794 ideell.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2643408" href=
"#ftn.id2643408" class=
"footnote">201</a>]
</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9795 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak
9796 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9797 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9798 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9801 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
9802 om WIPO. I februar
2003 leverte jeg et hovedinnlegg på en forberedende
9803 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). På en
9804 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om. Jeg
9805 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
9806 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet. Ordstyreren
9807 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
9808 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
9809 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO. I innlegget jeg hadde
9810 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
9811 hele. Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
9812 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg. Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
9813 "informasjonssamfunn" uten at en også snakket om andelen av informasjon og
9814 kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten. Mitt innlegg gjorde ikke min
9815 overivrige moderator veldig glad. Og hun hadde uten tvil rett i at omfanget
9816 til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn under WIPO. Men
9817 etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om hvor mye
9818 immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde selve ideen
9819 om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
9821 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
9822 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde. Og dermed
9823 møtet om "åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape fellesgoder" virker å
9824 passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
9826 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
9827 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er "åpen kildekode og fri
9828 programvare". Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om emnet. Fra
9829 deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen kildekode og fri
9830 programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples operativsystem.
9831 Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med Microsofts
9832 programvare. Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å utforske krav
9833 om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i stedet for
9834 "proprietær programvare," til sine egne interne behov.
9836 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her. Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
9837 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
9838 programvare. Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
9839 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende. IBM har i stadig større
9840 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
9841 biten av "fri programvare"
—og IBM er helt klart en kommersiell
9842 aktør. Dermed er det å støtte "fri programvare" ikke å motsette seg
9843 kommersielle aktører. Det er i stedet å støtte en måte å drive
9844 programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2643250" href=
"#ftn.id2643250" class=
"footnote">202</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643562"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643568"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643574"></a>
9845 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643581"></a>
9848 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte "åpen kildekode og fri
9849 programvare" ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. "Åpen kildekode og fri
9850 programvare" er ikke programvare uten opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på
9851 samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft, insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne
9852 av fri programvare ganske sterkt at vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir
9853 respektert av de som tar i bruk fri programvare. Vilkårene i den lisensen
9854 er uten tvil forskjellig fra vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens.
9855 For eksempel krever fri programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige
9856 lisensen (GPL), at kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle
9857 som endrer og videredistribuerer programvaren. Men dette kravet er kun
9858 effektivt hvis opphavsrett råder over programvare. Hvis opphavsretten ikke
9859 råder over programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på
9860 de som tar i bruk programvaren. Den er dermed like avhengig av
9861 opphavsrettsloven som Microsoft.
9863 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
9864 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
9865 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet. Og
9866 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd. I
9867 følge Jonathan Krim i
<em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>, lyktes
9868 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
9869 slikt møte.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2643644" href=
"#ftn.id2643644" class=
"footnote">203</a>]
</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
9870 møtet avlyst.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643659"></a>
9872 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
9873 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
9874 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
9875 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
9876 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
9878 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
9879 møtet. Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
9880 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
9881 "programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er å
9882 fremme immaterielle rettigheter.". Hun skal i følge sitatet ha sagt, "Å
9883 holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller frafalle slike
9884 rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til WIPO."
9886 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
9888 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige. Som jeg beskrev, er det
9889 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
9890 immaterielle retten kalt "opphavsrett". Uten den vil begrensningene
9891 definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si at de "går
9892 imot" formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter å avsløre en
9893 ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse
—den type feil som er tilgivelig hos
9894 en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert statstjenestemann
9895 som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
9897 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
9898 "fremme" immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt? Som jeg fikk kjeft om på den
9899 forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke bare hvordan best
9900 beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den beste balansen
9901 rundt immaterielle rettigheter. Som enhver økonom og advokat vet, er det
9902 vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den balansen.
9903 Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt. Man ønsker å
9904 spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på medisiner med
9905 patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag? Svekker allemannseie
9906 immaterielle rettigheter? Ville det vært bedre om internettets protokoller
9907 hadde vært patentert?
9909 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
9910 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
9911 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper. De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
9912 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>de
</em></span> som eier
9913 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å "frafalle" eller "frasi" seg sine
9914 rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår tradisjon. Når Bill Gates gir
9915 bort mer enn $
20 milliarder til gode formål, så er ikke det uforenelig med
9916 målene til eiendomssystemet. Det er heller tvert i mot, akkurat hva
9917 eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har retten til å bestemme
9918 hva de vil gjøre med
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>sin
</em></span> eiendom.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643788"></a>
9921 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte "som har som sitt formål
9922 å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter", så sier hun at WIPO har en
9923 interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier immaterielle
9924 rettigheter. At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å stoppe individer
9925 fra å "fraskrive" eller "frafalle" seg sine immaterielle rettigheter. At
9926 interessen til WIPO ikke bare er maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men
9927 også at de skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
9929 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
9930 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon. Det kalles "føydalisme". Under føydalismen var
9931 eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall individer og
9932 aktører. Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å sikre at
9933 landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene og
9934 eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet. Føydalismen var
9935 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon. Det sloss mot enhver frihet
9936 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
9937 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643829"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643835"></a><p>
9938 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
9939 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2643848" href=
"#ftn.id2643848" class=
"footnote">204</a>]
</sup>
9940 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn. Så mye er sikkert. Vårt eneste
9941 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
9942 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>fritt
</em></span> eller
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>føydalt
</em></span>. Trenden er
9945 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette. En heftig debatt brøt ut i
9946 kommentarfeltet. Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
9947 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening. Men det var spesielt en
9948 kommentar som gjorde meg trist. En anonym kommentator skrev,
9949 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9951 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
9952 ("målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
9953 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
9954 immaterielle rettigheter"), ikke som den er. Hvis vi snakket om verden slik
9955 den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt. Men i verden slik
9956 Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe galt. En
9957 må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår verden.
9958 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9959 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
9960 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
9961 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
9962 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
9963 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
9964 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
9965 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
9966 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
9968 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen. I
9969 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
9970 skulle "målet" til myndighetene være "å fremme den riktige balanse" for
9971 immaterielle rettigheter. Det var åpenbart tåpelig for ham. Og det
9972 avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige utopisme. "Typisk for en
9973 akademiker", kunne forfatteren like gjerne ha fortsatt.
9975 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme. Jeg mener også at utopisme er
9976 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
9977 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
9978 eget lands historie).
9980 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
9981 "oppnå balanse", da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det betyr at dette
9982 faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst. Hvis det bør være åpenbart for alle at
9983 myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske enkelt et
9984 verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at ideen om å forvente bedre av
9985 myndighetene er absurd, at ideen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant og
9986 ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden,
9990 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
9991 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
9992 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
9993 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
9994 mesteparten av vår historie
—fri kultur.
9995 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643973"></a><p>
9996 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. Det finnes
9997 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
9998 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
9999 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10000 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10001 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10002 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10003 endringen i FCC-reglene. Så mange som
700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10004 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2643994"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644000"></a>
10006 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10007 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10008 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt. Det var
10009 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10010 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10012 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet. Å
10013 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10014 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10015 aktører. Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10016 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10018 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10019 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10020 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10021 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10022 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10023 rettigheter
—eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form
—som
10024 gjør størrelsen ille.
10026 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10027 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10028 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10029 historie med å slåss mot "stort", klokt eller ikke. At vi kan være motivert
10030 til å slåss mot "store" igjen ikke noe nytt.
10032 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10033 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10034 "intellektuell eiendom". Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10035 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon. Men fordi
10036 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles "eiendom" ikke er
10037 lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10039 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10041 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644093"></a><p>
10042 Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
10043 at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2644105" href=
"#ftn.id2644105" class=
"footnote">205</a>]
</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
10044 musikk.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2644151" href=
"#ftn.id2644151" class=
"footnote">206</a>]
</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
10045 har "stjålet" fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
10046 over.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2644169" href=
"#ftn.id2644169" class=
"footnote">207</a>]
</sup> En på innsiden i
10047 Hollywood
—som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym
—rapporterer
10048 "en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene. De har fantastisk [gammelt]
10049 innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn av at de
10050 først må klarere rettighetene. De har hauger med ungdommer som kunne gjøre
10051 fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først kreve hauger med advokater
10052 for å klarere det først". Kongressrepresentanter snakker om å gi datavirus
10053 politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven.
10054 Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å
10056 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644186"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644210"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644216"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644222"></a><p>
10058 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10059 bygge opp et "kreativt arkiv" som britiske borgere kan laste ned BBC-innhold
10060 fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2644239" href=
"#ftn.id2644239" class=
"footnote">208</a>]
</sup>
10061 Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i seg selv en folkehelt i
10062 brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative Commons for å gi ut
10063 innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske landet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2644260" href=
"#ftn.id2644260" class=
"footnote">209</a>]
</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten er
10064 mer blandet. En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet. Sakte begynner noen å
10065 forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki. Vi kan få med oss fri
10066 kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister taper og uten at
10067 potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust. Det vil kreve omtanke, og
10068 viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omforme RCAene av i dag til Causbyere.
10071 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10072 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10076 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2642829" href=
"#id2642829" class=
"para">195</a>]
</sup>
10078 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, "Final Report: Integrating
10079 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" (London,
2002),
10080 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
10081 #
55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10082 9. juli
2002, mottar kun
320 000 av de
6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10083 utviklingsland dem de trenger
—og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10084 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2642906" href=
"#id2642906" class=
"para">196</a>]
</sup>
10086 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
<em class=
"citetitle">Who
10087 Owns the Knowledge Economy?
</em> (New York: The New Press,
2003),
10088 37.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642915"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642924"></a>
10089 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2639819" href=
"#id2639819" class=
"para">197</a>]
</sup>
10092 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI),
<em class=
"citetitle">Patent
10093 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10094 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization
</em>
10095 (Washington, D.C.,
2000),
14, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
56</a>. For a firsthand
10096 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10097 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10098 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep.,
1st sess., Ser. No.
106-
126 (
22
10099 July
1999),
150–57 (statement of James Love).
10100 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2642972" href=
"#id2642972" class=
"para">198</a>]
</sup>
10103 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI),
<em class=
"citetitle">Patent
10104 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10105 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10106 Organization
</em> (Washington, D.C.,
2000),
15.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2643066" href=
"#id2643066" class=
"para">199</a>]
</sup>
10110 See Sabin Russell, "New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's Needs at
10111 Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,"
<em class=
"citetitle">San Francisco
10112 Chronicle
</em>,
24 May
1999, A1, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
57</a> ("compulsory licenses
10113 and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual property
10114 protection"); Robert Weissman, "AIDS and Developing Countries: Democratizing
10115 Access to Essential Medicines,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Foreign Policy in
10116 Focus
</em> 4:
23 (August
1999), available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
58</a> (describing
10117 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, "TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and the
10118 HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual Property
10119 Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Widener Law Symposium
10120 Journal
</em> (Spring
2001):
175.
10122 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2643191" href=
"#id2643191" class=
"para">200</a>]
</sup>
10124 Jonathan Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Washington
10125 Post
</em>, august
2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
59</a>; William New, "Global
10126 Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir,"
<em class=
"citetitle">National
10127 Journal's Technology Daily
</em>,
19. august
2003, tilgjengelig fra
10128 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
60</a>; William New,
10129 "U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO,"
<em class=
"citetitle">National
10130 Journal's Technology Daily
</em>,
19. august
2003, tilgjengelig fra
10131 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
61</a>.
10132 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2643408" href=
"#id2643408" class=
"para">201</a>]
</sup>
10134 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10135 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2643250" href=
"#id2643250" class=
"para">202</a>]
</sup>
10138 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10139 sofistikert. De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10140 programvare som er "åpen kildekode" eller programvare som er allemannseie.
10141 Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot "fri programvare" lisensiert med en
10142 "copyleft"-lisens, som betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal
10143 adoptere same vilkår for ethvert avledet verk. Se Bradford L. Smith, "The
10144 Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace to Decide,"
10145 <em class=
"citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source Software
</em>
10146 (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies,
10147 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
2002),
69,
10148 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
10149 #
62</a>. Se også Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior vice president,
10150 <em class=
"citetitle">The Commercial Software Model
</em>, diskusjon ved New York
10151 University Stern School of Business (
3. mai
2001), tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
63</a>.
10152 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2643644" href=
"#id2643644" class=
"para">203</a>]
</sup>
10155 Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
64</a>.
10156 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2643848" href=
"#id2643848" class=
"para">204</a>]
</sup>
10158 Se Drahos with Braithwaite,
<em class=
"citetitle">Information Feudalism
</em>,
10159 210–20.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2642966"></a>
10160 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2644105" href=
"#id2644105" class=
"para">205</a>]
</sup>
10163 John Borland, "RIAA Sues
261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, september
2003,
10164 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
10165 #
65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," CNN/Money,
8
10166 september
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis
10167 Furman sammen med Robert Gearty, "Sued for a Song, N.Y.C.
12-Yr-Old Among
10168 261 Cited as Sharers,"
<em class=
"citetitle">New York Daily News
</em>,
10169 9. september
2003,
3; Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets;
10170 Single Mother in Calif.,
12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,"
10171 <em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>,
10. september
2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10172 "Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Wired News
</em>,
10173 10. september
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
67</a>.
10174 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2644151" href=
"#id2644151" class=
"para">206</a>]
</sup>
10177 Jon Wiederhorn, "Eminem Gets Sued
… by a Little Old Lady," mtv.com,
10178 17. september
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
68</a>.
10179 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2644169" href=
"#id2644169" class=
"para">207</a>]
</sup>
10183 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, "Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for Dylan
10184 Songs," Kansascity.com,
9. juli
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
69</a>.
10186 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2644239" href=
"#id2644239" class=
"para">208</a>]
</sup>
10188 "BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public," pressemelding fra BBC,
10189 24. august
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
70</a>.
10190 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2644260" href=
"#id2644260" class=
"para">209</a>]
</sup>
10193 "Creative Commons and Brazil," Creative Commons Weblog,
6. august
2003,
10194 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
10196 </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>
10200 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10201 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder. Balansen i denne boken
10202 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10204 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10205 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne. Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10206 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10207 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10209 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene. Det må rekrutteres et
10210 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10211 musikere, filmskapere, forskere
—som alle må fortelle denne historien
10212 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10215 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10216 at det kan ha effekt i Washington. Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10217 mener betyr noe. Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10218 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe. Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10219 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10221 </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>
10222 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10223 been framed at the extremes
—as a grand either/or: either property or
10224 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10225 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10227 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10228 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10229 believe in maximal copyright
—"All Rights Reserved"
— and those
10230 who reject copyright
—"No Rights Reserved." The "All Rights Reserved"
10231 sorts believe that you should ask permission before you "use" a copyrighted
10232 work in any way. The "No Rights Reserved" sorts believe you should be able
10233 to do with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or
10237 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10238 tilted in the "no rights reserved" direction. Content could be copied
10239 perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10240 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10241 original design of the Internet was "no rights reserved." Content was
10242 "taken" regardless of the rights. Any rights were effectively unprotected.
10244 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10245 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10246 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10247 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10248 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10249 default "no rights reserved," the future architecture will make the
10250 effective default "all rights reserved." The architecture and law that
10251 surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an environment
10252 where all use of content requires permission. The "cut and paste" world
10253 that defines the Internet today will become a "get permission to cut and
10254 paste" world that is a creator's nightmare.
10256 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle
—neither "all
10257 rights reserved" nor "no rights reserved" but "some rights reserved"
—
10258 and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable creators to free content as
10259 they see fit. In other words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms
10260 that we could just take for granted before.
10261 </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>
10262 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10263 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10264 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10265 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10266 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10267 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The "privacy" of
10268 your browsing habits was assured.
10270 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10272 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#property-i" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
>10</a>, your privacy was
10273 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10274 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10275 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10276 privacy would not be assured. But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10277 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10278 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10279 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10280 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10281 (there is no law protecting "privacy" in public places), and in many places,
10282 not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead, by the costs
10283 that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10284 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644477"></a><p>
10285 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10286 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10287 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10288 because at the side of the page, there's a list of "recently viewed"
10289 pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the function of
10290 cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than not. The friction
10291 has disappeared, and hence any "privacy" protected by the friction
10292 disappears, too.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644494"></a>
10294 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10295 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10296 should have the "right" to browse in a library without the government
10297 knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too), then this
10298 change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it becomes
10299 simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then the
10300 friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10303 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define "privacy" on the
10304 Internet. It is the recognition that technology can remove what friction
10305 before gave us that leads many to push for laws to do what friction
10306 did.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2644521" href=
"#ftn.id2644521" class=
"footnote">210</a>]
</sup> And whether you're in favor of
10307 those laws or not, it is the pattern that is important here. We must take
10308 affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom that was passively provided
10309 before. A change in technology now forces those who believe in privacy to
10310 affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given by default.
10312 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10313 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10314 commercially, the software
—both the source code and the
10315 binaries
— was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10316 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10317 about controlling their software.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644559"></a>
10318 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644570"></a><p>
10319 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10320 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10321 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10322 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10323 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10325 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10326 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10327 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10328 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10329 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10330 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10331 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10332 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10335 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10336 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10337 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10338 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10339 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10340 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10341 market than it was for you.
10344 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10345 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code. The world of
10346 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10347 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10348 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10350 Derfor, i
1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10351 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10352 overleve. Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som "Linux"-kjernen til
10353 Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å produsere
10354 GNU/Linux-operativsystemet.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644640"></a>
10355 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644646"></a>
10357 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10358 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10359 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10360 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10361 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10362 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10363 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10364 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10366 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10367 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10368 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10369 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10370 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10371 passively guaranteed.
10373 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10374 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10375 journals are produced.
10376 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10378 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10379 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10380 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10381 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10382 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10383 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10384 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10385 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10386 service. Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10387 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10388 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10389 opinion through their respective services.
10391 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10392 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10393 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge. The law has
10394 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10395 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10396 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10399 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10400 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10401 data except by paying for a subscription?
10403 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10404 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10405 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10406 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10407 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10408 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10409 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10410 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10411 (architecture)
—namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10414 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10415 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10416 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10417 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10418 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10420 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10421 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10422 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10423 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10424 that work to the Public Library of Science. That work is then subject to
10425 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10426 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10427 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10428 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644783"></a>
10430 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10431 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets. There's no
10432 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10433 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10434 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good
—especially when
10435 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10436 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644793"></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>
10437 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10438 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10440 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10441 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10442 aim is to build a layer of
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>reasonable
</em></span> copyright on top
10443 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10444 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10445 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10446 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10450 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Simple
</em></span>—which means without a middleman, or
10451 without a lawyer. By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10452 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10453 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10454 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10455 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10456 together
—a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10457 machine-readable tags
—constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10458 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10459 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10460 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10461 the "All" or "No" extremes. Content is marked with the CC mark, which does
10462 not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain freedoms are given.
10464 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10465 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10466 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10467 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use. She can choose a
10468 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10469 uses ("share and share alike"). Or any use so long as no derivative use is
10470 made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any sampling use, so
10471 long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any educational use.
10473 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10474 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10475 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10476 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10477 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10478 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10479 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10480 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10482 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And of
10483 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10484 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10485 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10486 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10487 movement of consumers and producers of content ("content conducers," as
10488 attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the public domain and, by
10489 their work, demonstrate the importance of the public domain to other
10490 creativity.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644919"></a>
10492 The aim is not to fight the "All Rights Reserved" sorts. The aim is to
10493 complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture are
10494 produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written centuries
10495 ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have imagined. The
10496 rules may well have made sense against a background of technologies from
10497 centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the background of digital
10498 technologies. New rules
—with different freedoms, expressed in ways so
10499 that humans without lawyers can use them
—are needed. Creative Commons
10500 gives people a way effectively to begin to build those rules.
10502 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10503 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10504 fiction author. His first novel,
<em class=
"citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10505 Kingdom
</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10506 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10508 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10509 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (
1) those who will buy
10510 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (
2) those who may never
10511 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10512 Internet. Some part of (
1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10513 it. Call them bad-(
1)s. Some part of (
2) will download Cory's book, like
10514 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (
2)-goods. If there are more
10515 (
2)-goods than bad-(
1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10516 will probably
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>increase
</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10518 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10519 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10520 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10522 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10523 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10524 book about the free software movement titled
<em class=
"citetitle">Free for
10525 All
</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10526 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10527 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10528 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10529 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644992"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2645000"></a>
10530 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2645007"></a><p>
10531 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10532 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10533 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10534 the "sampling license" do so because anything else would be
10535 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10536 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10537 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10538 others. This is consistent with their own art
—they, too, sample from
10539 others. Because the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>legal
</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10540 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10541 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not "allow" Public
10542 Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so high
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2645022" href=
"#ftn.id2645022" class=
"footnote">211</a>]
</sup>), these artists release into the creative
10543 environment content that others can build upon, so that their form of
10544 creativity might grow.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2645054"></a>
10546 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10547 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10548 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10549 are effectively saying you believe in the "All Rights Reserved" model. Good
10550 for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate that rule is
10551 for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description of how most
10552 creators view the rights associated with their content. The Creative Commons
10553 license expresses this notion of "Some Rights Reserved," and gives many the
10554 chance to say it to others.
10557 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over
1 million
10558 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10559 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10560 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10561 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10562 build content based upon content set free.
10564 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10565 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10566 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10567 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10568 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10571 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10572 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10573 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10574 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10575 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10576 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10577 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2645108"></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>
10578 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10579 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10580 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms. But
10581 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10584 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10585 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10586 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10588 </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>
10589 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10590 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed. If
10591 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10592 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10596 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10597 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10599 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10600 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10601 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10602 and "formalities" are banished.
10606 As I suggested in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#property-i" title='Kapittel
10. Kapittel ti:
"Eiendom"'
>10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10607 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10608 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10609 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10610 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10612 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10613 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10614 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10615 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10616 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace
— there is no
10617 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10618 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10619 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>lack
</em></span>
10620 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10622 The law should therefore change this requirement
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2645213" href=
"#ftn.id2645213" class=
"footnote">212</a>]
</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10623 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10624 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10626 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10627 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10628 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10629 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10630 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10631 approving standards developed by others.
10632 </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>
10633 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10634 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10635 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10636 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10637 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee. And as
10638 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10639 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10640 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10641 first reaction is panic
—nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10642 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10644 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10645 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10646 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed. Just because
10647 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10648 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10649 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10650 that the government sets.
10652 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet. There
10653 are at least
32 million Web sites registered around the world. Domain name
10654 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10655 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10656 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10657 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10658 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10661 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10662 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10663 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10664 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10665 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10666 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10667 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10668 of this formality
—while producing a database of registrations that
10669 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10670 </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>
10671 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10672 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10673 failing to comply with a regulatory rule
—akin to imposing the death
10674 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights. Here again,
10675 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10676 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10677 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10679 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10680 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10681 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10683 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10684 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10685 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10686 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10687 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10688 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10689 failure to mark
—not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10690 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10693 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10694 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10695 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10696 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10697 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10698 permission.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2645354" href=
"#ftn.id2645354" class=
"footnote">213</a>]
</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10699 work would therefore be "use unless someone complains." If someone does
10700 complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work in any new
10701 work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing uses. This
10702 would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark their work.
10704 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10705 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10706 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10707 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10710 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10711 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10712 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10713 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10714 and it would base that choice
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>solely
</em></span> upon the
10715 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10716 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10717 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10718 its other important functions.
10720 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10721 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10722 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10723 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10724 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10727 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10728 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10731 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10732 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed. It
10733 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10734 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10735 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10736 the appropriate time.
10737 </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>
10738 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10739 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10740 for individuelle forfattere.
10742 In
<em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em>, I proposed a
10743 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10744 of renewal every five years. That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10745 after we lost
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
10746 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>, the proposals became even more
10747 radical.
<em class=
"citetitle">The Economist
</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10748 fourteen-year copyright term.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2645462" href=
"#ftn.id2645462" class=
"footnote">214</a>]
</sup> Others
10749 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10751 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10752 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10753 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10754 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"1"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10757 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Keep it short:
</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10758 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10759 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10760 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10761 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10762 when it no longer benefits an author.
10763 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10767 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:
</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
10768 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart. Advokater
10769 liker uklarheten som "rimelig bruk" og forskjellen mellom "idéer" og
10770 "uttrykk" har. Denne type lovverk gir dem en masse arbeid. Men de som
10771 skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé: vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av
10772 korte vernetider er at det er lite behov for å bygge inn unntak i
10773 opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort. En klar og aktiv "advokat-fri
10774 sone" gjør komplesiteten av "rimelig bruk" og "idé/uttrykk" mindre nødvendig
10777 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10779 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:
</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10780 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10781 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10782 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10783 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10784 for a veteran to apply for a pension.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2645549" href=
"#ftn.id2645549" class=
"footnote">215</a>]
</sup>
10785 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
10786 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
10787 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2645569"></a>
10788 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10791 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:
</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
10792 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
10793 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in
1923 for the
10794 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
10795 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
10796 authors to create in
1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
10797 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
10798 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in
1923. Of course, we can
10799 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
10800 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
10801 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in
1923. What's
10802 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.
</p></li></ol></div><p>
10803 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig
</em></span>
10804 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
10805 Frem til
1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun
32.2 år. Vårt mål bør være
10808 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene "radikale". (Tross alt, så
10809 kaller jeg dem "ekstremister".) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var
10810 lengre enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor "radikalt" kan det være å be
10811 om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var president?
10812 </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>
10813 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
10814 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
10815 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
10816 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge. It made no sense
10817 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
10820 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors "exclusive right"
10821 to "their writings." Congress has given authors an exclusive right to "their
10822 writings" plus any derivative writings (made by others) that are
10823 sufficiently close to the author's original work. Thus, if I write a book,
10824 and you base a movie on that book, I have the power to deny you the right to
10825 release that movie, even though that movie is not "my writing."
10827 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in
1870, when it expanded the
10828 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
10829 dramatizations of a work.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2645664" href=
"#ftn.id2645664" class=
"footnote">216</a>]
</sup> The courts
10830 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
10831 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
10832 Benjamin Kaplan.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2645678"></a>
10833 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
10834 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
10835 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
10836 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
10837 abracadabra of idea and expression.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2645694" href=
"#ftn.id2645694" class=
"footnote">217</a>]
</sup>
10838 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10839 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
10840 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
10841 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
10842 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant. Consider
10843 each limitation in turn.
10845 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Term:
</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
10846 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
10847 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
10848 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
10849 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
10850 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
10851 after the creative work is done.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2645724"></a>
10853 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Scope:
</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
10854 be narrowed. Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
10855 important. Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
10856 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
10857 "reuse" of creative material was within the control of businesses, perhaps
10858 it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the lines. It no longer makes
10859 sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think about all the creative
10860 possibilities that digital technologies enable; now imagine pouring molasses
10861 into the machines. That's what this general requirement of permission does
10862 to the creative process. Smothers it.
10864 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
10865 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
10866 derivative rights
—turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
10867 musical score
—it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
10868 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
10870 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
10871 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected. This is the
10872 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2645767" href=
"#ftn.id2645767" class=
"footnote">218</a>]
</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
10873 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
10875 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
10876 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
10877 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
10878 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
10879 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
10882 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
10883 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
10884 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
10885 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
10886 would earn artists more income.
10887 </p></div><div class=
"section" title=
"16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h3 class=
"title"><a name=
"liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4.
4. Frigjør musikken
—igjen
</h3></div></div></div><p>
10888 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
10889 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
10890 most pressing
—music. There is no other policy issue that better
10891 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
10894 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
10895 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
10896 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app
—possibly in
10897 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
10898 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
10899 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
10901 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
10902 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
10903 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
10904 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
10905 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
10907 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
10908 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
10909 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#piracy" title='Kapittel
5. Kapittel fem:
"Piratvirksomhet"'
>5</a>, they enable four
10910 different kinds of sharing:
10911 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"A"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10914 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
10915 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10918 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
10920 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10925 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
10926 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
10927 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
10928 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10931 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
10932 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
10933 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
10934 </p></li></ol></div><p>
10935 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
10936 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
10937 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
10938 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
10939 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
10942 As I said in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#piracy" title='Kapittel
5. Kapittel fem:
"Piratvirksomhet"'
>5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For
10943 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
10944 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
10945 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
10947 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
10948 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
10950 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
10951 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
10952 content. It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
10953 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
10954 slow
—we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
10955 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
10956 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
10957 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
10958 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
10961 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
10962 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
10963 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
10964 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
10965 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
10966 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
10967 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
10968 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are
—except maybe the
10969 desert or the Rockies
—you can instantaneously be connected to the
10970 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
10971 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
10973 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
10974 you access to content on the fly
—such as Internet radio, content that
10975 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
10976 point: When it is
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>extremely
</em></span> easy to connect to services
10977 that give access to content, it will be
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>easier
</em></span> to
10978 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
10979 download and store content
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
10980 playing content
</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
10981 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
10982 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
10983 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
10984 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
10985 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
10986 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though "free"
10987 content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2646012" href=
"#ftn.id2646012" class=
"footnote">219</a>]
</sup>
10991 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
10992 present: It is emphatically temporary. The "problem" with file
10993 sharing
—to the extent there is a real problem
—is a problem that
10994 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
10995 Internet. And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
10996 to be "solving" this problem in light of a technology that will be gone
10997 tomorrow. The question should not be how to regulate the Internet to
10998 eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The question
10999 instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11000 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11001 twenty-first-century technologies.
11003 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different "problems" here
11004 to solve. Let's start with type D content
—uncopyrighted content or
11005 copyrighted content that the artist wants shared. The "problem" with this
11006 content is to make sure that the technology that would enable this kind of
11007 sharing is not rendered illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones
11008 are used to deliver ransom demands, no doubt. But there are many who need
11009 to use pay phones who have nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to
11010 ban pay phones in order to eliminate kidnapping.
11012 Type C content raises a different "problem." This is content that was, at
11013 one time, published and is no longer available. It may be unavailable
11014 because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record label he
11015 signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the work is
11016 forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate the access
11017 to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the artist.
11019 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11020 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11021 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11022 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11023 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11024 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this "sharing" of
11025 his content without his being compensated is less than ideal.
11027 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11028 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11029 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11030 be free, under this rule, to "share" that content, even though the sharing
11031 involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the trade; in a
11032 context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music should be as
11033 free as trading books.
11038 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11039 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11040 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11041 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11042 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11043 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11044 artists would benefit from this trade.
11046 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11047 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11048 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11049 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11050 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11051 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11052 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11055 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11056 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11057 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11058 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11059 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11062 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11063 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11066 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11067 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet) has harmed a
11068 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11069 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11070 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11071 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11072 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11077 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11078 asbest. Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11079 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11080 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11081 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11083 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11084 Harvard law professor William Fisher.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2646179" href=
"#ftn.id2646179" class=
"footnote">220</a>]
</sup>
11085 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11086 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11087 (
1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11088 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11089 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (
2) systems to
11090 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11091 those numbers, then (
3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11092 be paid for by (
4) an appropriate tax.
11094 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11095 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11096 <em class=
"citetitle">Promises to Keep
</em>. The modification that I would make
11097 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11098 copyright system. I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11099 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11100 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11101 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11102 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11103 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11104 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11105 old system of controlling access.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2646346"></a>
11108 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11109 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11110 supports the widest range of "semiotic democracy" possible. But the aims of
11111 semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I described were
11112 accomplished
—in particular, the limits on derivative uses. A system
11113 that simply charges for access would not greatly burden semiotic democracy
11114 if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to do with the content
11116 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2646358"></a><p>
11117 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of "harm" to
11118 an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation would be
11119 outweighed by the benefit of facilitating innovation. This background system
11120 to compensate would also not need to interfere with innovative proposals
11121 such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts predicted when Apple launched the
11122 MusicStore, it could beat "free" by being easier than free is. This has
11123 proven correct: Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price
11124 of
99 cents a song. (At
99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song
11125 CD price, though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's
11126 move was countered by Real Networks, offering music at just
79 cents a
11127 song. And no doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and
11128 sell music on-line.
11130 This competition has already occurred against the background of "free" music
11131 from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable television have known for thirty
11132 years, and the sellers of bottled water for much more than that, there is
11133 nothing impossible at all about "competing with free." Indeed, if anything,
11134 the competition spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This
11135 is precisely what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore,
11136 though piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious
—with
11137 "first class" seats, and meals served while you watch a movie
—as they
11138 struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with "free."
11140 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11141 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11142 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling. Det ville
11143 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører
—som ville ha
11144 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11145 strenge straffer fra loven.
11147 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11152 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11153 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11154 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11155 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11157 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11158 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"1"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11161 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11162 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11165 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11166 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11167 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11170 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11171 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11172 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11173 Men hva om "piratvirksomheten" ikke forsvinner? Hva om det finnes et
11174 konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad, men et
11175 signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å "ta" innhold uten å betale?
11176 Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11178 Ja, det bør den. Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11179 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11180 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11181 abstrakt betydning. Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11182 markedet. Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er
95 prosent sikker og
11183 gir et marked av størrelse
<em class=
"citetitle">x
</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11184 teknologi som er
50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11185 større enn
<em class=
"citetitle">x
</em>? Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11186 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11187 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11188 ødelegge internettet. Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11189 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11192 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11193 type-A-delere. Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11194 ødelegge internettet. Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11195 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11196 som internettet er.
11197 </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>
11198 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11199 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11200 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11201 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11203 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11204 advokater har spilt i denne debatten. Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11205 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten. Og i
11206 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11207 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11208 synet ødelegge loven.
11210 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene. Jeg er angrepet som en
11211 "radikal" av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg argumenterer
11212 for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og betydningsfulle
11213 personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde for eksempel at
11214 vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens vernetid var
11215 galskap. Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende foreleser og
11216 utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11217 åpenbar.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2646588" href=
"#ftn.id2646588" class=
"footnote">221</a>]
</sup>
11220 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11221 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11222 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11224 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter. Men
11225 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11226 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11227 lav.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2646621" href=
"#ftn.id2646621" class=
"footnote">222</a>]
</sup> De ser et system som har
11228 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11229 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11233 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11234 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser. Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11235 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11236 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11237 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11238 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11240 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis. En advokats tid
11241 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $
400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11242 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11243 rettskilder. Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11244 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11245 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid. Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11246 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11248 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11249 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11250 endre hvordan loven praktiseres
— eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11251 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11252 1-prosenten av klientene. Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11253 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11255 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11256 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade. Og det er nettopp det loven
11257 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11259 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11260 teknologi
—filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11261 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11262 teknologi
—en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11263 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11264 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11265 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11268 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen
—men det bør regulere
11269 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11270 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11271 spørsmålet: "vil det bidra positivt?". Når de blir utfordret om det
11272 utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, "Hvorfor ikke?"
11274 Vi burde spørre: "Hvorfor?". Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av kultur er
11275 nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt. Før du kan vise
11276 meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11277 </p></div></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2644521" href=
"#id2644521" class=
"para">210</a>]
</sup>
11281 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, "Fair Information Practices and the
11282 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),"
<em class=
"citetitle">Stanford
11283 Technology Law Review
</em> 1 (
2001): par.
6–18, available at
11284 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
72</a> (describing
11285 examples in which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey
11286 Rosen,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an
11287 Anxious Age
</em> (New York: Random House,
2004) (mapping tradeoffs
11288 between technology and privacy).
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2645022" href=
"#id2645022" class=
"para">211</a>]
</sup>
11291 <em class=
"citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11292 Culture Wars
</em> (
2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11293 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
72</a>.
11294 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2645213" href=
"#id2645213" class=
"para">212</a>]
</sup>
11297 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11298 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11299 by other countries as well.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2645354" href=
"#id2645354" class=
"para">213</a>]
</sup>
11302 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11303 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11304 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11305 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2645462" href=
"#id2645462" class=
"para">214</a>]
</sup>
11309 "A Radical Rethink,"
<em class=
"citetitle">Economist
</em>,
366:
8308 (
25. januar
11310 2003):
15, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
11312 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2645549" href=
"#id2645549" class=
"para">215</a>]
</sup>
11315 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11316 and/or Pension, VA Form
21-
526 (OMB Approved No.
2900-
0001), tilgjengelig
11317 fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
75</a>.
11318 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2645664" href=
"#id2645664" class=
"para">216</a>]
</sup>
11321 Benjamin Kaplan,
<em class=
"citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright
</em> (New
11322 York: Columbia University Press,
1967),
32.
11323 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2645694" href=
"#id2645694" class=
"para">217</a>]
</sup>
11326 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2645767" href=
"#id2645767" class=
"para">218</a>]
</sup>
11328 Paul Goldstein,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11329 Celestial Jukebox
</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2003),
11330 187–216.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2644532"></a>
11331 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2646012" href=
"#id2646012" class=
"para">219</a>]
</sup>
11334 For eksempel, se, "Music Media Watch," The J@pan Inc. Newsletter,
3 April
11335 2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
11337 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2646179" href=
"#id2646179" class=
"para">220</a>]
</sup>
11339 William Fisher,
<em class=
"citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
11340 Possibilities
</em> (sist revidert:
10. oktober
2000), tilgjengelig
11341 fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
77</a>; William
11342 Fisher,
<em class=
"citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of
11343 Entertainment
</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
11344 2004), kap.
6, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11345 foreslått en relatert ide som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11346 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11347 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, "Impose a
11348 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing," tilgjengelig fra
11349 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
79</a>. For andre
11350 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, "Who's Holding Back Broadband?"
11351 <em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>,
8. january
2002, A17; Philip
11352 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11353 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
26. februar.
2002,
11354 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
11355 #
80</a>; Serguei Osokine,
<em class=
"citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11356 Property Use Fee (IPUF)
</em>,
3. mars
2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
11357 "Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly,"
<em class=
"citetitle">USA
11358 Today
</em>,
13. mai
2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11359 "Getting Copyright Right," IEEE Spectrum Online,
1. juli
2002, tilgjengelig
11360 fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
83</a>; Declan
11361 McCullagh, "Verizon's Copyright Campaign," CNET News.com,
27. august
2002,
11362 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
11363 #
84</a>. Forslaget fra Fisher er ganske likt forslaget til Richard
11364 Stallman når det gjelder DAT. I motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville
11365 Stallmanns forslag ikke betale kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære
11366 artister ville få mer betalt enn mindre populære. Slik det er typisk med
11367 Stallman, la han fram sitt forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se
11368 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
85</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2646294"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2646303"></a>
11369 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2646309"></a>
11370 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2646588" href=
"#id2646588" class=
"para">221</a>]
</sup>
11373 Lawrence Lessig, "Copyright's First Amendment" (Melville B. Nimmer Memorial
11374 Lecture),
<em class=
"citetitle">UCLA law Review
</em> 48 (
2001):
1057,
11376 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2646621" href=
"#id2646621" class=
"para">222</a>]
</sup>
11378 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11379 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11380 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon
—to ganger. I starten
11381 predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade. Han
11382 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11383 på nytt. Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz,
<em class=
"citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11384 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace
</em> (New
11385 York: Amacom,
2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11386 med Stan J. Liebowitz, "Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?"
11387 artikkelutkast, juni
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
86</a>. Den nøye analysen til
11388 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11389 fildelingsteknologi. Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11390 til det juridiske system. Se, for eksempel,
11391 <em class=
"citetitle">Rethinking
</em>,
174–76.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2646599"></a>
11392 </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>
11393 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven. Og som alle
11394 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11395 ustabile. Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11396 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11397 boken. For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11398 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet. Hvis
11399 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11400 lenken. Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11401 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11402 </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>
11403 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11404 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11405 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11406 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11408 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11409 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11410 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11411 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11412 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11413 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11414 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11415 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11416 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11417 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11420 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11421 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11422 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11423 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11424 Yonezawa. Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11425 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11426 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11429 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11430 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11431 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt. Blant de som har svart med
11432 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11433 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11434 som hadde spesifikke ideer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på. De
11435 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11436 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11437 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11438 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11439 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D. Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11440 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11441 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams, "Wink,"
11442 Roger Wood, "Ximmbo da Jazz," og Richard Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk
11443 glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet
11444 mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med flotte svar.)
11446 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11447 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11448 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11449 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil. Selv om mitt arbeid er
11450 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11453 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11454 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11455 hatt rett. Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11456 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11457 </p></div><div class=
"index" title=
"Indeks"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"id2646957"></a>Indeks
</h2></div></div></div><div class=
"index"><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>Symboler
</h3><dl><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></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>A
</h3><dl><dt>ABC,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</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>Agee, Michael,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</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>Anello, Douglas,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#cabletv">Kabel-TV
</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=
"#id2623145">"Piratvirksomhet"</a></dt><dt>AT
&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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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">Piracy II
</a></dt><dt>Betamax,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piracy II
</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piracy 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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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">Piracy 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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Eiendom"
</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>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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</a></dt><dt>dataspill,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Eiendom"
</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piracy I
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2623145">"Piratvirksomhet"</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</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">Piracy 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
—igjen
</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2623145">"Piratvirksomhet"</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</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">Piracy 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>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">Piracy 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>Johnson, Lyndon,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
</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: "Eiendom"
</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: "Eiendom"
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piracy 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">Piracy I
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piracy II
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater
</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piracy 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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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">Piracy II
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2623145">"Piratvirksomhet"</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2623145">"Piratvirksomhet"</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: "Eiendom"
</a></dt><dt>Microsoft
</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piracy 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
—igjen
</a></dt><dt>Netscape,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piracy 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: "Eiendom"
</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">Piracy 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
—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>Real Networks,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—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=
"#id2623145">"Piratvirksomhet"</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))
</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 Pictures Entertainment,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Eiendom"
</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: "Eiendom"
</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: "Eiendom"
</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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">Piracy I
</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
</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: "Kun etter-apere"
</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=
"#id2623145">"Piratvirksomhet"</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde
</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blob