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=
"id2865033"></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
19 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">e.biz
25,
</span>”</span> og omtalt som en av Scientific American's
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">50
20 visjonærer
</span>”</span>. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania,
21 Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard
22 Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
23 </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class=
"dedication"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"salespoints"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
24 Du kan kjøpe et eksemplar av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene
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"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"id2809996"></a></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"><span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"chapter">1.
<a href=
"#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">2.
<a href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Kun etter-apere
</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">3.
<a href=
"#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">4.
<a href=
"#pirates">Kapittel fire:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Pirater
</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">4.1.
<a href=
"#film">Film
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">4.2.
<a href=
"#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">4.3.
<a href=
"#radio">Radio
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">4.4.
<a href=
"#cabletv">Kabel-TV
</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class=
"chapter">5.
<a href=
"#piracy">Kapittel fem:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">5.1.
<a href=
"#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">5.2.
<a href=
"#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II
</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class=
"part">II.
<a href=
"#c-property"><span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Eiendom
</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"chapter">6.
<a href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">7.
<a href=
"#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">8.
<a href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">9.
<a href=
"#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">10.
<a href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Eiendom
</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">10.1.
<a href=
"#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">10.2.
<a href=
"#beginnings">Opphav
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">10.3.
<a href=
"#lawduration">Loven: Varighet
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">10.4.
<a href=
"#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">10.5.
<a href=
"#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">10.6.
<a href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">10.7.
<a href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">10.8.
<a href=
"#together">Sammen
</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class=
"part">III.
<a href=
"#c-puzzles">Nøtter
</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"chapter">11.
<a href=
"#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">12.
<a href=
"#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader
</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">12.1.
<a href=
"#constrain">Constraining Creators
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">12.2.
<a href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">12.3.
<a href=
"#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens
</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class=
"part">IV.
<a href=
"#c-balances">Maktfordeling
</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"chapter">13.
<a href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">14.
<a href=
"#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class=
"chapter">15.
<a href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"chapter">16.
<a href=
"#c-afterword">Etterord
</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">16.1.
<a href=
"#usnow">Oss, nå
</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">16.1.1.
<a href=
"#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">16.1.2.
<a href=
"#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class=
"section">16.2.
<a href=
"#themsoon">Dem, snart
</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">16.2.1.
<a href=
"#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter
</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class=
"section">16.2.1.1.
<a href=
"#registration">Registrering og fornying
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">16.2.1.2.
<a href=
"#marking">Merking
</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class=
"section">16.2.2.
<a href=
"#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">16.2.3.
<a href=
"#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
</a></span></dt><dt><span class=
"section">16.2.4.
<a href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—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=
"#id2896257">Indeks
</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class=
"colophon" title=
"Kolofon"><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"id2810559"></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
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Coming of Copyright
51 Perpetuity,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em>, January
16,
52 2003. Copyright ©
2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with
55 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
56 Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
58 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
59 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
61 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
63 Lessig, Lawrence. Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
64 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
70 ISBN
1-
59420-
006-
8 (hardcover)
72 1. Intellectual property
—United States.
2. Mass media
—United
75 3. Technological innovations
—United States.
4. Art
—United
82 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
84 Printed in the United States of America
88 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
90 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
91 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target=
"_top">tilgjengelig
92 fra github
</a>. Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
94 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
95 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
96 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
97 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
98 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
100 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
101 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
102 punishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
103 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
104 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
105 </p></div><div class=
"preface" title=
"Forord"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"preface"></a>Forord
</h2></div></div></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
106 <span class=
"bold"><strong>På slutten av
</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
107 første bok
<em class=
"citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
</em>, skrev
108 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
109 datarelaterte tekster, dette:
110 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
111 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
112 kapasiteten til å straffe. Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
113 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online). Og hvis du
114 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
115 modemet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"preface01" href=
"#ftn.preface01" class=
"footnote">1</a>]
</sup>
116 </p></blockquote></div><p>
117 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken
— at
118 programvaren, eller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">koden
</span>”</span>, fungerte som en slags lov
—
119 og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
120 gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
121 komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
122 problemer som finnes
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>den
</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
123 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">påvirke
</span>”</span> oss mer.
126 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i
1999 — jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
127 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
128 nå.
<em class=
"citetitle">Fri Kultur
</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
129 selv etter at modemet er slått av. Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
130 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">folk som
131 er ikke pålogget.
</span>”</span> Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
133 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2810790"></a><p>
134 Men i motsetning til i boken
<em class=
"citetitle">Code
</em>, er argumentet her
135 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
136 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
137 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
139 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på. Som jeg vil forklare i
140 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri
141 kultur
</span>”</span>—ikke
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri
</span>”</span> som i
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri bar
</span>”</span>
142 (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
143 programvarebevegelsen
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2810835" href=
"#ftn.id2810835" class=
"footnote">2</a>]
</sup>), men
144 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri
</span>”</span> som i
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">talefrihet
</span>”</span>,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fritt
145 marked
</span>”</span>,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">frihandel
</span>”</span>,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri konkurranse
</span>”</span>,
146 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri vilje
</span>”</span> og
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">frie valg
</span>”</span>. En fri kultur støtter
147 og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere. Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele
148 immaterielle rettigheter. Men det gjør den indirekte ved å begrense
149 rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å garantere at neste generasjon
150 skapere og oppfinnere forblir
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>så fri som mulig
</em></span> fra
151 kontroll fra fortiden. En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
152 lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis. Det motsatte av
153 fri kultur er
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tillatelseskultur
</span>”</span>—en kultur der skapere
154 kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
157 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den. Ikke
158 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">vi
</span>”</span> på venstresiden eller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">dere
</span>”</span> på høyresiden,
159 men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
160 definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
161 du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi
162 deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider
163 av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
164 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2810918"></a><p>
165 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i
2003. Da FCC
166 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
167 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
168 mer enn
700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen. Mens William
169 Safire beskrev å marsjere
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
170 Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
171 konservative Ted Stevens
</span>”</span>, formulerte han kanskje det enkleste
172 uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han:
173 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2810946"></a>
174 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
175 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut? Ikke for meg. Denne konsentrasjonen av
176 makt
—politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt
—bør være
177 bannlyst av konservative. Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
178 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
179 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2810970" href=
"#ftn.id2810970" class=
"footnote">3</a>]
</sup>
180 </p></blockquote></div><p>
181 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til
<em class=
"citetitle">Fri
182 Kultur
</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
183 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
184 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
185 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven. Loven er i endring, og
186 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
187 bekymre deg
—Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
188 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
189 og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
190 og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
191 nytt, spesielt essyene i
<em class=
"citetitle">Free Software, Free Society
</em>,
192 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
193 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden. Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
194 dette verket
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kun
</span>”</span> er et avledet verk.
197 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk. Arbeidet til en advokat
198 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
199 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
200 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
201 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet. Og som Stallman, tror jeg
202 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid. En fri
203 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
204 retningen vi følger akkurat nå. På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
205 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
206 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå. En fri kultur er ikke en
207 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
208 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
209 anarki, ikke frihet. Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
211 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
212 mellom anarki og kontroll. En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
213 fylt med eierskap. Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
214 blir håndhevet av staten. Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
215 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
216 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den. Det er dette jeg
217 frykter om vår kultur i dag. Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
218 denne boken er skrevet.
219 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.preface01" href=
"#preface01" class=
"para">1</a>]
</sup>
220 David Pogue,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New
221 York Times
</em>,
30. januar
2000
222 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2810835" href=
"#id2810835" class=
"para">2</a>]
</sup>
223 Richard M. Stallman,
<em class=
"citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn
</em> 57
224 (Joshua Gay, red.
2002).
225 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2810970" href=
"#id2810970" class=
"para">3</a>]
</sup> William Safire,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Great Media Gulp,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New York
226 Times
</em>,
22. mai
2003.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2810981"></a>
227 </p></div></div></div><div class=
"chapter" title=
"Kapittel 0. Introduksjon"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"c-introduction"></a>Kapittel
0. Introduksjon
</h2></div></div></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxairtraffic"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxlandownership"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxproprigtair"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866694"></a><p>
228 17. desember
1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
229 hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
230 enn luft kunne fly. Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
231 forstått. Nesten umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye
232 teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
233 begynte å bygge videre på den.
235 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
236 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
237 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
238 bakken,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2866728" href=
"#ftn.id2866728" class=
"footnote">4</a>]
</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
239 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
240 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
243 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
244 USA
—dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
245 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid
—en betydning. Hvis min
246 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
247 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom? Har jeg mulighet til å
248 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines? Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
249 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
250 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866748"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866773"></a><p>
251 I
1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
252 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
253 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
254 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
255 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
256 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
257 strakk seg
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,
</span>”</span> så hadde regjeringen
258 trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
260 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866799"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866805"></a><p>
261 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
262 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
263 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
264 grunnlovens forbud mot å
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ta
</span>”</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
265 Retten erkjente at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
266 rakk til utkanten av universet.
</span>”</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
267 tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner. I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
268 av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
269 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
270 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden. Luften er en
271 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært. Hvis det ikke var
272 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
273 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom. Idéen er i
274 strid med sunn fornuft. Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
275 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
276 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
277 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2866857" href=
"#ftn.id2866857" class=
"footnote">5</a>]
</sup>
278 </p></blockquote></div><p>
279 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.
</span>”</span>
282 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer. Ikke ofte like brått eller
283 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer. Det var ikke
284 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere. Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
285 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
286 linje:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.
</span>”</span>. Men uansett om
287 det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
288 et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
289 aktuelle teknologiene. Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den. Idéer som
290 var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
291 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866943"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866949"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866956"></a><p>
292 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
293 av endringen. Causbyene var bare bønder. Og selv om det uten tvil var
294 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
295 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
296 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
297 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden. Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
298 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
299 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">det
300 synes rimelig
</span>”</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
301 De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
302 knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville. De kunne ringe sine
303 representanter eller til og med saksøke. Men når alt kom til alt, ville
304 kraften i det som virket
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">åpenbart
</span>”</span> for alle andre
—makten
305 til
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sunn fornuft
</span>”</span>—ville vinne frem. Deres
306 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">personlige interesser
</span>”</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
307 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
308 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867006"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867017"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867028"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxarmstrongedwin"></a><p>
309 <span class=
"strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong
</strong></span> er en av USAs
310 glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
311 Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham Bell. Alle hans bidrag på området
312 radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i
313 de første femti årene av radio. Han var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday,
314 som var bokbinderlærling da han oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i
1831. Men
315 han hadde like god intuisjon om hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre
316 anledninger, fant Armstrong opp svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår
317 forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867072"></a>
318 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867083"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867089"></a>
320 Dagen etter julaften i
1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
321 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse
—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde
322 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio. Tidens teoretikere
323 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio. De hadde rett når det gjelder
324 et smalt bånd av spektrumet. Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
325 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
326 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
328 Den
5. november
1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
329 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City. Han vred
330 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
331 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp
27 kilometer unna. Radioen ble helt
332 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
333 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
334 opplesers stemme:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
335 som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.
</span>”</span>
337 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
338 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
339 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
340 et glass som ble fylt opp.
… Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
341 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann.
…
342 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
343 utført.
… Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
344 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
345 radio-
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">musikk-boks
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2867164" href=
"#ftn.id2867164" class=
"footnote">6</a>]
</sup>
346 </p></blockquote></div><p>
348 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
349 bedre radioteknologi. Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
350 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
351 AM-radiomarkedet. I
1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
352 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
355 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
356 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
357 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
358 støy fra
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">radio.
</span>”</span>. Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
359 oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867209"></a>
360 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
361 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
362 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon
—
363 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2867100" href=
"#ftn.id2867100" class=
"footnote">7</a>]
</sup>
364 </p></blockquote></div><p>
365 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
366 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
367 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
368 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867254"></a>
369 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
370 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
371 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
372 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon. For FM utgjorde,
373 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger
… en komplett endring i
374 maktforholdene rundt radio
… og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
375 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
376 makt.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2867281" href=
"#ftn.id2867281" class=
"footnote">8</a>]
</sup>
377 </p></blockquote></div><p>
378 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
379 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
380 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
381 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I
1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
382 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
383 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM
—hovedsakelig ved å
384 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
385 disse forsøkene. Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
386 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter. Like etter at krigen var
387 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
388 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
389 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
390 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
391 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
392 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2867296" href=
"#ftn.id2867296" class=
"footnote">9</a>]
</sup>
393 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867336"></a><p>
394 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
395 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
396 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
397 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
398 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT
&T, på grunn av at fjerningen
399 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
400 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT
&T.) Spredningen av FM-radio var
401 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
403 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
404 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
405 patentene ugyldige
—uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
406 utstedet. De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene. I seks år
407 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine. Til
408 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
409 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning. Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
410 skrev Armstrong i
1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
411 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
412 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2809310"></a><p>
414 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger. Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
415 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
416 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
417 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
418 juridisk eller teknologisk endring. Denne mektige interessen utøver for
419 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
420 den. Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
421 fellesskapets beste. Realiteten er noe annet. Idéer som kan være solide
422 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
423 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
424 prosess. RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
425 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
427 Det er ingen enkeltoppfinner av Internet. Ei heller er det en god dato som
428 kan brukes til å markere når det ble født. Likevel har internettet i løpet
429 av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv. I følge the Pew
430 Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har
58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
431 tilgang til internettet i
2002, opp fra
49 prosent to år
432 tidligere.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2809378" href=
"#ftn.id2809378" class=
"footnote">10</a>]
</sup> Det tallet kan uten
433 problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av
2004.
435 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
436 blitt endret. Noen av disse endringene er teknisk
—internettet har
437 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
438 data, og så videre. Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
439 boken. De er viktige. De er ikke godt forstått. Men de er den type ting
440 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet. De
441 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
442 det ikke dem direkte. De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet. Men
443 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
445 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
446 selv. En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt. Min påstand er at
447 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
448 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
449 selv. De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
450 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
453 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
454 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
455 Med
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kommersiell kultur
</span>”</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
456 er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt. Med
457 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur
</span>”</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
458 menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
459 unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur. Da Noah
460 Webster publiserte sin
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Reader
</span>”</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
461 så var det kommersiell kultur.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867651"></a>
462 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867659"></a>
464 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
465 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert. Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
466 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
467 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
468 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri
</span>”</span>. Den
469 vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
470 kultur
—historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
471 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter
—ble ikke
474 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet. I starten forsiktig, etter
475 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
476 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
477 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2867701" href=
"#ftn.id2867701" class=
"footnote">11</a>]
</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
478 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
479 USA. Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon. Det var i
480 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
482 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
483 fjernet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2867742" href=
"#ftn.id2867742" class=
"footnote">12</a>]
</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
484 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
485 påvirket det. For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
486 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
487 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
488 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
489 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen
—mellom bruken av
490 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
491 tillatelse
—har blitt borte. Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
492 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
494 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
495 kommersiell kreativitet. Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
496 som motiverer endringen. Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
497 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
498 som har definert loven tidligere. Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
499 beskytte artister. Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
500 bestemte forretningsformer. Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
501 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
502 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
503 å beskytte selskapene. Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
504 drømmen til Causbyene.
506 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
507 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
508 lokale grenselinjer. Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
509 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
510 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
511 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
512 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
513 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
514 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
515 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur. Dette
516 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
517 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
518 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
519 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
520 dag
—så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
521 selv mot denne konkurransen.
523 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
524 som skjer i vår kultur i dag. Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
525 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
526 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
527 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
528 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
530 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange. Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
531 internettet er fjernt for de fleste. For de få som følger dem, virker de i
532 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål
—hvorvidt
533 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
534 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendomsretten
</span>”</span> vil bli beskyttet.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Krigen
</span>”</span> som
535 har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet
—det presidenten for
536 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
537 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">egen terroristkrig
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2867883" href=
"#ftn.id2867883" class=
"footnote">13</a>]
</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
538 respektere eiendomsretten. For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
539 krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
540 eiendomsrett eller mot den.
542 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
543 Valenti og innholdsindustrien. Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
544 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kreativ
545 eiendomsrett
</span>”</span>. Jeg tror at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span> er galt,
546 og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span>,
547 både på og utenfor internettet.
549 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
550 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
551 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
552 internettets
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">pirater
</span>”</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
553 har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
555 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første
180 årene
556 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
557 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
558 kontroll. Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
559 kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2867962" href=
"#ftn.id2867962" class=
"footnote">14</a>]
</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
560 skaperne mot privat kontroll. Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
561 tradisjonen til velgjørere. I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
562 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
564 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
565 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
566 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA. For å bygge på eller kritisere
567 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
568 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget
—men det er ikke ofte
569 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige. Vi har bygget en slags
570 kulturell adel. De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
571 utsiden har det ikke. Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
574 Historien som følger er om denne krigen. Er det ikke om
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">betydningen
575 av teknologi
</span>”</span> i vanlig liv. Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
576 eller andre typer. Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
577 individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
578 eller på annen måte. Det er ikke en moralsk historie. Ei heller er det et
579 rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
581 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
582 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
583 kode. Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
584 fred. Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
585 internett-teknologiene. Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
586 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
587 til denne krigen. Vi må finne en løsning snart.
588 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868049"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868055"></a><p>
589 Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om
590 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendomsrett
</span>”</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke like håndfast
591 som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så langt mistet
592 livet. Likevel er idéene rundt denne
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendomsretten
</span>”</span> like
593 åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres
594 bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav
595 som eierne av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">immaterielle rettigheter
</span>”</span> nå hevder. De fleste
596 av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som åpenbare. Og dermed
597 protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper inn i denne
598 eiendomsretten. Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at de nye
599 teknologiene til internettet
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tar seg til rette
</span>”</span> mot legitime
600 krav til
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendomsrett
</span>”</span>. Det er like klart for oss som det var
601 for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen
603 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868106"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868112"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868119"></a><p>
605 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
606 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
607 fornuft gjør ikke opprør. I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
608 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen. I
609 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
610 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
612 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre. Jeg har blitt stadig mer
613 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
614 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
615 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kultur
</span>”</span>
616 som har vært
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eid
</span>”</span> enn det er nå. Og likevel har aldri før
617 konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>bruken
</em></span> av
618 kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
620 Gåten er, hvorfor det? Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
621 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
622 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
625 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
626 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
629 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
630 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
631 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
632 forskjellsbehandling? Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
633 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
634 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
636 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
637 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme? Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
638 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
639 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
640 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868218"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868224"></a><p>
642 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk. Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
643 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
644 Causbyene. Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
645 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">immaterielle
646 rettigheter
</span>”</span>. Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
647 om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
648 eiendom. Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
652 Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
653 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span> og
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendom
</span>”</span>. Mitt mål med
654 denne bokens neste to deler er å utforske disse to idéene.
656 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker. Jeg ønsker ikke
657 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
658 obskure franske teoretikere
—uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
659 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt. Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
660 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
661 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
663 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
664 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
665 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">noe
666 nytt
</span>”</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt. I stedet for å forstå
667 endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
668 som trengs for å la
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sunn fornuft
</span>”</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
669 på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
670 til å endre loven
—og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
671 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
673 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
674 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene. Vi tillater det på grunn av at
675 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
676 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
677 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon
—en konsekvens
678 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
679 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2866728" href=
"#id2866728" class=
"para">4</a>]
</sup>
680 St. George Tucker,
<em class=
"citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries
</em> 3 (South
681 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints,
1969),
18.
682 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2866857" href=
"#id2866857" class=
"para">5</a>]
</sup>
683 USA mot Causby, U.S.
328 (
1946):
256,
261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
684 å
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ta
</span>”</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
685 ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby. Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
686 meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">(intellectual) Property and
687 Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship
</span>”</span>,
688 <em class=
"citetitle">Stanford Law Review
</em> 48 (
1996):
1293,
1333. Se også
689 Paul Goldstein,
<em class=
"citetitle">Real Property
</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
690 Foundation Press (
1984)),
1112–13.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866896"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2866891"></a>
691 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867164" href=
"#id2867164" class=
"para">6</a>]
</sup>
692 Lawrence Lessing,
<em class=
"citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
693 Armstrong
</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company,
1956),
209.
694 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867100" href=
"#id2867100" class=
"para">7</a>]
</sup> Se
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,
</span>”</span>
695 første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
696 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
1</a>.
697 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867281" href=
"#id2867281" class=
"para">8</a>]
</sup>Lessing,
226.
698 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867296" href=
"#id2867296" class=
"para">9</a>]
</sup>
700 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2809378" href=
"#id2809378" class=
"para">10</a>]
</sup>
701 Amanda Lenhart,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
702 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,
</span>”</span> Pew Internet and American
703 Life Project,
15. april
2003:
6, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
2</a>.
704 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867701" href=
"#id2867701" class=
"para">11</a>]
</sup>
705 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
706 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
707 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
708 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser. Ved
709 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
710 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
711 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Right to
712 Privacy
</span>”</span>, Harvard Law Review
4 (
1890):
193,
198–200.
713 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867079"></a>
714 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867742" href=
"#id2867742" class=
"para">12</a>]
</sup>
715 Se Jessica Litman,
<em class=
"citetitle">Digital Copyright
</em> (New York:
716 Prometheus bøker,
2001), kap.
13.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867751"></a>
717 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867883" href=
"#id2867883" class=
"para">13</a>]
</sup>
718 Amy Harmon,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
719 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New
720 York Times
</em>,
17. januar
2002.
721 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867962" href=
"#id2867962" class=
"para">14</a>]
</sup>
722 Neil W. Netanel,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,
</span>”</span>
723 <em class=
"citetitle">Yale Law Journal
</em> 106 (
1996):
283.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2867973"></a>
724 </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.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class=
"partintro" title=
"“Piratvirksomhet”"><div></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxmansfield1"></a><p>
725 Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
726 en krig mot
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span>. De presise konturene av dette
727 konseptet,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp,
728 men bildet av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive. Som Lord Mansfield skrev
729 i en sak som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere
731 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
732 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
733 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
734 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2868388" href=
"#ftn.id2868388" class=
"footnote">15</a>]
</sup>
735 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868403"></a></blockquote></div><p>
737 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">krig
</span>”</span> mot
738 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
739 Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold. Peer-to-peer (p2p)
740 fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
741 internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
742 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
743 for en generasjon siden.
746 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
747 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
748 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
749 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Denne
750 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
751 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">frata forfatteren
752 overskuddet.
</span>”</span>
754 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
755 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendom
</span>”</span> mot denne
756 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomheten
</span>”</span>. En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
757 krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendom
</span>”</span> skal være
758 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">gratis
</span>”</span>. Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
759 kroppspiercing
—våre barn blir
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>tyver
</em></span>!
761 Det er ingen tvil om at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span> er galt, og at
762 pirater bør straffes. Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
763 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhets
</span>”</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng. For mens begrepet
764 blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
765 helt sikkert er feil.
767 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
768 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
769 Kreativt arbeid har verdi. Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
770 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi. Når jeg
771 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem. Å ta noe
772 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt. Det er en form for
774 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868525"></a><p>
775 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor
776 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">hvis verdi, så
777 rettighet
</span>”</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2868541" href=
"#ftn.id2868541" class=
"footnote">16</a>]
</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
778 rettigheten til denne verdien. Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
779 rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
780 betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
781 leirbål.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2868564" href=
"#ftn.id2868564" class=
"footnote">17</a>]
</sup> Det fantes
782 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">verdi
</span>”</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
783 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rettighet
</span>”</span>—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
784 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868608"></a><p>
786 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
787 eierrettigheter bør virke. Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
788 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter. Men teorien om
789 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet
</span>”</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
790 aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter. It har aldri stått rot
793 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
794 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
795 til verdien av kreativitet. Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt. Vi
796 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
799 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
800 å markere
—skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
801 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre. Da opphavsretten kom var det
802 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
804 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
805 sammenblandingen mye. Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
806 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
807 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven
—til og med byrden som den bysantiske
808 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt. Det var bare nok en kostnad
809 ved å drive forretning.
810 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868665"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868671"></a><p>
811 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
812 lovens virkeområde. Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
813 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
814 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
815 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kopiering
</span>”</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
816 bredt og obskurt som den gjør. Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
817 fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt
—helt klart slik den påvirker
818 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
819 kommersiell kreativitet. Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
820 følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
821 å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse. Akkurat på tidspunktet da
822 digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
823 og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
824 sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
825 straffer. Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Fremveksten
826 av den kreative klasse
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2868710" href=
"#ftn.id2868710" class=
"footnote">18</a>]
</sup>
827 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
830 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon. Vi bør begynne med å forstå
831 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
832 merkelappen
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
833 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2868388" href=
"#id2868388" class=
"para">15</a>]
</sup>
836 <em class=
"citetitle">Bach
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Longman
</em>,
98
837 Eng. Rep.
1274 (
1777) (Mansfield).
838 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2868541" href=
"#id2868541" class=
"para">16</a>]
</sup>
841 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
842 in the Pepsi Generation,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Notre Dame Law
843 Review
</em> 65 (
1990):
397.
844 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2868564" href=
"#id2868564" class=
"para">17</a>]
</sup>
846 Lisa Bannon,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
847 Up,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Wall Street Journal
</em>,
21. august
1996,
848 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
3</a>;
849 Jonathan Zittrain,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
850 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Boston
851 Globe
</em>,
24. november
2002.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868589"></a>
852 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2868710" href=
"#id2868710" class=
"para">18</a>]
</sup>
854 I
<em class=
"citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class
</em> (New York: Basic
855 Books,
2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
856 kreativitetsarbeide. Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
857 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under. Jeg er helt
858 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
859 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
860 vanskeligere.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868752"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868761"></a>
861 </p></div></div></div><div class=
"chapter" title=
"Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"creators"></a>Kapittel
1. Kapittel en: Skaperne
</h2></div></div></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxanimadedcartoons"></a><p>
862 I
1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
863 dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn
<em class=
"citetitle">Plane Crazy
</em>.
864 I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
865 distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd,
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat
866 Willy
</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
868 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
869 <em class=
"citetitle">The Jazz Singer
</em>. Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
870 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm. Ingen visste hvorvidt det
871 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
872 for det. Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren
1928, var resultatet
873 entydig. Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
874 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
876 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
877 munnspill. Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
878 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
879 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
882 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark. Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
883 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
884 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
885 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
887 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
888 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse. Jeg trodde de
889 tullet med meg. Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt. Det
890 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2868890" href=
"#ftn.id2868890" class=
"footnote">19</a>]
</sup>
891 </p></blockquote></div><p>
892 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
893 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
894 begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
895 bra.
</span>”</span> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2868917"></a>
897 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
898 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde
—unntatt fra
899 Disneys hender
—vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer. Gjennom
900 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
901 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle. Og ganske ofte var Disneys
902 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
904 Dette er kjent stoff. Det du kanskje ikke vet er at
1928 også markerer en
905 annen viktig overgang. I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
906 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm. Dette geniet var
907 Buster Keaton. Filmen var
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr
</em>.
909 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i
1895. I stumfilm-æraen hadde
910 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
911 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum.
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
912 Jr
</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
913 for sine utrolige stunts. Filmen var en klassisk Keaton
—fantastisk
914 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
916 <em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr
</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
917 Steamboat Willie. Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
918 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
919 Bill,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2868988" href=
"#ftn.id2868988" class=
"footnote">20</a>]
</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
920 som kilde. Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
921 <em class=
"citetitle">The Jazz Singer
</em> at vi får
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat
922 Willie
</em>. Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
923 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Steamboat Bill
</span>”</span>,
924 at vi får Steamboat Willie. Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
926 Denne
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">låningen
</span>”</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
927 industrien. Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
928 ham.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2869061" href=
"#ftn.id2869061" class=
"footnote">21</a>]
</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
929 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger
—små variasjoner
930 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt. Nøkkelen til
931 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene. Med Disney var det lyden som ga
932 gnisten til hans animasjoner. Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
933 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
934 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
935 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
936 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
938 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
939 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm. Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
940 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
941 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid. Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
942 for oss, ganske dystre. Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
943 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
944 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
947 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
948 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
949 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
950 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
951 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm. Faktisk er katalogen
952 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
953 når den blir samlet:
<em class=
"citetitle">Snøhvit
</em> (
1937),
954 <em class=
"citetitle">Fantasia
</em> (
1940),
<em class=
"citetitle">Pinocchio
</em>
955 (
1940),
<em class=
"citetitle">Dumbo
</em> (
1941),
<em class=
"citetitle">Bambi
</em>
956 (
1942),
<em class=
"citetitle">Song of the South
</em> (
1946),
957 <em class=
"citetitle">Askepott
</em> (
1950),
<em class=
"citetitle">Alice in
958 Wonderland
</em> (
1951),
<em class=
"citetitle">Robin Hood
</em> (
1952),
959 <em class=
"citetitle">Peter Pan
</em> (
1953),
<em class=
"citetitle">Lady og
960 landstrykeren
</em> (
1955),
<em class=
"citetitle">Mulan
</em> (
1998),
961 <em class=
"citetitle">Tornerose
</em> (
1959),
<em class=
"citetitle">101
962 dalmatinere
</em> (
1961),
<em class=
"citetitle">Sverdet i steinen
</em>
963 (
1963), og
<em class=
"citetitle">Jungelboken
</em> (
1967)
—for ikke å nevne
964 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt,
<em class=
"citetitle">Treasure
965 Planet
</em> (
2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
966 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
967 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
968 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
969 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2869192"></a><p>
970 Dette er en type kreativitet. Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
971 feire. Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
972 denne typen. Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
973 Vi kan kalle dette
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Disney-kreativitet
</span>”</span>, selv om det vil være
974 litt misvisende. Det er mer presist
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Walt
975 Disney-kreativitet
</span>”</span>—en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
976 kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
977 </p><p> I
1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
978 fersk. Allemannseie i
1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
979 levende. Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
980 år
—for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
981 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2869218" href=
"#ftn.id2869218" class=
"footnote">22</a>]
</sup> Det betyr at i
982 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
983 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eksklusiv rett
</span>”</span> til a
984 kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse
985 opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
986 opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
988 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
989 allemannseie. Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
990 verket. Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
991 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">advokat-fri sone
</span>”</span>. Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
992 århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
993 1928. Det var tilgjengelig for enhver
—uansett om de hadde
994 forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
995 ikke
—til å bruke og bygge videre på.
998 Dette er slik det alltid har vært
—inntil ganske nylig. For
999 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
1000 Fram til
1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
1001 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
1002 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
1003 fra noen. Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra
1960- og
1004 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
1005 bygge på uten tillatelse. Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
1006 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
1008 Walt Disney hadde selvfølgelig ikke monopol på
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Walt
1009 Disney-kreativitet
</span>”</span>. Det har heller ikke USA. Normen med fri kultur
1010 har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og
1013 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1014 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1015 <em class=
"citetitle">manga
</em>, eller tegneserier. Japanerne er fanatiske når
1016 det gjelder tegneserier. Over
40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1017 og
30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier. De er
1018 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1019 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1020 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1022 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
1023 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss. Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
1024 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
1025 historiene i disse
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">grafiske historiene
</span>”</span> forteller. For en
1026 japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv. For oss er
1027 tegneserier
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">menn i strømpebukser
</span>”</span>. Og uansett er det ikke
1028 slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway
1029 for den saks skyld. Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig
1030 måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.
1032 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga. Det er å beskrive en variant av
1033 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1034 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1037 Dette er fenomenet
<em class=
"citetitle">doujinshi
</em>. Doujinshi er også
1038 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier. En rik etikk styrer
1039 de som skaper doujinshi. Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1040 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>bare
</em></span> er en kopi. Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1041 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig. En
1042 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1043 i en annen retning
—med en annen historie-linje. Eller tegneserien kan
1044 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet. Det er ingen
1045 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig
1046 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">forskjellig
</span>”</span>. Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
1047 som ekte doujinshi. Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
1048 å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1050 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet. Det
1051 er enorme. Mer en
33 000 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sirkler
</span>”</span> av skapere over hele Japan
1052 som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet. Mer en
450 000
1053 japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i
1054 langet, for å bytte og selge dem. Dette markedet er parallelt med det
1055 kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet. På noen måter konkurrerer det
1056 åpenbart med det markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som
1057 kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
1058 doujinshi-markedet. Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
1061 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1062 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1063 Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
1064 papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
1065 Doujinshi er helt klart
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">avledede verk
</span>”</span>. Det er ingen generell
1066 praksis hos doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos
1067 manga-skaperne. I stedet er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre
1068 har laget, slik Walt Disney gjorde med
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
1069 Jr
</em>. For både japansk og USAs lov, er å
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ta
</span>”</span> uten
1070 tillatelse fra den opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig. Det er et
1071 brudd på opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et
1072 avledet verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1073 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1074 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1075 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1076 blomstrer. Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">I
1077 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1078 Japan i dag.
… Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1079 hverandre.
… Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne
—ved å se i
1080 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
1081 dem
</span>”</span> og bygge basert på dem.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2869514" href=
"#ftn.id2869514" class=
"footnote">23</a>]
</sup>
1083 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1084 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1085 får lov til. Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">er det
1086 en rekke regler, og du må følge dem
</span>”</span>. Det er ting som Supermann
1087 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ikke kan
</span>”</span> gjøre.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
1088 frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
1089 gamle.
</span>”</span>
1090 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2869567"></a><p>
1091 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen. Noen sier at det
1092 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1093 forklarer denne reduksjonen. Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1094 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1095 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1096 produktivt. Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1097 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2869592" href=
"#ftn.id2869592" class=
"footnote">24</a>]
</sup>
1099 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1100 er at mekanismen som produserer denne
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">hold hendene
1101 borte
</span>”</span>-responsen ikke er forstått. Det kan godt være at markedet som
1102 helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den,
1103 men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere
1104 ikke saksøker. Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det
1105 finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
1106 doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
1107 blokkere denne
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">frie takingen
</span>”</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1109 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1110 som jeg kunne. Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1111 større japansk advokatfirma.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater
</span>”</span>,
1112 fortalte han meg en ettermiddag. Det er
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
1113 å tiltale tilfeller som dette
</span>”</span>.
1116 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1117 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1118 effekt. Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1119 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1120 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt? Ville Japan vinne
1121 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1122 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1123 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1124 eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
1126 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1127 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1128 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1130 Vi lever i en verden som feirer
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendom
</span>”</span>. Jeg er en av de som
1131 feierer. Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
1132 verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
1133 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">immateriell eiendom
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2869705" href=
"#ftn.id2869705" class=
"footnote">25</a>]
</sup> Et
1134 stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
1135 samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1137 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1138 verdi der ute som
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendom
</span>”</span> ikke dekker. Jeg mener ikke
1139 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger
</span>”</span> men heller, at en verdi
1140 som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og
1141 ikke-kommersiell produksjon. Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett
1142 med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme
1143 det som galt
—selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir
1144 oppdaget. Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at
1145 Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene. Det var intet galt
1146 med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som
1147 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig
</span>”</span>. Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
1148 fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1151 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok
—eller mer generelt, tingene
1152 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet
—er
1153 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1154 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1157 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen. Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1158 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1159 siste verk
—eller bare en kopi
—uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1160 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt. I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1161 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1162 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1164 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1165 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">stjeler
</span>”</span>. Denne formen for
1166 Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
1167 advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1169 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1170 begynner å se etter dem. Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1171 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
1172 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1173 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?
</span>”</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
1174 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1175 (Er det
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>noen
</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1176 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1177 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1178 først?) Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1179 astroidefilmer i slutten av
1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i
1997.
1182 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1183 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå. Denne byggingen er alltid og
1184 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1185 opprinnelige skaperen. Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1186 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1187 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes. Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1188 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1189 ta
—frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1193 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>om
</em></span> en kultur
1194 er fri. Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1195 er i stedet
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote"><span class=
"emphasis"><em>hvor
</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
1196 er?
</span>”</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
1197 å ta, og bygge på? Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer? Til
1198 medlemmer av kongefamilien? Til de ti største selskapene på New
1199 York-børsen? Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt,
1200 uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke? Til musikere
1201 generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt,
1202 uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1204 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1205 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre. Vår var en fri
1206 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1207 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2868890" href=
"#id2868890" class=
"para">19</a>]
</sup>
1210 Leonard Maltin,
<em class=
"citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1211 Cartoons
</em> (New York: Penguin Books,
1987),
34–35.
1212 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2868988" href=
"#id2868988" class=
"para">20</a>]
</sup>
1215 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1216 beskrevet på
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
4</a>. I
1217 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1218 musikken til fem sanger i
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat Willie
</em>:
1219 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Steamboat Bill,
</span>”</span> <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Simpleton
</span>”</span> (Delille),
1220 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Mischief Makers
</span>”</span> (Carbonara),
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Joyful Hurry
1221 No.
1</span>”</span> (Baron), og
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Gawky Rube
</span>”</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1222 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Turkey in the Straw,
</span>”</span> var allerede allemannseie. Brev fra
1223 David Smith til Harry Surden,
10. juli
2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1225 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2869061" href=
"#id2869061" class=
"para">21</a>]
</sup>
1228 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Mouse
1229 that Ate the Public Domain,
</span>”</span> Findlaw,
5. mars
2002, fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
5</a>.
1230 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2869218" href=
"#id2869218" class=
"para">22</a>]
</sup>
1233 Inntil
1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1234 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode. Jeg har beregnet
1235 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">gjennomsnittlig
</span>”</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
1236 de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger. Hvis
100
1237 opphavsretter ble registrert i år
1, bare
15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1238 fornyingsvernetiden er
28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid
32,
2
1239 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1240 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
1242 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2869514" href=
"#id2869514" class=
"para">23</a>]
</sup>
1245 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud,
<em class=
"citetitle">Reinventing
1246 Comics
</em> (New York: Perennial,
2000).
1247 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2869592" href=
"#id2869592" class=
"para">24</a>]
</sup>
1250 Se Salil K. Mehra,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1251 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?
</span>”</span>
1252 <em class=
"citetitle">Rutgers Law Review
</em> 55 (
2002):
155,
182.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">det
1253 kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og
1254 anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at
1255 alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
1256 egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
1257 rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.
</span>”</span>
1258 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2869705" href=
"#id2869705" class=
"para">25</a>]
</sup>
1260 Begrepet
<em class=
"citetitle">immateriell eiendom
</em> er av relativ ny
1261 opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyrights and
1262 Copywrongs
</em>,
11 (New York: New York University Press,
2001). Se
1263 også Lawrence Lessig,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em> (New York:
1264 Random House,
2001),
293 n.
26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
1265 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendoms
</span>”</span>-rettigheter
—opphavsretter, patenter,
1266 varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter
—men egenskapene til disse
1267 rettighetene er svært forskjellige.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2869726"></a>
1268 </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:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Kun etter-apere
</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxphotography"></a><p>
1269 I
1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
1270 produsere det vi ville kalle
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fotografier
</span>”</span>. Rimelig nok ble de
1271 kalt
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">daguerreotyper
</span>”</span>. Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
1272 feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
1273 velstående amatører. (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
1274 som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
1275 ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2869986"></a>
1277 Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
1278 sterk. Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1279 lage
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">automatiske bilder
</span>”</span>. William Talbot oppdaget snart en
1280 prosess for å lage
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">negativer
</span>”</span>. Men da negativene var av
1281 glass, og måtte holdes fuktige, forble prosessen kostbar og tung. På
1282 1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
1283 å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det. Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
1284 dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
1285 fleste amatører.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870020"></a>
1286 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1288 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1289 før i
1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1290 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1291 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1292 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull. Denne rullen
1293 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1294 vesentlig. Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1295 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1297 Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
1298 dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken. Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
1299 dens enkelhet.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
1300 resten.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2870070" href=
"#ftn.id2870070" class=
"footnote">26</a>]
</sup> Som han beskrev det i
1301 <em class=
"citetitle">The Kodak Primer
</em>:
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870084"></a>
1302 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
1303 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1304 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1305 gjøre.
… Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1306 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1307 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1308 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1309 kunnskap om kunstarten. Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1310 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2867343" href=
"#ftn.id2867343" class=
"footnote">27</a>]
</sup>
1311 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1312 For $
25 kunne alle ta bilder. Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1313 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1314 fremkalt. Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1315 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret. Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1316 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1317 for salg i
1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1318 om dagen. Fra
1888 til
1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med
4,
7
1319 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med
11
1320 prosent.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870149" href=
"#ftn.id2870149" class=
"footnote">28</a>]
</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1321 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over
17 prosent.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870158" href=
"#ftn.id2870158" class=
"footnote">29</a>]
</sup>
1322 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870168"></a><p>
1325 Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
1326 økonomisk. Den var sosial. Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
1327 glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
1328 muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
1329 stand til tidligere. Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">For første
1330 gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
1331 og dens aktiviteter.
… For første gang i historien fantes det en
1332 autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
1333 laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2870100" href=
"#ftn.id2870100" class=
"footnote">30</a>]
</sup>
1335 På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
1336 malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
1337 med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører. Med
1338 Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere. Barrièren for å uttrykke
1339 seg var senket. Snobber ville fnyse over
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kvaliteten
</span>”</span>,
1340 profesjonelle ville avvise den som irrelevant. Men se et barn studere
1341 hvordan best velge bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags
1342 kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken muliggjorde. Demokratiske verktøy ga
1343 vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy
1346 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre. Eastmans genialitet
1347 var åpenbart en viktig del. Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1348 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig. For tidlig i historien til
1349 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1350 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig. Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1351 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1352 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870252" href=
"#ftn.id2870252" class=
"footnote">31</a>]
</sup>
1355 Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
1356 ut. Fotografen
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tok
</span>”</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
1357 fotografert
—røvet til seg noe av verdi. Noen trodde til og med at han
1358 tok målets sjel. På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
1359 som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
1360 fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
1361 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2869886"></a><p>
1362 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1363 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt. Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1364 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område. (Louis
1365 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1366 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870322" href=
"#ftn.id2870322" class=
"footnote">32</a>]
</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1367 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra
<em class=
"citetitle">Steamboat
1368 Bill, Jr
</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1369 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1371 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1372 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene. Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1373 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre. I stedet
1374 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt. Frihet var utgangspunktet. (Loven
1375 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1376 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1377 begrensninger enn resten av oss. Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1378 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870376" href=
"#ftn.id2870376" class=
"footnote">33</a>]
</sup>)
1380 Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
1381 hadde slått ut den andre veien. Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
1382 ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass. Kanskje
1383 Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
1384 utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på. Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
1385 var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra
1386 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tyveriet
</span>”</span> begått av fotografer. På samme måte som Napster nøt
1387 fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak
1388 nytt fordeler fra
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">bilde-rettighets
</span>”</span>-brudd til deres
1389 fotografer. Vi kan forestille oss at loven da krevede at en form for
1390 tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene. Vi kan
1391 forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge frem slike tillatelser.
1396 Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
1397 svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
1398 gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
1399 Fotografering ville eksistert. Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
1400 Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
1401 gjorde
—siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
1402 av godkjenningssystemet. Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
1403 villa aldri ha skjedd. Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd. Og det
1404 ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
1405 uttrykksteknologi. Hvis du kjører gjennom området Presidio i San Francisco,
1406 kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med fargefulle og
1407 iøynefallende bilder, og logoen
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Just Think!
</span>”</span> i stedet for
1408 navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">bare
</span>”</span> mentalt i
1409 prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør. Disse bussene er fylt med
1410 teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film. Ikke filmen til Eastman. Ikke
1411 en gang filmen i din videospiller. I stedet er det snakk om
1412 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">filmen
</span>”</span> til digitale kamera. Just Think! er et prosjekt som
1413 gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere
1414 den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg. Hvert år besøker
1415 disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
1416 barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media. Ved å
1417 gjøre, så tenker de. Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1418 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870504"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870511"></a><p>
1419 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1420 og billigere. Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1421 dramatisk. Som en analytiker omtalte det,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">for fem år siden kostet et
1422 godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $
25 000. I dag kan du
1423 få profesjonell kvalitet for $
595.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2870542" href=
"#ftn.id2870542" class=
"footnote">34</a>]
</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
1424 hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden. Og det er nå mulig å
1425 forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
1426 unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
1427 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">medie-skriveføre
</span>”</span> eller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">mediekompetanse
</span>”</span>.
1430 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Media-skriveføre,
</span>”</span> eller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">mediekompetanse
</span>”</span> som
1431 administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">er
1432 evnen til
… å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
1433 er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
1434 er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker
1435 dem
</span>”</span>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870596"></a>
1437 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
1438 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">skrivefør
</span>”</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
1439 skrive.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Skriveføre
</span>”</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
1440 og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1441 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870624"></a><p>
1442 Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt
390 timer med
1443 TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom
20 000 og
45 000
1444 reklameinnslag,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870638" href=
"#ftn.id2870638" class=
"footnote">35</a>]
</sup> så er det mer og mer
1445 viktig å forstå
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">gramatikken
</span>”</span> til media. For på samme måte som
1446 det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media. Og
1447 akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
1448 lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i
1449 begynnelsen) grusom media.
1451 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1452 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1453 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive
—hvor
1454 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1455 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1456 forståelig
—så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1457 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1458 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1459 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1461 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra. Men
1462 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1463 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1464 den. En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1465 skrevet. En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1466 reflektere over det en har laget.
1467 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870678"></a><p>
1468 Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg. Da
1469 det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
1470 Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
1471 ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
1472 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger,
… rytme, skritt og
1473 tekstur
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870738" href=
"#ftn.id2870738" class=
"footnote">36</a>]
</sup> Men etter hvert som
1474 datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
1475 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">spillt
</span>”</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den
1476 enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
1477 teknikker nødvendig. Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret
1478 fortellerstemmen til science fiction. Men da han forsøkte å lage et
1479 dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
1480 lære. Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
1481 de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
1482 forfatter.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870782" href=
"#ftn.id2870782" class=
"footnote">37</a>]
</sup>
1483 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870809"></a><p>
1484 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1485 filmer. Som Daley skriver,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
1486 blir ledet gjennom en film. Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
1487 å se det, så du aner det ikke. Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du
1488 ikke at du har vært ledet.
</span>”</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
1489 film, så har filmen feilet.
1491 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren
—til en som går ut over
1492 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer
—handler ikke om å lage
1493 bedre filmregisører. Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt. I
1494 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1495 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
1496 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1497 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke. Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1498 språket som boksen bruker. I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1499 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1501 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1502 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ikke kunne skrive.
</span>”</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
1503 andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1506 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes. Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1507 kan bli både lesing og skriving. Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1508 forståelse for håndverket å skrive. Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1509 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede. Målet med
1510 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">gi folket
1511 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1512 uttrykke
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870895" href=
"#ftn.id2870895" class=
"footnote">38</a>]
</sup> Det gir studenter
1513 mulighet
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
1514 århundret
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2870917" href=
"#ftn.id2870917" class=
"footnote">39</a>]
</sup>
1515 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870924"></a><p>
1516 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1517 andre. Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1518 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1519 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1520 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole. Den
1521 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1522 Angeles. Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1523 en fiasko. Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1524 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1525 visste noe om
—våpen-relatert vold.
1527 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1528 skolen. Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1529 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Ungene
1530 dukket opp
06:
00, og dro igjen
05:
00 på natta
</span>”</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
1531 hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle
1532 om
—å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
1534 Ved å bruke hva som helst av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
1535 finne
</span>”</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
1536 blande
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">bilde, lyd og tekst
</span>”</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
1537 produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få
1538 ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse
1539 studentene. Prosjektet
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
1540 de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det
</span>”</span>, forklarer
1541 Barish. Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk
—mye mer vellykket
1542 og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst.
1543 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
1544 tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe
1545 annet
</span>”</span>, forklarer Barish. Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1546 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1547 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>disse
</em></span> idéene godt.
1548 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1554 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?
</span>”</span> spurte
1555 jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis. Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive?
1556 Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å
1557 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">konstruere mening
</span>”</span>. Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
1558 si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å
1559 stave. Tekstforming er bare en del
—og i større grad ikke den
1560 kraftigste delen
—for å konstruere mening. Som Daley forklarte i den
1561 mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
1562 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
1563 Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
1564 du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
1565 Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
1566 han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
1567 din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting. Men han kan ikke lese teksten
1568 din. Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
1569 Ingenting du gjør betyr noe
</span>”</span>. Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
1570 avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv. Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil
1571 han avvise deg. Men hvis du i stedet sier,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Vel, med alle disse
1572 tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet. Spill musikk til
1573 meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener
1574 reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere
1575 temaet
</span>”</span>. Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og
… si
1576 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
1577 film
</span>”</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
1578 forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.
…
1580 Dette bemyndiger enormt. Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
1581 har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
1582 faktumet
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
1583 skrive noe
</span>”</span>. Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
1584 om avsnittet
5,
6,
7,
8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
1587 Fordi de trengte det. Det var en grunn til å gjøre det. De trengte å si
1588 noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe. De trengte faktisk å
1589 bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra. Men de hadde begynt å
1590 forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
1591 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1592 Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
1593 et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
1594 til denne nyheten. Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
1595 ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
1596 disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til. Genialiteten i denne
1597 forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
1598 perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1600 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse. Det var musikk
1601 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1602 over skjermen. Det var en formel for intervjuer. Det var
1603 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">balanse
</span>”</span> og seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
1604 vi i stadig større grad forventer det,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">nyheter som
1605 underholdning
</span>”</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
1606 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2871188"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2871193"></a><p>
1607 Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tragedien
1608 11. september
</span>”</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
1609 tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
1610 fortellinger om de samme hendelsene. Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde
1611 en veldig annerledes smak. Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget
1612 bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med
1613 tekst. Noen tilbød åpne brev. Det var lydopptak. Det var sinne og
1614 frustrasjon. Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng. Det var, kort og
1615 godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin
1616 bruker begrepet i hans bok
<em class=
"citetitle">Cyber Rights
</em>, rundt en
1617 nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden. Det var
1618 ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet.
1621 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet
—selv om
1622 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises. Jeg
1623 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale. For på
1624 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1625 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Just
1626 Think!
</span>”</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1628 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1629 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1630 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker. Dette er noe nytt i vår
1631 tradisjon
—ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1632 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1633 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1635 11. september var ikke et avvik. Det var en start. Omtrent på samme tid,
1636 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1637 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog. Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1638 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1639 dagbok. I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1640 måte
—det er en slags elektronisk
<em class=
"citetitle">Jerry
1641 Springer
</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1643 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter. Det er noen som
1644 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv. Men det er mange som
1645 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1646 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1647 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1648 ser. Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1649 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1650 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen. De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1651 korte. De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1652 til dem. Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1653 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1656 Dette er en sterk uttalelse. Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1657 som den sier om blogger. Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1658 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen. Vi har
1659 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1660 valgene teller. Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1661 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1662 rutinepreget. De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1664 Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg. Demokrati betyr at folket
1665 styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg. I vår tradisjon betyr det
1666 også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning. Dette var idéen som
1667 fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
1668 nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
1669 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">demokratiet i Amerika
</span>”</span>. Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
1670 fascinerte han
—det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk
1671 retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere. Og det som fascinerte
1672 han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge
1673 frem. De diskuterte. Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var
1674 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">riktig
</span>”</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
1675 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">riktig
</span>”</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
1676 enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
1677 avsluttes.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2871369" href=
"#ftn.id2871369" class=
"footnote">40</a>]
</sup>
1679 Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag. Og i dets sted er det
1680 ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
1681 innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2871391" href=
"#ftn.id2871391" class=
"footnote">41</a>]
</sup>
1682 Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
1683 Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
1684 å gjennomføre
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">demokratisk diskusjon
</span>”</span>.
1686 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1687 skje. Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1688 mot å diskutere politikk. Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1689 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1690 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1691 ekstrem.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2871429" href=
"#ftn.id2871429" class=
"footnote">42</a>]
</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1692 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1695 Så kommer bloggen. Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1696 problemet. Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1697 ønsker å lese. Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1698 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1699 kommunikasjon. Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1700 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1702 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1703 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1704 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1705 venstresiden. Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1706 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger. Til og med
1707 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1710 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1711 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra
2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1712 fra hos noen få blogger. Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1713 lese dem en effekt.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2871485"></a>
1715 En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
1716 store mediene. Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel. Da Logg
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sa
1717 feil
</span>”</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
1718 segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at
1719 historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer.
1720 Det skjedde. Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren.
1721 Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien. Etter hvert dukket flere og
1722 flere tilfeller av tilsvarende
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">feiluttalelser
</span>”</span> opp. Så dukket
1723 historien opp igjen hos de store mediene. Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
1724 trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2871520" href=
"#ftn.id2871520" class=
"footnote">43</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2871531"></a>
1726 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1727 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1728 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører. De må arbeide for å holde på
1729 oppmerksomheten. Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter. Som haier,
1730 må de bevege seg videre.
1732 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger. De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1733 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse. Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1734 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1735 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1736 den i rangeringen for historier. Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1737 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1738 likemanns-generert rangering.
1739 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1741 Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
1742 mediene. Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
1743 programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell
1744 fraværet av finansiell
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">interessekonflikt
</span>”</span>.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Jeg tror du
1745 må ta interessekonflikten
</span>”</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
1746 meg.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
1747 eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
1748 rydde den av veien.
</span>”</span>
1749 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2871613"></a><p>
1750 Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
1751 konsentert (mer om dette under). Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
1752 offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan
—slik CNN innrømte at de
1753 gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
1754 ansatte.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2871347" href=
"#ftn.id2871347" class=
"footnote">44</a>]
</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
1755 en mer konsistent rapportering. (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
1756 melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
1757 satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq. New York-hovedkvarteret ba
1758 reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte
1759 tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
1760 grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>dem
</em></span> som
1761 skrev
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">historien
</span>”</span>.)
1762 </p><p> Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
1763 debatten
—<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">amatør
</span>”</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
1764 betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
1765 komme med deres rapport. Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
1766 en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
1767 hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
1768 hva de hadde sett.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2871676" href=
"#ftn.id2871676" class=
"footnote">45</a>]
</sup> Og det får lesere
1769 til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">triangulere
</span>”</span>,
1770 som Winer formulerer det, sannheten. Blogger, sier Winer,
1771 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
1772 fjernet
</span>”</span>— med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
1775 Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av
1776 blogger.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet
</span>”</span>, spår
1777 Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
1778 Det er ikke klart at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">journalismen
</span>”</span> er glad for
1779 dette
—noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
1780 blogging.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2871713" href=
"#ftn.id2871713" class=
"footnote">46</a>]
</sup> Men det er klart at vi
1781 fortsatt er i en overgangsfase.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
1782 oppvarmingsøvelser
</span>”</span>, fortalte Winer meg. Det er mye som må modne før
1783 dette området har sin modne effekt. Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
1784 dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa
1785 Wiener at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned
</span>”</span>.
1787 Slik tale påvirker demokratiet. Winer mener dette skjer fordi
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">du
1788 trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en
1789 portvokter
</span>”</span>. Det er sant. Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
1790 annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener,
1791 og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige
1792 temaer. Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt. Det er
1793 vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre. Det
1794 er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å
1795 innse at han tok feil. Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere
1796 at noen har bevist at han tok feil. Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og
1797 kritikk forbedrer demokratiet. I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
1798 blogger der det skrives på denne måten. Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
1799 være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
1800 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2871844"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxadvertising1"></a><p>
1801 John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i
1802 følge hans eget nettsted, er
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">menneskelig læring og
… å skape
1803 kunnskapsøkologier for å skape
… innovasjon
</span>”</span>.
1805 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1806 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt. Jeg er
1807 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1808 demokratiet. Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1809 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1812 Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle. Da
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">mange av oss vokste opp
</span>”</span>,
1813 forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
1814 gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre
</span>”</span>. Men digitale
1815 teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling
—med abstrakte idéer i sin
1816 konkrete form. Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et
1817 reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker. Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan
1818 de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og
1819 se hvordan det blir gjort. Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags
1820 *bricolage* eller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling
</span>”</span>, som
1821 Brown kaller det. Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
1822 fiklingen til mange andre.
1824 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1825 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS). FS/OSS er programvare der
1826 kildekoden deles ut. Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1827 FS/OSS-program til å fungere. Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1828 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1830 Denne muligheten gir en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">helt ny type læringsplattform
</span>”</span>, i
1831 følge Brown.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så
… slipper
1832 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1833 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1834 forbedre den
</span>”</span>. Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Åpen
1835 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.
</span>”</span>.
1837 I denne prossesen,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1838 er kildekode
</span>”</span>. Unger
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1839 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1840 gjør i garasjen din. Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform.
… Du
1841 fikler med andre folks greier. Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1842 du.
</span>”</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1844 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold. Og det skjer på samme
1845 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet. Som Brown
1846 formulerer det,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1847 til flere former for intelligens
</span>”</span>. Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1848 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst. Men nettet
1849 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Nettet
… si hvis du er musikalsk,
1850 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1851 …da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet. Det kan
1852 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.
</span>”</span>
1853 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872028"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872035"></a><p>
1855 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1856 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1857 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1859 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1860 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1861 omstridt. Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1862 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1863 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1864 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1866 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1867 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
1868 kraftfylt argument til fordel for
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">retten til å fikle
</span>”</span> slik det
1869 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2872086" href=
"#ftn.id2872086" class=
"footnote">47</a>]
</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det
1870 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1873 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1874 på vei
</span>”</span>, forklarer Brown. Vi må
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1875 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære
</span>”</span>.
1877 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Likevel
</span>”</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1878 føre bevis for,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1879 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger.
… We
1880 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør
60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1881 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen
</span>”</span>.
1882 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872145"></a><p>
1883 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1884 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1885 denne kreativiteten over alt. Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1888 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på
</span>”</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1889 møtte i kapittel
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#collectors" title=
"Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1891 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870070" href=
"#id2870070" class=
"para">26</a>]
</sup>
1894 Reese V. Jenkins,
<em class=
"citetitle">Images and Enterprise
</em> (Baltimore:
1895 Johns Hopkins University Press,
1975),
112.
1896 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2867343" href=
"#id2867343" class=
"para">27</a>]
</sup>
1898 Brian Coe,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Birth of Photography
</em> (New York:
1899 Taplinger Publishing,
1977),
53.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870123"></a>
1900 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870149" href=
"#id2870149" class=
"para">28</a>]
</sup>
1904 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870158" href=
"#id2870158" class=
"para">29</a>]
</sup>
1907 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s.
178.
1908 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870100" href=
"#id2870100" class=
"para">30</a>]
</sup>
1912 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870252" href=
"#id2870252" class=
"para">31</a>]
</sup>
1915 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel,
<em class=
"citetitle">Pavesich
</em>
1916 mot
<em class=
"citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co
</em>.,
50 S.E.
68 (Ga.
1905);
1917 <em class=
"citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co
</em>. mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Chinn
</em>,
1918 123090 S.W.
364,
366 (Ky.
1909);
<em class=
"citetitle">Corliss
</em> mot
1919 <em class=
"citetitle">Walker
</em>,
64 F.
280 (Mass. Dist. Ct.
1894).
1920 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870322" href=
"#id2870322" class=
"para">32</a>]
</sup>
1922 Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Right to Privacy
</span>”</span>,
1923 <em class=
"citetitle">Harvard Law Review
</em> 4 (
1890):
193.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870333"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870342"></a>
1924 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870376" href=
"#id2870376" class=
"para">33</a>]
</sup>
1927 Se Melville B. Nimmer,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Right of Publicity
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Law
1928 and Contemporary Problems
</em> 19 (
1954):
203; William L. Prosser,
1929 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Privacy
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">California Law Review
</em> 48
1930 (
1960)
398–407;
<em class=
"citetitle">White
</em> mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Samsung
1931 Electronics America, Inc
</em>.,
971 F.
2d
1395 (
9th Cir.
1992),
1932 sert. nektet,
508 U.S.
951 (
1993).
1933 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870542" href=
"#id2870542" class=
"para">34</a>]
</sup>
1936 H. Edward Goldberg,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1937 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,
</span>”</span>
1938 cadalyst, februar
2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
7</a>.
1939 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870638" href=
"#id2870638" class=
"para">35</a>]
</sup>
1942 Judith Van Evra,
<em class=
"citetitle">Television and Child Development
</em>
1943 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1990);
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Findings on
1944 Family and TV Study
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Denver Post
</em>,
25. mai
1946 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870738" href=
"#id2870738" class=
"para">36</a>]
</sup>
1948 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish,
13. desember
2002.
1949 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870745"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870754"></a>
1950 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870782" href=
"#id2870782" class=
"para">37</a>]
</sup>
1953 Se Scott Steinberg,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs
</span>”</span>, E!online,
1954 4. november
2000, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
8</a>;
1955 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Timeline
</span>”</span>,
22. november
2000, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
9</a>.
1956 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870895" href=
"#id2870895" class=
"para">38</a>]
</sup>
1958 Intervju med Daley og Barish.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2870901"></a>
1959 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2870917" href=
"#id2870917" class=
"para">39</a>]
</sup>
1963 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2871369" href=
"#id2871369" class=
"para">40</a>]
</sup>
1966 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville,
<em class=
"citetitle">Democracy in
1967 America
</em>, bk.
1, overs. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1969 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2871391" href=
"#id2871391" class=
"para">41</a>]
</sup>
1972 Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Deliberation Day
</span>”</span>,
1973 <em class=
"citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy
</em> 10 (
2) (
2002):
129.
1974 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2871429" href=
"#id2871429" class=
"para">42</a>]
</sup>
1977 Cass Sunstein,
<em class=
"citetitle">Republic.com
</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1978 University Press,
2001),
65–80,
175,
182,
183,
192.
1979 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2871520" href=
"#id2871520" class=
"para">43</a>]
</sup>
1982 Noah Shachtman,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1983 Pot
</span>”</span>, New York Times,
16. januar
2003, G5.
1984 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2871347" href=
"#id2871347" class=
"para">44</a>]
</sup>
1987 Telefonintervju med David Winer,
16. april
2003.
1988 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2871676" href=
"#id2871676" class=
"para">45</a>]
</sup>
1991 John Schwartz,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1992 Information Online
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
2 februar
1993 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
1994 Strong Overall
</span>”</span>, Online Journalism Review,
2. februar
2003,
1995 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
1997 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2871713" href=
"#id2871713" class=
"para">46</a>]
</sup>
1999 Se Michael Falcone,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?
</span>”</span>
2000 <em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
29. september
2003, C4. (
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Ikke
2001 alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like stor aksept for ansatte som
2002 blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i Irak som startet en blogg om
2003 sin rapportering av krigen
9. mars, stoppet å publisere
12 dager senere på
2004 forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve Olafson, en
2005 <em class=
"citetitle">Houston Chronicle
</em>-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en
2006 personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av
2007 temaene og folkene som han dekket
</span>”</span>)
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2871771"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2871779"></a>
2008 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872086" href=
"#id2872086" class=
"para">47</a>]
</sup>
2011 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Technological Access
2012 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,
</span>”</span>
2013 <em class=
"citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
2014 Machinery
</em> 43 (
2000):
9.
2015 </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=
"id2872195"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxrensselaer"></a><p>
2016 Høsten
2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
2017 førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
2018 Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi. Selv om han ikke var
2019 en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
2020 søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2022 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2023 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2024 informasjonsvitenskap. Mer enn
65 prosent av de fem tusen
2025 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de
10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2026 videregående. Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2027 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2030 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2031 Det kobler også RPI til internettet. Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2032 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet. Men nettverket er utformet for å
2033 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2034 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2037 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2038 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2039 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket. Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2040 enda bedre. Ideen med
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">intranett
</span>”</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2041 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2042 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2043 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2044 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2045 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2047 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv. For eksempel
2048 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2049 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2050 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet. Søkemotoren til
2051 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien. Den brukte
2052 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2053 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2055 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2056 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget. Hans
2057 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2058 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2059 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2060 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2061 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje. Jesse endret systemet litt for
2062 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2063 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2065 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober. I løpet av de følgende
2066 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2067 funksjonalitet. I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra. Jesse hadde mer enn
2068 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2069 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2072 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2073 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2074 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2075 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer
—ganske enkelt alt som
2076 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2079 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler. Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2080 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler. Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2081 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og
—slik at dette poenget er helt
2082 klart
—Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2083 i deres fellesmapper. Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2084 disse filene. Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2085 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2086 fiklingen målet. I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2087 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen. Han var ikke knyttet til
2088 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet. Han var en
2089 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2090 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2092 Den
3. april
2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2093 RPI. Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
2094 wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
2095 gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter. Noen få timer senere ble
2096 Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene. Mens han leste
2097 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2100 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Det var absurd
</span>”</span>, fortalte han meg.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Jeg mener at jeg
2101 ikke gjorde noe galt.
… Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2102 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller
… hva jeg hadde gjort med den. Jeg
2103 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2104 arbeidet til pirater. Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2105 bruke
</span>”</span>—igjen, en
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>søkemotor
</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2106 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2107 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2108 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2109 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2112 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat. De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2113 dermed
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">med vilje
</span>”</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene. De krevde
2114 at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt. I saker
2115 med
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">krenkelser med vilje
</span>”</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
2116 som advokater kaller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">lovbestemte skader
</span>”</span>. Disse skadene
2117 tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $
150 000 per krenkelse.
2118 Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
2119 opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
2122 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2123 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2124 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse. Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2125 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2126 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">erstatning
</span>”</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på. Hvis du summerte
2127 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2128 saksøkerne nesten $
100 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>milliarder
</em></span>—seks ganger det
2129 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>totale
</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2130 2001.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2872491" href=
"#ftn.id2872491" class=
"footnote">48</a>]
</sup>
2131 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872508"></a><p>
2132 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre. De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2133 onkel var advokat. Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA. De krevde å få vite
2134 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde. Jesse hadde spart opp $
12 000 fra
2135 sommerjobber og annet arbeid. De krevde
12 000 for å trekke saken.
2136 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872529"></a><p>
2137 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt. Han
2138 nektet. De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2139 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2140 hans liv. Han nektet. De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2141 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig. (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2142 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Du ønsker
2143 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger
</span>”</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2144 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2145 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2148 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene. De ønsket å kjempe.
2149 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2150 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte. Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA. Han
2151 kunne til og med vinne. Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2152 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $
250 000. Hvis han vant ville han
2153 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene. Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2154 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2157 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $
250 000 og en sjanse til å
2158 vinne, eller $
12 000 og et forlik.
2159 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872570"></a><p>
2160 Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral. La oss
2161 legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen. Hvor er moralen i
2162 et søksmål som dette? Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam. RIAA er en spesielt
2163 mektig lobby. Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $
1
2164 million i året. Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt. Den
2165 gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $
45 900.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2872574" href=
"#ftn.id2872574" class=
"footnote">49</a>]
</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2166 påvirke og styre politikken. Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2167 student for å drive en søkemotor?
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2872632" href=
"#ftn.id2872632" class=
"footnote">50</a>]
</sup>
2169 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2170 for RIAA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2171 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for
15 millioner dollar en
2173 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2174 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere]. Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2175 være en aktivist.
… [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette. Jeg
2176 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2177 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2178 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2179 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2180 aktivist. Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">anser seg selv for å være
2181 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg.
… Han er ingen
2182 treklemmer.
… Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2183 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap. Og han ønsker å
2184 korrigere rullebladet.
</span>”</span>
2185 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872491" href=
"#id2872491" class=
"para">48</a>]
</sup>
2189 Tim Goral,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-
2-P Networks: Suit
2190 Alleges $
97.8 Billion in Damages,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Professional Media
2191 Group LCC
</em> 6 (
2003):
5, tilgjengelig fra
2003 WL
55179443.
2192 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872574" href=
"#id2872574" class=
"para">49</a>]
</sup>
2195 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (
2001)
2196 (
27–2042—Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2197 the Arts,
<em class=
"citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon
</em> (
2000).
2198 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872632" href=
"#id2872632" class=
"para">50</a>]
</sup>
2201 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">KaZaA and
2202 Punishment,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Wall Street Journal
</em>,
2203 10. september
2003, A24.
2204 </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:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Pirater
</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2205 Hvis
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span> betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen
2206 til andre uten deres tillatelse
—hvis
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">hvis verdi, så
2207 rettighet
</span>”</span> er sant
—da er historien om innholdsindustrien en
2208 historie om piratvirksomhet. Hver eneste viktige sektor av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">store
2209 medier
</span>”</span> i dag
—film, plater, radio og kabel-TV
—kom fra en
2210 slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen. Den konsekvente fortellingen
2211 er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne generasjonens
2212 borgerskap
—inntil nå.
2213 </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>
2215 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2872744" href=
"#ftn.id2872744" class=
"footnote">51</a>]
</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
2216 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2217 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2218 Edison. Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2219 monopol-
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kartell
</span>”</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2220 basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter
—patenter. Edison
2221 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2222 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2224 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2225 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2226 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar
1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2227 med lisensen. Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2228 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2229 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol. Sommeren
1909
2230 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2231 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2234 With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
2235 nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
2236 forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company to block
2237 the entry of non-licensed independents. With coercive tactics that have
2238 become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment,
2239 discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
2240 effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
2241 exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
2242 defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2872825" href=
"#ftn.id2872825" class=
"footnote">52</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872858"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872864"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872870"></a>
2243 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2244 The Napsters of those days, the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">independents,
</span>”</span> were companies
2245 like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
2246 resisted.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
2247 `accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
2248 sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2872891" href=
"#ftn.id2872891" class=
"footnote">53</a>]
</sup> That led the independents to flee the East
2249 Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers
2250 there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And the leaders
2251 of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
2254 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2255 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover. Men fordi patenter tildeler
2256 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">begrenset
</span>”</span> monopol (kun sytten
2257 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2258 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2259 kreative rettigheter.
2260 </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>
2261 Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2262 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2264 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872967"></a><p>
2265 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2266 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2267 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2268 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2269 deres musikk. Med andre ord, i
1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2270 Russels populære låt
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Happy Mose
</span>”</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2271 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2272 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2273 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872995"></a><p>
2274 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Happy Mose
</span>”</span> ved hjelp av
2275 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano? Her snublet loven. Det
2276 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2277 gjorde innspillingen. Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2278 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn. Men det var ikke helt klart
2279 at jeg måtte betale for en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">offentlig fremføring
</span>”</span> hvis jeg
2280 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2281 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2282 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2283 ikke
—ennå
—regulert av opphavsrettsloven). Så hvis jeg ganske
2284 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2285 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe. Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2286 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2287 innspillingene. På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2288 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2289 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873024"></a><p>
2290 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2291 å røve. Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2292 det,
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873060"></a>
2293 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2294 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten. En komponist skriver en sang eller
2295 en opera. En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2296 registrerer opphavsretten til den. Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2297 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2298 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2299 om [deres] rettigheter.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2873087" href=
"#ftn.id2873087" class=
"footnote">54</a>]
</sup>
2300 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2301 The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
2302 were
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of
2303 American composers,
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2873120" href=
"#ftn.id2873120" class=
"footnote">55</a>]
</sup> and the
2304 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">music publishing industry
</span>”</span> was thereby
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">at the complete
2305 mercy of this one pirate.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2873134" href=
"#ftn.id2873134" class=
"footnote">56</a>]
</sup> As
2306 John Philip Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">When they
2307 make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2873148" href=
"#ftn.id2873148" class=
"footnote">57</a>]
</sup>
2309 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2310 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2311 argued that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
2312 automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
2313 before their introduction.
</span>”</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
2314 of sheet music.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2873169" href=
"#ftn.id2873169" class=
"footnote">58</a>]
</sup> In any case, the
2315 innovators argued, the job of Congress was
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">to consider first the
2316 interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
2317 are.
</span>”</span> <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">All talk about `theft,'
</span>”</span> the general counsel of
2318 the American Graphophone Company wrote,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">is the merest claptrap, for
2319 there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
2320 defined by statute.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2873193" href=
"#ftn.id2873193" class=
"footnote">59</a>]
</sup>
2321 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873203"></a>
2324 Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>både
</em></span>
2325 komponisten og innspillingsartisten. Kongressen endret loven slik at
2326 komponisten fikk betalt for den
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">mekaniske reproduksjonen
</span>”</span> av
2327 deres musikk. Men i stedet for å ganske enkelt gi komponisten full kontroll
2328 over rettigheten til å lage mekaniske reproduksjoner, ga kongressen
2329 innspillingsartister rett en til å spille inn musikk, til en pris satt av
2330 kongressen, så snart komponisten har tillatt at den ble spilt inn en gang.
2331 Det er denne delen av opphavsrettsloven som gjør cover-låter mulig. Så
2332 snart en komponist tillater en innspilling av hans sang, har andre mulighet
2333 til å spille inn samme sang, så lenge de betaler den originale komponisten
2334 et gebyr fastsatt av loven.
2336 Amerikansk lov kaller dette vanligvis en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tvangslisens
</span>”</span>, men
2337 jeg vil referere til dette som en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">lovbestemt lisens
</span>”</span>. En
2338 lovbestemt lisens er en lisens hvis nøkkelvilkår er bestemt i lovverket.
2339 Etter kongressens endring av opphavsrettsloven i
1909, sto plateselskapene
2340 fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
2341 komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
2343 Dette er et unntak i opphavsrettsloven. Når John Grisham skriver en roman
2344 så kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren
2345 tillatelse til det. Girsham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst
2346 betaling for den tillatelsen. Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed
2347 bestemt av Grisham og opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
2348 bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
2349 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873272"></a>
2351 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2352 effect, the law
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>subsidizes
</em></span> the recording industry
2353 through a kind of piracy
—by giving recording artists a weaker right
2354 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2355 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2356 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2357 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2358 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2359 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2360 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2361 follow-on creativity.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2872784" href=
"#ftn.id2872784" class=
"footnote">60</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873314"></a>
2363 Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
2364 historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
2365 innspillinger. Som det sto i en rapport fra
1967 utgitt av House Committee
2367 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2368 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2369 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2370 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2371 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2372 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2373 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2374 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2375 recording rights before
1909 and the
1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2376 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2377 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2378 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2379 choice.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2873350" href=
"#ftn.id2873350" class=
"footnote">61</a>]
</sup>
2380 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2381 Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
2382 verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
2383 </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><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxartistspayments1"></a><p>
2384 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2386 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
2387 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">public performance
</span>”</span> of the composer's work.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2873408" href=
"#ftn.id2873408" class=
"footnote">62</a>]
</sup> As I described above, the law gives the composer
2388 (or copyright holder) an exclusive right to public performances of his
2389 work. The radio station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
2392 But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
2393 of the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>composer's
</em></span> work. The radio station is also
2394 performing a copy of the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>recording artist's
</em></span> work. It's
2395 one thing to have
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Happy Birthday
</span>”</span> sung on the radio by the
2396 local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling
2397 Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the
2398 composition performed on the radio station. And if the law were perfectly
2399 consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his
2400 work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873484"></a>
2404 But it doesn't. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio
2405 station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need
2406 only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for
2407 nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist's work for free, even if it
2408 must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song.
2409 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxmadonna"></a><p>
2410 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor. Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2411 musikk. Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke. Du eier de eksklusive
2412 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken. Så hvis
2413 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2415 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2416 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2417 populær hitlåt. Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2418 spiller din sang. Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2419 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er. Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2420 innspilling er ikke en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">beskyttet
</span>”</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2421 får dermed
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>røve
</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2422 betale henne noen ting.
2423 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873554"></a><p>
2424 Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
2425 på dette. I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
2426 fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg. Kanskje. Men selv om det er slik,
2427 så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget. Ved å
2428 gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
2430 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873578"></a></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>
2432 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2435 When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
2436 television in
1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
2437 they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
2438 selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
2439 sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
2440 egregiously than anything Napster ever did
— Napster never charged for
2441 the content it enabled others to give away.
2442 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873604"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873620"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873626"></a><p>
2443 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft. Rosel
2444 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">unfair
2445 and potentially destructive competition.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2873640" href=
"#ftn.id2873640" class=
"footnote">63</a>]
</sup> There may have been a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">public interest
</span>”</span> in spreading
2446 the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
2447 National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
2448 testimony,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
2449 property?
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2873667" href=
"#ftn.id2873667" class=
"footnote">64</a>]
</sup> As another
2451 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2452 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2453 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2454 for.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2873684" href=
"#ftn.id2873684" class=
"footnote">65</a>]
</sup>
2455 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2456 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2457 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2458 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2459 betaler for den. Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2460 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det. Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2461 ville passe.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2873712" href=
"#ftn.id2873712" class=
"footnote">66</a>]
</sup>
2462 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873723"></a><p>
2463 Disse var
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">gratispassasjerer
</span>”</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2464 Screen Actor's Guild, som
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tok lønna fra
2465 skuespillerne
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2873739" href=
"#ftn.id2873739" class=
"footnote">67</a>]
</sup>
2467 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister
2468 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2469 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
2470 Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
2471 protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
2472 already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
2473 extend that monopoly.
… The question here is how much compensation
2474 they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
2475 compensation.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2872665" href=
"#ftn.id2872665" class=
"footnote">68</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873791"></a>
2476 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2477 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2478 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2480 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
2481 whether cable companies had to pay for the content they
2482 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">pirated.
</span>”</span> In the end, Congress resolved this question in the
2483 same way that it resolved the question about record players and player
2484 pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they
2485 broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
2486 owner. The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise
2487 veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
2488 built their empire in part upon a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span> of the value created
2489 by broadcasters' content.
2491 These separate stories sing a common theme. If
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span> means
2492 using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
2493 that creator
—as it is increasingly described today
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2873780" href=
"#ftn.id2873780" class=
"footnote">69</a>]
</sup> — then
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>every
</em></span> industry
2494 affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
2495 of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV.
… The list is long and
2496 could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
2497 last. Every generation
—until now.
2498 </p></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872744" href=
"#id2872744" class=
"para">51</a>]
</sup>
2500 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2501 ekstraordinære historien. Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyrights
2502 and Copywrongs
</em>,
87–93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2503 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eventyr
</span>”</span> med opphavsrett og patent.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2872760"></a>
2504 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872825" href=
"#id2872825" class=
"para">52</a>]
</sup>
2507 J. A. Aberdeen,
<em class=
"citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2508 Motion Picture Producers
</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment,
2000) and
2509 expanded texts posted at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2510 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,
</span>”</span> available at
2511 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
11</a>. For a
2512 discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
2513 imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">From Edison
2514 to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
2515 Propertization of Copyright
</span>”</span> (September
2002), University of Chicago
2516 Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
2517 No.
159.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872891" href=
"#id2872891" class=
"para">53</a>]
</sup>
2520 Marc Wanamaker,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The First Studios,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">The Silents
2521 Majority
</em>, arkivert på
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
12</a>.
2522 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873087" href=
"#id2873087" class=
"para">54</a>]
</sup>
2524 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S.
6330
2525 and H.R.
19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents,
59th Cong.
59,
1st
2526 sess. (
1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2527 chairman), reprinted in
<em class=
"citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2528 Act
</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2529 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints,
1976).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873100"></a>
2530 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873120" href=
"#id2873120" class=
"para">55</a>]
</sup>
2533 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
223 (uttalelse fra
2534 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2535 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873134" href=
"#id2873134" class=
"para">56</a>]
</sup>
2538 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
226 (uttalelse fra
2539 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2540 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873148" href=
"#id2873148" class=
"para">57</a>]
</sup>
2543 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
23 (uttalelse fra
2544 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2545 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873169" href=
"#id2873169" class=
"para">58</a>]
</sup>
2549 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
283–84
2550 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2551 Company of New York).
2552 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873193" href=
"#id2873193" class=
"para">59</a>]
</sup>
2555 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,
376 (prepared
2556 memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
2557 Graphophone Company Association).
2558 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872784" href=
"#id2872784" class=
"para">60</a>]
</sup>
2562 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S.
2499, S.
2900, H.R.
243, and
2563 H.R.
11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents,
60th Cong.,
1st sess.,
2564 217 (
1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2565 <em class=
"citetitle">Legislative History of the
1909 Copyright Act
</em>,
2566 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2568 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873350" href=
"#id2873350" class=
"para">61</a>]
</sup>
2571 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R.
2512, House Committee on
2572 the Judiciary,
90th Cong.,
1st sess., House Document no.
83, (
8 March
2573 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873408" href=
"#id2873408" class=
"para">62</a>]
</sup>
2575 See
17 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>, sections
106 and
110. At
2576 the beginning, record companies printed
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Not Licensed for Radio
2577 Broadcast
</span>”</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
2578 play a record on a radio station. Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
2579 that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
2580 station. See
<em class=
"citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2581 Co
</em>. v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Whiteman
</em>,
114 F.
2d
86 (
2nd
2582 Cir.
1940). See also Randal C. Picker,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2583 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2584 Copyright,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review
</em>
2585 70 (
2003):
281.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873440"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873449"></a>
2586 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873640" href=
"#id2873640" class=
"para">63</a>]
</sup>
2588 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV: Hearing on S.
1006 Before the
2589 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2590 on the Judiciary,
89th Cong.,
2nd sess.,
78 (
1966) (statement of Rosel
2591 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873610"></a>
2592 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873667" href=
"#id2873667" class=
"para">64</a>]
</sup>
2595 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2596 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2597 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873684" href=
"#id2873684" class=
"para">65</a>]
</sup>
2600 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2601 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2602 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873712" href=
"#id2873712" class=
"para">66</a>]
</sup>
2605 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
169 (joint statement of Arthur B. Krim,
2606 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2607 Artists Television, Inc.).
2608 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873739" href=
"#id2873739" class=
"para">67</a>]
</sup>
2610 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2611 president i Screen Actors Guild).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873717"></a>
2612 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2872665" href=
"#id2872665" class=
"para">68</a>]
</sup>
2614 Copyright Law Revision
—CATV,
216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2615 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873742"></a>
2616 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873780" href=
"#id2873780" class=
"para">69</a>]
</sup>
2619 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association,
<em class=
"citetitle">The
2620 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet
—The Myth of Free
2621 Information
</em>, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
13</a>.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The threat of
2622 piracy
—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2623 compensation
—has grown with the Internet.
</span>”</span>
2624 </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:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2625 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2626 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2627 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2628 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2629 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2632 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
2633 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">taking
</span>”</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
2634 taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
2635 we paint this taking
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy,
</span>”</span> however, we should understand
2636 its nature a bit more. For the harm of this taking is significantly more
2637 ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
2638 ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
2640 </p><div class=
"section" title=
"5.1. Piratvirksomhet I"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title" style=
"clear: both"><a name=
"piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I
</h2></div></div></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873922"></a><p>
2641 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2642 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2643 copy it, and sell it
—all without the permission of a copyright
2644 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $
4.6 billion
2645 every year to physical piracy
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2873771" href=
"#ftn.id2873771" class=
"footnote">70</a>]
</sup> (that
2646 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2647 loses $
3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2649 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2650 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2651 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2653 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2654 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2655 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2656 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2657 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2658 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2661 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2662 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2663 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2664 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule. The copy shops
2665 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2666 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2667 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2668 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2669 legal wrong as well.
2671 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2672 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2674 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2675 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2677 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2678 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2679 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2680 intellectual property law.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874025" href=
"#ftn.id2874025" class=
"footnote">71</a>]
</sup> In my view,
2681 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2682 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2683 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2684 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874068"></a><p>
2685 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2686 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2687 American CDs at
50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2688 American CDs at $
15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2689 otherwise would have had.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874083" href=
"#ftn.id2874083" class=
"footnote">72</a>]
</sup>
2691 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2692 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2693 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2694 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">You wouldn't go into
2695 Barnes
& Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2696 should it be any different with on-line music?
</span>”</span> The difference is, of
2697 course, that when you take a book from Barnes
& Noble, it has one less
2698 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2699 there is not one less CD that can be sold. The physics of piracy of the
2700 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2703 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2704 right of a very special sort, it
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>is
</em></span> a property
2705 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2706 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2707 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2708 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2709 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2710 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">take
</span>”</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2711 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2712 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2713 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2714 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2715 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property
</span>”</span>
2717 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874170"></a><p>
2718 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2719 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2720 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">steal
</span>”</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2721 Microsoft. Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2722 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2723 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2724 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2725 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2726 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2727 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft. Without
2728 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874194"></a>
2729 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874200"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874207"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874218"></a>
2731 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2732 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2733 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2734 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2735 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2736 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2738 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2739 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2740 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2741 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2742 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2743 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2744 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2745 to say who gets access to what
—at least ordinarily. And if the law
2746 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2747 access, then violating the law is still wrong.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873933"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874243"></a>
2748 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874264"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874270"></a>
2752 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2753 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2754 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2755 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2756 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2757 to something that the law says he should not have. Nothing has changed to
2758 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2760 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2761 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span>
2762 is. Or at least, not all
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span> is wrong if that term is
2763 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2764 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2765 content or new ways of doing business. Neither our tradition nor any
2766 tradition has ever banned all
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span> in that sense of the
2769 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2770 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2771 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2772 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2774 For (
1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2775 controlling industry; and (
2) like the original recording industry, it
2776 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (
3) unlike cable TV, no
2777 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2779 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2780 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2781 </p></div><div class=
"section" title=
"5.2. Piratvirksomhet II"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title" style=
"clear: both"><a name=
"piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piratvirksomhet II
</h2></div></div></div><p>
2783 The key to the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2784 that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2874355" href=
"#ftn.id2874355" class=
"footnote">73</a>]
</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2785 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2786 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2788 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2789 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations. Like
2790 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2791 Internet as well
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874379" href=
"#ftn.id2874379" class=
"footnote">74</a>]
</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2792 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2793 independently.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874409"></a>
2795 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July
1999, Napster
2796 amassed over
10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2797 there were close to
80 million registered users of the system.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874422" href=
"#ftn.id2874422" class=
"footnote">75</a>]
</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2798 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2799 service. It boasts over
100 million members.) These services' systems are
2800 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2801 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2802 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend
—
2803 or your
20,
000 best friends.
2805 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2806 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September
2002
2807 estimated that
60 million Americans had downloaded music
—28 percent of
2808 Americans older than
12.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874478" href=
"#ftn.id2874478" class=
"footnote">76</a>]
</sup> A survey by
2809 the NPD group quoted in
<em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em> estimated
2810 that
43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2811 May
2003.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874500" href=
"#ftn.id2874500" class=
"footnote">77</a>]
</sup> The vast majority of these
2812 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2813 being
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">taken
</span>”</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2814 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2817 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2818 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2819 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2820 might think. So consider
—a bit more carefully than the polarized
2821 voices around this debate usually do
—the kinds of sharing that file
2822 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2826 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold. Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2828 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"A"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
2830 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2831 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2832 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2833 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2834 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2835 would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2836 of purchasing.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874560"></a>
2837 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
2840 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2841 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2842 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2843 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending
2844 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2845 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2846 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2847 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
2850 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2851 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2852 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2853 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2854 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2855 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2856 solid weekend
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">recalling
</span>”</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2857 range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is
2858 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2859 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2860 zero
—the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of
1960s
2861 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2862 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
2867 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2868 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2869 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2870 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2872 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2873 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2874 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874630" href=
"#ftn.id2874630" class=
"footnote">78</a>]
</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2875 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2876 exposure to music is good) and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2877 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2878 question to answer
—and certainly much more difficult than the current
2879 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2881 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2882 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2883 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2884 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2885 type A sharing is a kind of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">theft
</span>”</span> that is
2886 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">devastating
</span>”</span> the industry.
2888 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2889 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2890 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2891 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst
& Young put it,
2892 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2893 fought it.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2874683" href=
"#ftn.id2874683" class=
"footnote">79</a>]
</sup> The labels claimed
2894 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2895 11.4 percent in
1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2896 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2899 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2900 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2901 turnaround.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">In the end,
</span>”</span> Cap Gemini concludes,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the
2902 `crisis'
… was not the fault of the tapers
—who did not [stop
2903 after MTV came into being]
—but had to a large extent resulted from
2904 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2874094" href=
"#ftn.id2874094" class=
"footnote">80</a>]
</sup>
2906 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2907 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2908 in particular, and society in general
—or at least the society that
2909 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2910 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR
—the question is not simply
2911 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2912 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>how
</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2913 other types of sharing are.
2915 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2916 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause. The
2917 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">net harm
</span>”</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2918 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2919 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2920 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2921 little
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>static
</em></span> reason to resist them.
2924 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2925 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2928 In
2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by
8.9 percent, from
882
2929 million to
803 million units; revenues fell
6.7 percent.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874788" href=
"#ftn.id2874788" class=
"footnote">81</a>]
</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2930 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2931 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2932 more than
20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since
1999. That no
2933 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2934 account for at least some of the loss.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">From
1999 to
2001, the average
2935 price of a CD rose
7.2 percent, from $
13.04 to $
14.19.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2874838" href=
"#ftn.id2874838" class=
"footnote">82</a>]
</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2936 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2937 <em class=
"citetitle">BusinessWeek
</em> notes,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The soundtrack to the film
2938 <em class=
"citetitle">High Fidelity
</em> has a list price of $
18.98. You could
2939 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $
19.99.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2874874" href=
"#ftn.id2874874" class=
"footnote">83</a>]
</sup>
2944 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2945 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2946 RIAA estimates that
803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that
2.1
2947 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although
2.6 times the total
2948 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just
6.7
2951 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2952 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2953 industry constantly asks,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2954 song and stealing a CD?
</span>”</span>—but their own numbers reveal the
2955 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2956 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2957 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2958 were a lost sale
—if every use of Kazaa
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rob[bed] the author of
2959 [his] profit
</span>”</span>—then the industry would have suffered a
100
2960 percent drop in sales last year, not a
7 percent drop. If
2.6 times the
2961 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2962 by just
6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2963 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.
</span>”</span>
2965 These are the harms
—alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2966 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2967 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2969 One benefit is type C sharing
—making available content that is
2970 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2971 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2972 are no longer commercially available.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874924" href=
"#ftn.id2874924" class=
"footnote">84</a>]
</sup>
2973 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2974 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2975 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2976 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2977 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>to the company
</em></span> to make it available.
2979 In real space
—long before the Internet
—the market had a simple
2980 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2981 of used book and used record stores in America today.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2874965" href=
"#ftn.id2874965" class=
"footnote">85</a>]
</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2982 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2983 this content,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2984 copyright
</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2985 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2986 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2987 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2988 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2875015"></a><p>
2989 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2990 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2991 available isn't making money from making the content available. It is also
2992 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2993 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my
1949 recording
2994 of Bernstein's
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Two Love Songs,
</span>”</span> I still have it. That
2995 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
2996 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
2997 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
2998 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
3001 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
3002 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
3003 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
3004 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
3005 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
3009 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
3010 sharing to occur
—the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
3011 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
3012 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
3013 for example, released his first novel,
<em class=
"citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
3014 Kingdom
</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
3015 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
3016 would be a great advertisement for the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">real
</span>”</span> book. People
3017 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
3018 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
3019 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
3020 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
3023 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3024 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3025 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3026 important in order to protect type A content.
3028 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3029 says,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">This is how much we've lost,
</span>”</span> we must also ask,
3030 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3031 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3032 unavailable?
</span>”</span>
3034 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3035 of the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3036 good. And 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
3037 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3038 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3039 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3040 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3041 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3042 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3043 balance will be found only with time.
3045 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling? Er ikke
3046 angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?
</span>”</span>
3048 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3049 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3050 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3051 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3052 technology to block the transfer of
99.4 percent of identified infringing
3053 material, the district court told counsel for Napster
99.4 percent was not
3054 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">down to
3055 zero.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2875145" href=
"#ftn.id2875145" class=
"footnote">86</a>]
</sup>
3057 If
99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3058 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3059 that a p2p system is used
100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3060 law, any more than there is a way to assure that
100 percent of VCRs or
100
3061 percent of Xerox machines or
100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3062 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p. The court's ruling means that
3063 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3064 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3065 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3067 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3068 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3069 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3070 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology. In this adjustment,
3071 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3072 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3074 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2875206"></a><p>
3075 So, as we've seen, when
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">mechanical reproduction
</span>”</span> threatened
3076 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3077 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3078 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3079 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3080 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3081 that their
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property
</span>”</span> was not being respected (since
3082 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3083 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3085 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3086 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3087 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3088 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3089 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3094 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3095 served two important goals
—indeed, the two central goals of any
3096 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3097 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content. Second, the law assured
3098 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3099 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3100 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3101 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3102 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3103 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3104 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3105 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>compensation
</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3106 control over the future (cable).
3107 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2875270"></a><p>
3108 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3109 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3110 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3111 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3112 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3113 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3114 device that Sony built had a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">record
</span>”</span> button, the device could
3115 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3116 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3117 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3121 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3122 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3123 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3124 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3125 only if there were a special
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copy me
</span>”</span> signal on the line. It
3126 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3127 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3128 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3129 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3130 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3131 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3133 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3134 called VCRs
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tapeworms.
</span>”</span> He warned,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">When there are
20,
3135 30,
40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3136 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3137 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2875329" href=
"#ftn.id2875329" class=
"footnote">87</a>]
</sup> <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">One does not have to be trained in
3138 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,
</span>”</span> he told Congress,
3139 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3140 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3141 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3142 basic economics and plain common sense.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2875351" href=
"#ftn.id2875351" class=
"footnote">88</a>]
</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3143 movie libraries of ten videos or more
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2875361" href=
"#ftn.id2875361" class=
"footnote">89</a>]
</sup>
3144 — a use the Court would later hold was not
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair.
</span>”</span> By
3145 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3146 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3147 copyrightowners,
</span>”</span> Valenti testified, Congress would
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">take from
3148 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3149 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3150 from its reproduction.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2875389" href=
"#ftn.id2875389" class=
"footnote">90</a>]
</sup>
3152 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3153 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3154 its jurisdiction
—leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3155 refers to it as the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Hollywood Circuit
</span>”</span>—held that Sony
3156 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3157 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3158 technology
—which Jack Valenti had called
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the Boston Strangler
3159 of the American film industry
</span>”</span> (worse yet, it was a
3160 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Japanese
</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3161 industry)
—was an illegal technology.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2875412" href=
"#ftn.id2875412" class=
"footnote">91</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2875435"></a>
3164 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit. And in
3165 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3166 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3167 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
3168 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3169 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3170 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3171 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3172 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3173 technology.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2875467" href=
"#ftn.id2875467" class=
"footnote">92</a>]
</sup>
3174 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3175 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision. But as with
3176 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3177 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3178 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">taking
</span>”</span> notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a
3180 </p><div class=
"informaltable"><a name=
"t1"></a><table border=
"1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align=
"char">Tilfelle
</th><th align=
"char">Hvems verdi ble
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">røvet
</span>”</span></th><th align=
"char">Responsen til domstolene
</th><th align=
"char">Responsen til Kongressen
</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align=
"char">Innspillinger
</td><td align=
"char">Komponister
</td><td align=
"char">Ingen beskyttelse
</td><td align=
"char">Statutory license
</td></tr><tr><td align=
"char">Radio
</td><td align=
"char">Innspillingsartister
</td><td align=
"char">N/A
</td><td align=
"char">Ingenting
</td></tr><tr><td align=
"char">Kabel-TV
</td><td align=
"char">Kringkastere
</td><td align=
"char">Ingen beskyttelse
</td><td align=
"char">Statutory license
</td></tr><tr><td align=
"char">VCR
</td><td align=
"char">Filmskapere
</td><td align=
"char">Ingen beskyttelse
</td><td align=
"char">Ingenting
</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
3181 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3182 content was distributed.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2875599" href=
"#ftn.id2875599" class=
"footnote">93</a>]
</sup> In each case,
3183 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free
3184 ride
</span>”</span> on someone else's work.
3187 In
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>none
</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3188 Congress eliminate all free riding. In
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>none
</em></span> of these
3189 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3190 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3191 case, the copyright owners complained of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy.
</span>”</span> In every
3192 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3193 the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">pirates.
</span>”</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3194 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3198 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3199 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3200 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3201 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3202 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3203 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $
15 million
3204 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3205 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3207 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3208 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3209 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3210 possible uses of his work.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2875693" href=
"#ftn.id2875693" class=
"footnote">94</a>]
</sup>
3211 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3212 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3213 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3214 been done
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>after
</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3215 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3217 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3218 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3219 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3220 become a tool for
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">stealing
</span>”</span> from artists. But neither should
3221 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3222 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3223 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3224 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3225 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3226 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3227 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3231 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3232 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3233 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network. Left to
3234 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these
3235 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">potential public benefits,
</span>”</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3236 <em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em>,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">could be delayed in the
3237 P2P fight.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2875753" href=
"#ftn.id2875753" class=
"footnote">95</a>]
</sup> Yet when anyone
3238 begins to talk about
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">balance,
</span>”</span> the copyright warriors raise a
3239 different argument.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">All this hand waving about balance and
3240 incentives,
</span>”</span> they say,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
3241 content,
</span>”</span> the warriors insist,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">is our
3242 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>property
</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
3243 `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
3244 police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
3245 all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
3246 good use for the car before we arrest him?
</span>”</span>
3248 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Det er
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>vår eiendom
</em></span>,
</span>”</span> insisterer
3249 krigerne.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
3250 eiendom er beskyttet.
</span>”</span>
3251 </p></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2873771" href=
"#id2873771" class=
"para">70</a>]
</sup>
3254 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3255 <em class=
"citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report
2003</em>,
3256 July
2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
3257 #
14</a>. See also Ben Hunt,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3258 Risk,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Financial Times
</em>,
14 February
2003,
11.
3259 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874025" href=
"#id2874025" class=
"para">71</a>]
</sup>
3261 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3262 <em class=
"citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?
</em> (New York: The New
3263 Press,
2003),
10–13,
209. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3264 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3265 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3266 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3267 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3268 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3269 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3270 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3271 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3272 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3273 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3274 framework.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2873176"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874056"></a>
3275 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874083" href=
"#id2874083" class=
"para">72</a>]
</sup>
3277 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3278 Liebowitz,
<em class=
"citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy
</em> (New York:
3279 Amacom,
2002),
144–90.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">In some instances
… the impact of
3280 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3281 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3282 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3283 pirating were not an option.
</span>”</span> Ibid.,
149.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874100"></a>
3284 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874355" href=
"#id2874355" class=
"para">73</a>]
</sup>
3287 <em class=
"citetitle">Bach
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Longman
</em>,
98
3288 Eng. Rep.
1274 (
1777).
3289 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874379" href=
"#id2874379" class=
"para">74</a>]
</sup>
3291 See Clayton M. Christensen,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
3292 Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
3293 Business
</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
2000). Professor Christensen
3294 examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
3295 frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
3296 for their own products. This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
3297 reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
3298 Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig,
<em class=
"citetitle">Future
</em>,
3299 89–92,
139.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874092"></a>
3300 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874422" href=
"#id2874422" class=
"para">75</a>]
</sup>
3303 See Carolyn Lochhead,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3304 Nightmare,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle
</em>,
24
3305 September
2002, A1;
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New
3306 Scientist
</em>,
6 July
2002,
42; Benny Evangelista,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Napster
3307 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">San Francisco
3308 Chronicle
</em>,
23 May
2003, C1;
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3309 Call,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Economist
</em>,
24 June
2000,
23; John
3310 Naughton,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet
</span>”</span> (London)
3311 <em class=
"citetitle">Times
</em>,
26 July
2002,
18.
3312 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874478" href=
"#id2874478" class=
"para">76</a>]
</sup>
3316 See Ipsos-Insight,
<em class=
"citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3317 Distribution
</em> (September
2002), reporting that
28 percent of
3318 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3319 and
30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3321 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874500" href=
"#id2874500" class=
"para">77</a>]
</sup>
3324 Amy Harmon,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,
</span>”</span>
3325 <em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
6 June
2003, A1.
3326 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874630" href=
"#id2874630" class=
"para">78</a>]
</sup>
3328 Se Liebowitz,
<em class=
"citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy
</em>,
3329 148–49.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874398"></a>
3330 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874683" href=
"#id2874683" class=
"para">79</a>]
</sup>
3333 See Cap Gemini Ernst
& Young,
<em class=
"citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3334 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis
</em> (
2003),
3. This report
3335 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3336 cassette taping in the
1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3337 cassette-shape skull and the caption
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Home taping is killing
3338 music.
</span>”</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3339 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In
1988,
40
3340 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3341 format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3342 <em class=
"citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3343 Law
</em>, OTA-CIT-
422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
3344 Office, October
1989),
145–56.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874094" href=
"#id2874094" class=
"para">80</a>]
</sup>
3347 U.S. Congress,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying
</em>,
4.
3348 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874788" href=
"#id2874788" class=
"para">81</a>]
</sup>
3351 See Recording Industry Association of America,
<em class=
"citetitle">2002 Yearend
3352 Statistics
</em>, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
15</a>. A later report
3353 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3354 America,
<em class=
"citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy
</em>,
25 June
2003,
3355 available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
16</a>:
3356 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3357 by
26 percent from
1.16 billion units in to
860 million units in
2002 in the
3358 United States (based on units shipped). In terms of sales, revenues are
3359 down
14 percent, from $
14.6 billion in to $
12.6 billion last year (based on
3360 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3361 a $
39 billion industry in
2000 down to a $
32 billion industry in
2002 (based
3362 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).
</span>”</span>
3363 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874838" href=
"#id2874838" class=
"para">82</a>]
</sup>
3364 Jane Black,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Big Music's Broken Record
</span>”</span>, BusinessWeek online,
3365 13. februar
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
17</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2874854"></a>
3366 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874874" href=
"#id2874874" class=
"para">83</a>]
</sup>
3370 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874924" href=
"#id2874924" class=
"para">84</a>]
</sup>
3373 By one estimate,
75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3374 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law
—Coming
3375 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3376 the Judiciary,
107th Cong.,
1st sess. (
3 April
2001) (prepared statement of
3377 the Future of Music Coalition), available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
18</a>.
3378 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874965" href=
"#id2874965" class=
"para">85</a>]
</sup>
3381 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3382 existence, in
2002, there were
7,
198 used book dealers in the United States,
3383 an increase of
20 percent since
1993. See Book Hunter Press,
<em class=
"citetitle">The
3384 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market
</em> (
2002),
3385 available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
3386 #
19</a>. Used records accounted for $
260 million in sales in
2002. See
3387 National Association of Recording Merchandisers,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">2002 Annual Survey
3388 Results,
</span>”</span> available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
20</a>.
3389 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875145" href=
"#id2875145" class=
"para">86</a>]
</sup>
3392 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at
34-
35
3393 (N.D. Cal.,
11 July
2001), nos. MDL-
00-
1369 MHP, C
99-
5183 MHP, available at
3394 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
21</a>. For an account
3395 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn,
<em class=
"citetitle">All
3396 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster
</em> (New
3397 York: Crown Business,
2003),
269–82.
3398 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875329" href=
"#id2875329" class=
"para">87</a>]
</sup>
3401 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S.
1758
3402 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
97th Cong.,
1st and
2nd sess.,
3403 459 (
1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3405 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875351" href=
"#id2875351" class=
"para">88</a>]
</sup>
3408 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders),
475.
3409 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875361" href=
"#id2875361" class=
"para">89</a>]
</sup>
3412 <em class=
"citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc
</em>. v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Sony
3413 Corp. of America
</em>,
480 F. Supp.
429, (C.D. Cal.,
1979).
3414 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875389" href=
"#id2875389" class=
"para">90</a>]
</sup>
3417 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders),
485 (testimony of Jack
3419 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875412" href=
"#id2875412" class=
"para">91</a>]
</sup>
3422 <em class=
"citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc
</em>. mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Sony
3423 Corp. of America
</em>,
659 F.
2d
963 (
9th Cir.
1981).
3424 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875467" href=
"#id2875467" class=
"para">92</a>]
</sup>
3427 <em class=
"citetitle">Sony Corp. of America
</em> mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Universal City
3428 Studios, Inc
</em>.,
464 U.S.
417,
431 (
1984).
3429 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875599" href=
"#id2875599" class=
"para">93</a>]
</sup>
3431 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3432 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3433 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3434 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3435 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of
1992 (Title
17 of the
3436 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>), Pub. L. No.
102-
563,
106 Stat.
3437 4237, codified at
17 U.S.C. §
1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3438 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3439 Lessig,
<em class=
"citetitle">Future
</em>,
71. See also Picker,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">From
3440 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3441 Review
</em> 70 (
2003):
293–96.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2875167"></a>
3442 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875693" href=
"#id2875693" class=
"para">94</a>]
</sup>
3445 <em class=
"citetitle">Sony Corp. of America
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Universal City
3446 Studios, Inc
</em>.,
464 U.S.
417, (
1984).
3447 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875753" href=
"#id2875753" class=
"para">95</a>]
</sup>
3450 John Schwartz,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3451 Echoes Past Efforts,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
22
3453 </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.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Eiendom
</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class=
"partintro" title=
"“Eiendom”"><div></div><p>
3457 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3458 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3459 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker. Markeder
3460 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3463 Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
3464 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendoms
</span>”</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
3465 er en merkelig type eiendom. Selve ideen om eienrettigheter til en ide
3466 eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig. Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
3467 tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage. Jeg tar en ting,
3468 piknik-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det. Men hva tar jeg
3469 når jeg tar den gode
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>ideen
</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
3470 piknik-bordet i bakhagen
—ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
3471 kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
3473 Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og ideer er ting, selv om det
3474 er en viktig forskjell. Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
3475 tilfelle
—faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
3476 rekke med unntak
—er ideer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
3477 fra deg når jeg kopierer måten du kler deg
—selv om det ville se sært
3478 ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt sært hvis du er en kvinne.
3479 Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
3480 hvordan noen andre kler seg),
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
3481 information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
3482 från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2875903" href=
"#ftn.id2875903" class=
"footnote">96</a>]
</sup>
3484 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3485 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3486 diskutere her. Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min ide eller uttrykk uten
3487 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
3489 Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form
—detaljene,
3490 med andre ord
—betyr noe. For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
3491 praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
3492 plassere denne
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendom
</span>”</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2875946" href=
"#ftn.id2875946" class=
"footnote">97</a>]
</sup>
3494 Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
3495 foregående del. Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
3496 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom
</span>”</span> i sammenheng. Hvor kom
3497 ideen fra? Hva er dens begresninger? Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
3498 Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
3499 utsagnet
—<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom
</span>”</span>— bli
3500 litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
3501 fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
3502 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875903" href=
"#id2875903" class=
"para">96</a>]
</sup>
3505 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (
13. august
1813) i
3506 <em class=
"citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
</em>, vol.
6 (Andrew
3507 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds.,
1903),
330,
333–34.
3508 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2875946" href=
"#id2875946" class=
"para">97</a>]
</sup>
3511 Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
3512 eiendomsretter immaterielle. En eiendomsrett er ganske enkelt den retten
3513 som et idivid har mot verden til å gjøre eller ikke gjøre visse ting som er
3514 eller ikke er knyttet til et fysisk objekt. Retten i seg selv er
3515 immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er
3516 materielt. Se Adam Mossoff,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
3517 Back Together,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Arizona Law Review
</em> 45 (
2003):
3519 </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=
"id2876010"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876016"></a><p>
3520 William Shakespeare skrev
<em class=
"citetitle">Romeo og Julie
</em> i
3521 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
1597. Det var det ellevte store
3522 skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
3523 til
1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
3524 kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en
1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
3525 vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
3526 som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Jeg likte det, men
3527 Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer.
</span>”</span>
3530 I
1774, nesten
180 år etter at
<em class=
"citetitle">Romeo og Julie
</em> ble
3531 skrevet, mente mange at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">opphavsretten
</span>”</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
3532 utgiver i London, John Tonson.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2876059" href=
"#ftn.id2876059" class=
"footnote">98</a>]
</sup> Tonson
3533 var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the
3534 Conger
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2876096" href=
"#ftn.id2876096" class=
"footnote">99</a>]
</sup>, som kontrollerte
3535 boksalget i England gjennom hele
1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
3536 en evigvarende rett over
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kopier
</span>”</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
3537 forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
3538 kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
3539 konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3541 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året
1774 for alle som vet litt om
3542 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er
1710, da
3543 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3544 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
3545 beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
3546 forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før
1710 skulle ha
3547 en ekstraperiode på
22 tillegsår.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2876142" href=
"#ftn.id2876142" class=
"footnote">100</a>]
</sup> På
3548 grunn av denne loven, så skulle
<em class=
"citetitle">Rome og Julie
</em> ha falt
3549 i det fri i
1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
3552 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3553 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3554 engelskmennene vedtok
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span>, var det ingen annen
3555 lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
3556 lisensieringsloven av
1662, utløpt i
1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
3557 over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
3558 ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
3559 at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876196"></a>
3561 At det ikke fantes noen
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>positiv
</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3562 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3563 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3564 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3565 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3566 dommerne sedvanerett.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Common law
</span>”</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
3567 lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
3568 bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
3569 det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
3570 beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3573 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">bokselgere
</span>”</span>,
3574 som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
3575 Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
3576 hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The
3577 Conger
</span>”</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
3578 for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
3579 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span>.
3581 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span> ga forfatteren eller
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eieren
</span>”</span> av
3582 en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
3583 bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
3584 retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
3585 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
3588 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3589 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3590 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?
</em></span>
3592 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3593 krav. Ta
<em class=
"citetitle">romeo og Julie
</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3594 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3595 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3596 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3597 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3598 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3599 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3600 finnes for å tillate at noen
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">stjeler
</span>”</span> Shakespeares verk?
3602 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3603 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span> ble
3604 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3607 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3608 begrepet
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyright
</span>”</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i
1710 var
3609 det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
3610 født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
3611 reprodusere en bok. I
1710 var
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kopi-rett
</span>”</span> en rett til å bruke
3612 en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
3613 dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
3614 verk kunne
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>brukes
</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
3615 samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
3616 rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
3617 fremføre, og så videre.
3618 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876376"></a><p>
3619 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3620 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3621 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3622 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3623 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3624 lov til å lage filmer.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Kopi-retten
</span>”</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
3625 til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3626 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876403"></a><p>
3627 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3628 en lang og stygg erfaring med
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eksklusive rettigheter
</span>”</span>,
3629 spesielt
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">enerett
</span>”</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
3630 utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
3631 monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
3632 VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
3633 spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
3634 makten hos kronen. I
1656 ble
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Monopolis
</span>”</span> vedtatt
3635 for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i
1710 var
3636 parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
3638 Dermed ble
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kopi-retten
</span>”</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
3639 en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
3640 om at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,
</span>”</span> prøv
3641 hvor overbevisende det er når men sier
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
3642 skal ha det for alltid.
</span>”</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
3643 så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
3644 skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3646 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3647 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3648 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3649 England. Medlemmene i
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the Conger
</span>”</span> ble av en voksende mengde
3650 sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
3651 undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
3652 monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
3653 som
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten
</span>”</span>;
3654 de var
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
3655 nødvendig.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2876501" href=
"#ftn.id2876501" class=
"footnote">101</a>]
</sup>
3657 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3658 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3659 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3660 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3661 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3663 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3664 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3665 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3666 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3667 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3668 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3669 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3670 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3672 Når
1731 (
1710+
21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3673 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3674 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span>, og
3675 fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
3676 1735 og
1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
3677 år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3679 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3681 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
3682 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3683 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3684 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3685 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3686 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3687 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2876584" href=
"#ftn.id2876584" class=
"footnote">102</a>]
</sup>
3688 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3689 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3690 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span>
3691 ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3692 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3693 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3694 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute
3695 of Anne
</span>”</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
3696 betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span>
3697 utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
3698 de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
3699 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
3700 var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
3702 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3703 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3704 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">var utgiverne
… like
3705 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2874728" href=
"#ftn.id2874728" class=
"footnote">103</a>]
</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3706 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3707 forfatterens verk ga.
3709 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3710 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2876691" href=
"#ftn.id2876691" class=
"footnote">104</a>]
</sup>
3712 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the Conger
</span>”</span>. Han startet
3713 in karriere i Edinburgh i
1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
3714 standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of
3715 Anne
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2876718" href=
"#ftn.id2876718" class=
"footnote">105</a>]
</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
3716 og ble
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.
</span>”</span> <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Blant
3717 dem,
</span>”</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">den unge James Boswell
3718 som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
3719 skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2876748" href=
"#ftn.id2876748" class=
"footnote">106</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876756"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876762"></a>
3721 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3722 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">de
3723 mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3724 eiendom.
</span>”</span> <sup>[
<a name=
"id2876783" href=
"#ftn.id2876783" class=
"footnote">107</a>]
</sup> Bøkene hans var
3725 mellom
30% og
50% billigere enn
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the Conger
</span>”</span>s, og han baserte
3726 sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of
3727 Anne
</span>”</span>, var falt i det fri.
3729 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">pirater
</span>”</span> som
3730 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3731 i kampen mellom
<em class=
"citetitle">Millar
</em> og
3732 <em class=
"citetitle">Taylor
</em>.
3734 Millar var en bokhandler som i
1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3735 Thomsons dikt
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Seasons
</span>”</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
3736 gjennom
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
3737 uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
3738 sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
3739 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span> sa.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2876844" href=
"#ftn.id2876844" class=
"footnote">108</a>]
</sup>
3740 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3741 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3742 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3743 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span> gav
3744 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3745 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3746 mot
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">pirater
</span>”</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
3747 Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
3748 sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3751 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3752 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3753 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3754 kjempet for i
1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3755 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3756 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3757 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3758 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3759 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3760 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876927"></a><p>
3761 Kampen for å forsvare
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span>s begrensninger sluttet
3762 uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3763 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876945"></a><p>
3764 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3765 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3766 Beckett.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2876958" href=
"#ftn.id2876958" class=
"footnote">109</a>]
</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3767 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3768 <em class=
"citetitle">Millar
</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3769 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3770 slags høyesterett. I februar
1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3771 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3773 Rettssaken
<em class=
"citetitle">Donaldson
</em> mot
3774 <em class=
"citetitle">Beckett
</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3775 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3776 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of
3777 Anne
</span>”</span>. Etter at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span> var blitt vedtatt,
3778 skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
3779 mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Statute of Anne
</span>”</span>, falle i det
3780 fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3782 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3783 huset, og ble først stemt over av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">juslorder
</span>”</span>, medlemmer av
3784 enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3785 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">juslordene
</span>”</span> hadde stemt,
3786 stemte resten av Overhuset.
3789 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3790 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3791 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (
22 mot
3792 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3793 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3794 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3796 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Å falle i det fri
</span>”</span>. Før rettssaken
3797 <em class=
"citetitle">Donaldson
</em> mot
<em class=
"citetitle">Beckett
</em> var det
3798 ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før
1774 var det jo
3799 en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter
1774 ble
3800 Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
3801 lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
3802 historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
3803 frie.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877072"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877078"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877084"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877090"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877097"></a>
3805 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3806 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3807 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3808 <em class=
"citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser
</em> skrev
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Ingen privatsak har
3809 noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
3810 prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.
</span>”</span>
3811 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
3812 *illuminations*.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2877130" href=
"#ftn.id2877130" class=
"footnote">110</a>]
</sup>
3814 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3815 motsatt retning.
<em class=
"citetitle">Morning Chronicle
</em> skrev:
3816 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
3817 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen
… er verdier til nesten
200 000 pund, som
3818 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3819 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3820 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3821 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3822 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2876660" href=
"#ftn.id2876660" class=
"footnote">111</a>]
</sup>
3823 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3826 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Ruinert
</span>”</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
3827 si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
3828 ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
3829 utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
3830 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>fri
</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
3831 for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
3832 ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
3833 falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>fri
</em></span> i
3834 betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
3835 liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
3836 utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
3837 formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
3838 valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og
3839 beundret. Valg i en
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng
</em></span>, ikke der
3840 hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
3841 og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
3844 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3845 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3846 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3847 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876059" href=
"#id2876059" class=
"para">98</a>]
</sup>
3850 Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med
1700-tallets litterære
3851 storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ferdige
3852 versjoner
</span>”</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til
<em class=
"citetitle">Romeo og
3853 Julie
</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
3854 hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
3855 Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Jacob Tonson,
3856 Bookseller
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">American Scholar
</em> 61:
3 (
1992):
3858 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876096" href=
"#id2876096" class=
"para">99</a>]
</sup>
3861 Lyman Ray Patterson,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3862 Perspective
</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press,
1968),
3864 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876142" href=
"#id2876142" class=
"para">100</a>]
</sup>
3866 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3867 en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">opphavsrettslov
</span>”</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyrights
3868 and Copywrongs
</em>,
40.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876155"></a>
3869 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876501" href=
"#id2876501" class=
"para">101</a>]
</sup>
3873 Philip Wittenberg,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3874 Property
</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc.,
1937),
31.
3875 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876584" href=
"#id2876584" class=
"para">102</a>]
</sup>
3878 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3879 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3880 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3881 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3882 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London,
1735), in Brief Amici
3883 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al.,
8,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
3884 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
537 U.S.
186 (
2003) (No.
01-
618).
3885 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2874728" href=
"#id2874728" class=
"para">103</a>]
</sup>
3887 Lyman Ray Patterson,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use
</span>”</span>,
3888 <em class=
"citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review
</em> 40 (
1987):
28. For en
3889 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan,
37–48.
3890 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876106"></a>
3891 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876691" href=
"#id2876691" class=
"para">104</a>]
</sup>
3894 For a compelling account, see David Saunders,
<em class=
"citetitle">Authorship and
3895 Copyright
</em> (London: Routledge,
1992),
62–69.
3896 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876718" href=
"#id2876718" class=
"para">105</a>]
</sup>
3898 Mark Rose,
<em class=
"citetitle">Authors and Owners
</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3899 University Press,
1993),
92.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2876725"></a>
3900 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876748" href=
"#id2876748" class=
"para">106</a>]
</sup>
3904 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876783" href=
"#id2876783" class=
"para">107</a>]
</sup>
3907 Lyman Ray Patterson,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3908 Perspective
</em>,
167 (quoting Borwell).
3909 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876844" href=
"#id2876844" class=
"para">108</a>]
</sup>
3912 Howard B. Abrams,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3913 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Wayne Law
3914 Review
</em> 29 (
1983):
1152.
3915 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876958" href=
"#id2876958" class=
"para">109</a>]
</sup>
3919 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2877130" href=
"#id2877130" class=
"para">110</a>]
</sup>
3923 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2876660" href=
"#id2876660" class=
"para">111</a>]
</sup>
3927 </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>
3928 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3929 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3930 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3931 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3934 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3935 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3937 I
1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3938 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3939 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3940 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3941 scenen.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877284"></a>
3944 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3945 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3946 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk
<em class=
"citetitle">The
3947 Simpsons
</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3948 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3950 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3951 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3952 med
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpson
</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3953 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3954 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig bruk
</span>”</span> eller
3955 det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3957 Else kontaktet
<em class=
"citetitle">Simpson
</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3958 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3959 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3960 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3961 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3962 programmet.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877348"></a>
3964 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3965 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3966 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3967 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3968 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877369"></a>
3970 Deretter, fortalte Else:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi
…
3971 at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk
— ihvertfall at noen [hos
3972 Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.
</span>”</span> Som det andre krevde
3973 Fox
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
3974 sekundene med
… fullstendig tilfeldig
<em class=
"citetitle">Simpson
</em>
3975 som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.
</span>”</span>
3977 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3978 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3979 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">det må være en feil her
… Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
3980 dette.
</span>”</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
3981 etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
3984 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
3985 meg
</span>”</span>, sa han.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger
</span>”</span>, sa
3986 hun. Det ville koste $
10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av
<em class=
"citetitle">The
3987 Simpson
</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
3988 om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
3989 å si
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.
</span>”</span> En
3990 av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
3991 heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.
</span>”</span>
3993 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3994 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3995 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3996 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer
<em class=
"citetitle">The Day After
3997 Trinity
</em> fra ti år tidligere.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877466"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877472"></a>
3999 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
4000 rettighetene til
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em>. Rettighetene er deres
4001 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
4002 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
4003 <em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
4004 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
4005 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
4006 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
4008 For eksempel
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">offentlig fremvisning
</span>”</span>* av
<em class=
"citetitle">The
4009 Simpson
</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
4010 kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
4011 selger billetter til
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Mine
4012 <em class=
"citetitle">Simpson
</em>-favoritter
</span>”</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
4013 fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
4014 det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $
10ellr $
1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
4017 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
4018 første tanke
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig bruk
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2877538" href=
"#ftn.id2877538" class=
"footnote">112</a>]
</sup> Elses bruk av
4,
5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
4019 <em class=
"citetitle">Simpsons
</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
4020 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig bruk
</span>”</span> av
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em>— og
4021 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig bruk
</span>”</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
4025 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair
4026 use
</span>”</span>. Og her er hans svar:
4027 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4028 <em class=
"citetitle">Simpsons
</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
4029 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
4030 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
4031 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig
4032 bruk
</span>”</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
4034 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"1"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
4037 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
4038 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Errors and Omissions
</span>”</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
4039 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">visual cue sheet
</span>”</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
4040 scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use
</span>”</span>, og å påstå
4041 at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
4042 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
4044 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4045 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4046 ulisensiert bruk av
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em>, på samme måte som
4047 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av
<em class=
"citetitle">Star
4048 Wars
</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4049 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4050 av
<em class=
"citetitle">The Simpsons
</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4051 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4052 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4053 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
4057 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School
…
4058 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
4059 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life
</span>”</span>,
4060 uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
4061 ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
4063 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
4066 Spørsmålet om
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use
</span>”</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
4067 av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4068 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4069 I teorien betyr
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use
</span>”</span> at du ikke trenger
4070 tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
4071 tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use
</span>”</span> helt
4072 annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
4073 konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
4074 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use
</span>”</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4077 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4078 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4079 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4080 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4081 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2877538" href=
"#id2877538" class=
"para">112</a>]
</sup>
4084 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair
4085 use
</span>”</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
4086 A. Posner og William F. Patry,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
4087 Wake of
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> </span>”</span> (utkast arkivert hos
4088 forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School,
5. august
2003.
4089 </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=
"id2877764"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxalbenalex1"></a><p>
4090 In
1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an
4091 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
4092 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
4093 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
4094 anticipation of the power of networks.
4095 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxartistsretrospective"></a><p>
4096 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4097 emerging market for CD-ROM technology
—not to distribute film, but to
4098 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult. In
1993, he
4099 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4100 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4101 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4102 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4104 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4105 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4106 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4107 include them on the CD.
4111 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4112 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4113 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4114 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4115 permission for that content.
4117 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Our
4118 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4119 films,
</span>”</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">No
4120 one had ever really done this before,
</span>”</span> Alben explained.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">No one
4121 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4122 career.
</span>”</span>
4124 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked,
4125 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Well, what will it take?
</span>”</span>
4127 Alben replied,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4128 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4129 we want to use in these film clips.
</span>”</span> Slade said,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Great! Go for
4130 it.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2877875" href=
"#ftn.id2877875" class=
"footnote">113</a>]
</sup>
4132 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4133 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4134 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4135 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4138 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4139 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4140 recounted just what they did:
4141 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4142 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips. We made some
4143 artistic decisions about what film clips to include
—of course we were
4144 going to use the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Make my day
</span>”</span> clip from
<em class=
"citetitle">Dirty
4145 Harry
</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4146 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission. And then you
4147 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4151 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4152 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4153 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4154 was about $
600. So we had to identify the people
—some of them were
4155 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4156 crashing through the glass
—is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4157 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4158 just started calling people.
4159 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4160 Some actors were glad to help
—Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4161 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared. Others were
4162 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Hey, can I pay
4163 you $
600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $
1,
200?
</span>”</span> And
4164 they would say,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4165 $
1,
200.
</span>”</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4166 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4167 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4169 It was one
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>year
</em></span> later
—<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">and even then we
4170 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.
</span>”</span>
4172 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4173 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4174 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4175 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4176 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4177 and said,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4178 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4179 actors.
</span>”</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4180 constituent parts and said,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4181 directors,
… this many musicians,
</span>”</span> and we just went at it very
4182 systematically and cleared the rights.
4183 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4187 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4188 and it sold very well.
4189 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878023"></a><p>
4190 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4191 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4192 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">There is
4193 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4194 all.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2878039" href=
"#ftn.id2878039" class=
"footnote">114</a>]
</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4195 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4197 For, as he acknowledged,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">very few
… have the time and
4198 resources, and the will to do this,
</span>”</span> and thus, very few such works
4199 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4200 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4201 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4202 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4203 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4204 gets paid very well.
… And then when
30 seconds of that performance
4205 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4206 don't think that that person
… should be compensated for that.
4207 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4208 Or at least, is this
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>how
</em></span> the artist should be
4209 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4210 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4211 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4212 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4213 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4214 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4215 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4217 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4218 mechanism
—where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4219 subject to estranged former spouses
—you'd see a lot more of this work,
4220 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4221 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4222 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4223 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4224 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4225 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4226 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4227 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4228 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Oh,
4229 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4230 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4231 money,
</span>”</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4233 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4234 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4235 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4236 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4237 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4238 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
4239 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878136"></a><p>
4240 These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat
4241 for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of
4242 these rights, and the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost
4243 to negotiate them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and
4244 imagine the pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from
4245 Los Angeles to San Francisco.) These rights might well have once made
4246 sense; but as circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least,
4247 a well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights
4248 and ask,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Does this still make sense?
</span>”</span>
4249 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878161"></a><p>
4251 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4252 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4253 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4254 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4255 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4256 Fairbank, had produced.
4258 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4259 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4260 <em class=
"citetitle">60 Minutes
</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4261 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4262 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878196"></a><p>
4263 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4264 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4265 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4266 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4267 tale med et spørsmål:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
4268 brutt i dette rommet?
</span>”</span>
4269 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878222"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878228"></a><p>
4270 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4271 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4272 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law. Of course,
4273 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4274 violation (the presence of
250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4275 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4276 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4277 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4278 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4279 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4280 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4281 couldn't easily do them legally.
4283 We live in a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">cut and paste
</span>”</span> culture enabled by
4284 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4285 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created
—in a
4286 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4287 can have it planted in your presentation.
4289 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4290 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4291 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4292 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4293 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4294 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4295 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4296 and music.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878274"></a>
4298 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4299 to be
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">legal,
</span>”</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4300 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4301 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4302 rules, it doesn't get released.
4304 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4305 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4306 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4307 the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free
</span>”</span> use be free as in
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free beer.
</span>”</span> Instead,
4308 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4309 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4310 example, that says
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4311 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat
1
4312 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4313 owner.
</span>”</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4314 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4315 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4317 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4318 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4319 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists. What reason
4320 would anyone have to oppose it?
4323 In February
2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4324 the comic genius of
<em class=
"citetitle">Saturday Night Live
</em> and Austin
4325 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4326 together to form a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">unique filmmaking pact.
</span>”</span> Under the
4327 agreement, DreamWorks
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
4328 picture hits and classics, write new storylines and
—with the use of
4329 stateof-the-art digital technology
—insert Myers and other actors into
4330 the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.
</span>”</span>
4332 The announcement called this
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">film sampling.
</span>”</span> As Myers
4333 explained,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4334 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4335 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4336 take that same concept and apply it to film.
</span>”</span> Steven Spielberg is
4337 quoted as saying,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4338 new audiences, it is Mike.
</span>”</span>
4340 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4341 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4342 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4343 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4344 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4345 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4346 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4347 famous
—and presumably rich.
4349 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4350 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair
4351 use.
</span>”</span> Much of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sampling
</span>”</span> should be considered
4352 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use.
</span>”</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4353 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4354 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4355 content are astronomically high. These costs mirror the costs with fair
4356 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4357 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4358 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4359 lawyers
—again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4360 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2877875" href=
"#id2877875" class=
"para">113</a>]
</sup>
4362 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4363 publicity
—rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4364 of his image. But these rights, too, burden
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Rip, Mix, Burn
</span>”</span>
4365 creativity, as this chapter evinces.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877887"></a>
4366 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2877902"></a>
4367 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2878039" href=
"#id2878039" class=
"para">114</a>]
</sup>
4370 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4371 <em class=
"citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4372 Acquisition
</em>, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
22</a>.
4373 </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><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxarchivesdigital1"></a><p>
4374 In April
1996, millions of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">bots
</span>”</span>—computer codes designed
4375 to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">spider,
</span>”</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
4376 content
—began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
4377 Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
4378 basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
4379 the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
4380 months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
4382 By October
2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4383 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4384 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4385 technology called
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the Way Back Machine,
</span>”</span> you could enter a Web
4386 page, and see all of its copies going back to
1996, as well as when those
4388 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
4389 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated. In
4390 the dystopia described in
<em class=
"citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4391 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4392 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4396 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4397 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4398 printed on the date published on the paper.
4400 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4401 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4402 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4403 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library
—constantly
4404 updated, without any reliable memory.
4405 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878500"></a><p>
4406 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4407 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4408 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4409 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4410 forget.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2878524" href=
"#ftn.id2878524" class=
"footnote">115</a>]
</sup>
4412 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4413 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4414 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in
1965, or to Bull Connor's
4415 water cannon in
1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4416 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4417 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4418 and remember
—not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4419 something close to the truth.
4421 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4422 it. That's not quite correct. We
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>all
</em></span> forget
4423 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4424 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4425 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4426 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4430 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4431 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4432 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4433 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4434 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4435 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4436 the Internet
—the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4438 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4439 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4440 researcher. In the
1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4441 success. It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4442 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4443 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4444 Internet. By December of
2002, the archive had over
10 billion pages, and it
4445 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4447 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4448 history. At the end of
2002, it held
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4449 of material
</span>”</span>—and was
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ten times larger than the Library
4450 of Congress.
</span>”</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4451 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4452 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4453 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4454 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4455 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4456 evening by Vanderbilt University
—thanks to a specific exemption in the
4457 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4458 very low fee.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4459 unavailable,
</span>”</span> Kahle told me.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4460 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4461 student?
</span>”</span> As Kahle put it,
4462 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878632"></a><p>
4464 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4465 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4466 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4467 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4468 between the two, the
<em class=
"citetitle">60 Minutes
</em> episode that came out
4469 after it
… it would be almost impossible.
… Those materials
4470 are almost unfindable.
…
4471 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4472 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4473 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4474 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4475 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4476 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4477 media on twentieth-century America?
4479 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4480 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4481 libraries. These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4482 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4483 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4485 These rules applied to film as well. But in
1915, the Library of Congress
4486 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4487 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4488 deposits
—for an unlimited time at no cost. In
1915 alone, there were
4489 more than
5,
475 films deposited and
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">borrowed back.
</span>”</span> Thus, when
4490 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4491 copy exists
—if it exists at all
—in the library archive of the
4492 film company.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2878680" href=
"#ftn.id2878680" class=
"footnote">116</a>]
</sup>
4494 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4495 originally not copyrighted
—there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4496 so there was no fear of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">theft.
</span>”</span> But as technology enabled
4497 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4498 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4499 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyrighted.
</span>”</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4500 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4501 them. The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4502 to anyone who would look.
4505 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September
11,
2001, he and his
4506 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4507 around the world and hit the Record button. After September
11, Kahle,
4508 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4509 world and, beginning October
11,
2001, made their coverage during the week
4510 of September
11 available free on-line. Anyone could see how news reports
4511 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4512 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878754"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878760"></a><p>
4513 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4514 archive of film includes close to
45,
000 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ephemeral films
</span>”</span>
4515 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4516 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4517 digitize
1,
300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4518 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4519 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4520 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4521 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4522 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4523 copies to enable other films to be made. Either way, the archive enabled
4524 access to this important part of our culture. Want to see a copy of the
4525 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Duck and Cover
</span>”</span> film that instructed children how to save
4526 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4527 download the film in a few minutes
—for free.
4529 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4530 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4531 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4532 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4533 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4535 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4536 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4537 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture. Not
4538 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4539 second life that all creative property has
—a noncommercial life.
4542 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4543 creative property goes through different
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">lives.
</span>”</span> In its first
4544 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4545 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4546 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4547 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4548 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4550 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4551 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4552 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4553 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4554 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4555 even if that information is no longer sold.
4557 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4558 quickly (the average today is after about a year
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2878851" href=
"#ftn.id2878851" class=
"footnote">117</a>]
</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4559 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4560 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4561 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4562 the spread and stability of culture.
4564 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4565 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4566 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4567 these
—television, movies, music, radio, the Internet
—there is no
4568 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4569 replaced libraries with Barnes
& Noble superstores. With this culture,
4570 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4571 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4574 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4575 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4576 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4577 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4578 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4579 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4580 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4582 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4583 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4584 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4585 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4586 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4587 moving images and sound.
4589 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4590 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4591 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4593 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4594 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4595 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4596 … and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4597 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4598 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4599 be able to be afforded by a small company. So we're at a turning point in
4600 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4601 different life, based on this, is
… thrilling. It could be one of the
4602 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4603 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4605 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4607 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4608 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4609 libraries or archives could be.
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>When
</em></span> the commercial
4610 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4611 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4612 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4613 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4614 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4615 become unimaginable for much of our past
—a future
4616 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>for
</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4617 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4619 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4620 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4621 these
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">archives,
</span>”</span> as warm as the idea of a
4622 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">library
</span>”</span> might seem, the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">content
</span>”</span> that is
4623 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property.
</span>”</span>
4624 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4626 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878994"></a><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2878524" href=
"#id2878524" class=
"para">115</a>]
</sup>
4629 The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
4630 changes its own press releases without notice. A May
13,
2003, press release
4631 stated,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.
</span>”</span> That was later
4632 changed, without notice, to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have
4633 Ended.
</span>”</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle,
1 December
2003.
4634 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2878680" href=
"#id2878680" class=
"para">116</a>]
</sup>
4637 Doug Herrick,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4638 the Library of Congress,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Film Library
4639 Quarterly
</em> 13 nos.
2–3 (
1980):
5; Anthony Slide,
4640 <em class=
"citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4641 States
</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland
& Co.,
1992),
36.
4642 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2878851" href=
"#id2878851" class=
"para">117</a>]
</sup>
4645 Dave Barns,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
4646 Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,
</span>”</span>
4647 <em class=
"citetitle">Chicago Tribune
</em>,
5 September
1997, at Metro Lake
4648 1L. Of books published between
1927 and
1946, only
2.2 percent were in print
4649 in
2002. R. Anthony Reese,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
4650 Digital Networks,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Boston College Law Review
</em>
4651 44 (
2003):
593 n.
51.
4652 </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:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Eiendom
</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
4653 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4654 America since
1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4655 administration
—literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4656 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4657 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4658 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4659 Washington.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2878966"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879034"></a>
4661 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4662 Association. It was formed in
1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4663 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism. The
4664 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4665 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4666 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4667 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4668 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4669 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879053"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879060"></a>
4670 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879066"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879072"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879078"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879085"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879091"></a>
4674 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4675 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4676 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4677 Southerner
—the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4678 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4679 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4680 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4681 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4682 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4684 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4685 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4686 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4687 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4688 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4689 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4690 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property.
</span>”</span>
4692 In
1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4693 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
4694 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4695 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4696 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4697 animates this entire debate:
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4698 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4699 owners in the nation
</em></span>. That is the issue. That is the
4700 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4701 debates to follow must rest.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2879150" href=
"#ftn.id2879150" class=
"footnote">118</a>]
</sup>
4702 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4704 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4705 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4706 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">central theme
</span>”</span> to which
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">reasonable men and
4707 women
</span>”</span> will return is this:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Creative property owners must be
4708 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4709 owners in the nation.
</span>”</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4710 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4712 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4713 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4714 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4715 made by
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>anyone
</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4716 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4717 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4718 scope of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property.
</span>”</span> His views have
4719 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>no
</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4720 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4721 tradition, at least in Washington.
4723 While
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property
</span>”</span> is certainly
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property
</span>”</span>
4724 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4725 understand,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2879219" href=
"#ftn.id2879219" class=
"footnote">119</a>]
</sup> it has never been the case,
4726 nor should it be, that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property owners
</span>”</span> have been
4727 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4728 property owners.
</span>”</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4729 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4730 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4732 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4733 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4734 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4735 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4736 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4739 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4740 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4741 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history. We have
4742 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4743 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4744 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4745 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4746 for new creators to create. Creativity depends upon the owners of
4747 creativity having less than perfect control.
4749 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4750 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4751 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4752 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.) But what's good for the MPAA is
4753 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4754 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4755 threaten the old. To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4756 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4757 Constitution itself.
4759 The framers of our Constitution loved
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property.
</span>”</span> Indeed, so
4760 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4761 important requirement. If the government takes your property
—if it
4762 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm
—it is
4763 required, under the Fifth Amendment's
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Takings Clause,
</span>”</span> to pay
4764 you
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">just compensation
</span>”</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4765 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4766 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>ever
</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4767 government pays for the privilege.
4770 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4771 calls
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property.
</span>”</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4772 power to create
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property,
</span>”</span> the Constitution
4773 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>requires
</em></span> that after a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited time,
</span>”</span>
4774 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4775 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property
</span>”</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4776 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4777 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">takes
</span>”</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4778 Congress does not have any obligation to pay
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">just
4779 compensation
</span>”</span> for this
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">taking.
</span>”</span> Instead, the same
4780 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4781 your
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property
</span>”</span> right without any compensation at all.
4783 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4784 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4785 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4786 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4787 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4788 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4790 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong. There
4791 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong. The
4792 Constitution of
1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4793 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4794 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4795 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4796 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4797 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4798 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4800 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4801 try to understand
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>why
</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4802 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4803 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4804 creative property there must be a public domain?
4806 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4807 these
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property
</span>”</span> rights, and the control that they
4808 enabled. Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4809 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4810 at the core of this war: Not
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>whether
</em></span> creative property
4811 should be protected, but how. Not
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>whether
</em></span> we will
4812 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4813 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>whether
</em></span>
4814 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4815 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4820 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4821 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4822 narrow language of the law allows. In
<em class=
"citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4823 Cyberspace
</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4824 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4825 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4826 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4827 </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
4828 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>
4829 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4830 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4831 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right. For
4832 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.) The ovals represent
4833 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated
— either
4834 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4835 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4836 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4837 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4838 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $
150,
000 fine. The
4839 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4840 by the state.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879107"></a>
4841 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879489"></a><p>
4842 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4843 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4844 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4845 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4846 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4847 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4848 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4849 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4850 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879509"></a><p>
4851 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4852 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4853 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms
—it is
4854 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4855 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4856 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4857 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4858 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879518"></a><p>
4859 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4860 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">architecture
</span>”</span>—the physical world as one finds
4861 it
—is a constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your
4862 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4863 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4864 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4865 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4866 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4867 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4868 by
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">architecture.
</span>”</span> If a
500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4869 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $
500 airplane
4870 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4871 enforces this constraint.
4876 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4877 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4878 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4880 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4881 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4882 have to consider how these four modalities interact. Whether or not there
4883 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4884 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4885 regulator (whether controlling or freeing) must consider how these four in
4886 particular interact.
4887 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxdrivespeed"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879600"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879607"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879613"></a><p>
4888 So, for example, consider the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">freedom
</span>”</span> to drive a car at a
4889 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4890 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4891 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4892 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4893 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4894 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4895 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4896 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at
50 mph by a school in your
4897 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4898 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4901 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4902 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4903 in affecting the three.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2879647" href=
"#ftn.id2879647" class=
"footnote">120</a>]
</sup> The law, in
4904 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4905 particular modality. Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4906 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4907 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4908 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4909 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4910 more strict
—a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4911 limit, for example
—so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4913 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879671"></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"><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879708"></a><p>
4914 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4915 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4916 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4917 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4918 modality might be displaced by another.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2879723" href=
"#ftn.id2879723" class=
"footnote">121</a>]
</sup>
4919 </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>
4920 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4921 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4922 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4925 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4926 </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"><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879853"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879859"></a><p>
4929 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4930 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4931 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4932 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4933 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4934 norms we all recognize
—kids, for example, taping other kids'
4935 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4936 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4937 this form of infringement.
4939 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4940 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4941 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4942 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4943 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4944 of anarchy after the Internet.
4947 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4948 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4949 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4950 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4951 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4953 </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>
4954 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4955 warriors. Indeed, in a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">White Paper
</span>”</span> prepared by the Commerce
4956 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in
1995, this
4957 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4958 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4959 effected, the White Paper argued (
1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4960 property law, (
2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4961 (
3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4962 material, and (
4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4965 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed
—if it was to
4966 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4967 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4968 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4969 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4970 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4971 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4972 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4973 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4974 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4975 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4976 U.S. steel industry.
4978 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4979 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4980 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4981 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4982 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4983 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">architecture of revenue.
</span>”</span>
4984 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879969"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879974"></a><p>
4985 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4986 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4987 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4988 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4989 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as
20 percent of
4990 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4991 cameras.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2879990" href=
"#ftn.id2879990" class=
"footnote">122</a>]
</sup> Does anyone believe the
4992 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4993 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4994 trucks from roads
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>for the purpose of
</em></span> protecting the
4995 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
4996 weakened the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">stickiness
</span>”</span> of television advertising (if a
4997 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
4998 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
4999 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
5000 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
5001 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
5003 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no. In a free
5004 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
5005 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
5006 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
5007 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
5008 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in
1991, in a memo criticizing software
5009 patents,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
5010 competitors.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2880059" href=
"#ftn.id2880059" class=
"footnote">123</a>]
</sup> And relative to a
5011 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
5012 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
5013 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
5014 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
5015 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
5016 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2880078"></a>
5018 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5019 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5020 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5021 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5022 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5023 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5024 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5026 In the context of laws regulating speech
—which include, obviously,
5027 copyright law
—that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5028 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5029 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5030 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5031 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5032 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5033 Constitution:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Congress shall make no law
… abridging the
5034 freedom of speech.
</span>”</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5035 would
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">abridge
</span>”</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask
—
5036 carefully
—whether such regulation is justified.
5039 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5040 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5041 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">justified.
</span>”</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5042 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5043 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5044 of the changes the content industry wants.
5046 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5047 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxddt"></a><p>
5048 In
1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In
1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5049 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5050 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the
1950s, the insecticide was widely
5051 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5052 increase farm production.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2880165"></a>
5054 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5055 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5056 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5057 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2880183"></a><p>
5058 But in
1962, Rachel Carson published
<em class=
"citetitle">Silent Spring
</em>,
5059 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5060 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5061 reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2880199"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2880205"></a>
5063 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5064 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5065 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5066 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5067 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5068 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5070 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2880227"></a><p>
5072 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5073 appeals when he argues that we need an
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">environmentalism
</span>”</span> for
5074 culture.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2880243" href=
"#ftn.id2880243" class=
"footnote">124</a>]
</sup> His point, and the point I
5075 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5076 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5077 that music should be given away
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">for free.
</span>”</span> The point is that
5078 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5079 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5080 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5081 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5082 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5083 on authors. It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5084 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5086 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5087 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5088 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5089 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5090 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5091 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5092 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5093 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5096 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5097 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5098 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2880293"></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>
5099 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5100 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative
5101 property
</span>”</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5102 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5104 The power to establish
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property
</span>”</span> rights is granted to
5105 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5106 I, section
8, clause
8 of our Constitution states that:
5109 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5110 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5111 to their respective Writings and Discoveries. We can call this the
5112 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Progress Clause,
</span>”</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5113 does not say Congress has the power to grant
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property
5114 rights.
</span>”</span> It says that Congress has the power
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>to promote
5115 progress
</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5116 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5117 purpose of rewarding authors.
5119 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5120 chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#founders" title=
"Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5121 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5122 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5123 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5124 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5125 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">to
5126 Authors
</span>”</span> only.
5128 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5129 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5130 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5131 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5132 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5133 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5134 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5135 states
—including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5136 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5137 select the president. In each case, a
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>structure
</em></span> built
5138 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5139 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5141 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5142 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyright
</span>”</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5143 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5144 to put our
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyright
</span>”</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5145 changed in the
210 years since they first struck its design.
5148 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5149 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5150 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5151 </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>
5152 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5153 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1442"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.6.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Opphavsrett
</span>”</span> i dag.
</b></p><div class=
"figure-contents"><div><img src=
"images/1442.png" alt=
"Opphavsrett i dag."></div></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p>
5155 La meg forklare hvordan.
5157 </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>
5158 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5159 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5160 had confronted in
1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5161 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5162 rights that already protected creative authorship.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2880480" href=
"#ftn.id2880480" class=
"footnote">125</a>]
</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5163 domain in the United States in
1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5164 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5165 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5166 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5167 to reprint and distribute works.
5169 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5170 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5171 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections. Just
5172 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5173 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5176 In
1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5177 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5178 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5179 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5180 work passed into the public domain.
5182 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første
10 årene til
5183 republikken, så ble kun
5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5184 opphavsrettsregimet. Av alle verker skapt i USA både før
1790 og fra
1790
5185 fram til
1800, så ble
95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5186 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt
20 år, og som oftest etter
5187 14 år.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2880553" href=
"#ftn.id2880553" class=
"footnote">126</a>]
</sup>
5190 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5191 for opphavsrett. Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5192 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5193 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5194 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5196 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5197 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5198 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5199 work to pass into the public domain.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2880621" href=
"#ftn.id2880621" class=
"footnote">127</a>]
</sup>
5201 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5202 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5203 print after one year.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2880656" href=
"#ftn.id2880656" class=
"footnote">128</a>]
</sup> When that
5204 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5205 books are no longer
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>effectively
</em></span> controlled by
5206 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5207 sell the books as used books; that use
—because it does not involve
5208 publication
—is effectively free.
5210 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5211 changed once. In
1831, the term was increased from a maximum of
28 years to
5212 a maximum of
42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from
14 years to
5213 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5214 again. In
1909, Congress extended the renewal term of
14 years to
28 years,
5215 setting a maximum term of
56 years.
5217 Then, beginning in
1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5218 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5219 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5220 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5221 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years. In
1976,
5222 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years. And in
1998,
5223 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5224 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5227 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5228 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5229 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or
70
5230 percent of the time since
1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5231 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5232 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5235 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5236 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5237 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5238 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5239 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5240 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5241 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5243 The United States abandoned this sensible system in
1976. For all works
5244 created after
1978, there was only one copyright term
—the maximum
5245 term. For
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">natural
</span>”</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5246 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in
1992,
5247 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5248 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5249 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5251 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5252 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5253 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5254 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5255 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5256 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited,
</span>”</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5258 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5259 dramatic. In
1973, more than
85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5260 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in
1973 was
5261 just
32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5262 average term of copyright is now the maximum term. In thirty years, then,
5263 the average term has tripled, from
32.2 years to
95 years.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2880758" href=
"#ftn.id2880758" class=
"footnote">129</a>]
</sup>
5264 </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>
5265 The
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">scope
</span>”</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5266 the law. The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5267 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5268 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5270 In
1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">maps,
5271 charts, and books.
</span>”</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5272 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5273 author the exclusive right to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">publish
</span>”</span> copyrighted works. That
5274 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5275 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5276 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5277 extend to what lawyers call
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">derivative works.
</span>”</span> It would not,
5278 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5279 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5280 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5282 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5283 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5284 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5285 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5286 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5287 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">publish
</span>”</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5288 over any
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copies
</span>”</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5289 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5290 or her particular work, but also any
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">derivative work
</span>”</span> that
5291 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5292 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5293 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5296 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5297 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5298 complete removal of the renewal requirement in
1992. In addition to the
5299 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5300 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5301 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5302 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5303 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright
</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5304 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5305 government before a copyright could be secured.
5307 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5308 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5309 years of the Republic,
95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5310 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5311 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5312 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5313 marked as copyrighted
—that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5314 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5315 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5316 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5319 All of these
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">formalities
</span>”</span> were abolished in the American
5320 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5321 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5322 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5323 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5324 available for others to copy.
5326 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5328 If, in
1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the
5 percent who actually
5329 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5330 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5331 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5332 that kind of unfair competition. In
1790, there were
174 publishers in the
5333 United States.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2880911" href=
"#ftn.id2880911" class=
"footnote">130</a>]
</sup> The Copyright Act was
5334 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5335 market in the United States
—publishers.
5339 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5340 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5341 unregulated by the
1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5342 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5343 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5344 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5346 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5347 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5348 note to your spouse, every doodle,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>every
</em></span> creative act
5349 that's reduced to a tangible form
—all of this is automatically
5350 copyrighted. There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5351 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5353 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5354 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5355 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5357 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5358 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5359 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">derivative
5360 rights.
</span>”</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5361 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5362 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5363 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5364 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5365 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5366 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5368 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5369 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5370 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright. If I write a
5371 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5372 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5373 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5374 the verbatim original work.
5377 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5378 culture
—at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5379 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5380 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5381 work. But whatever
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>that
</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5382 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5383 all
—they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5384 protect derivative rights at all.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2880998" href=
"#ftn.id2880998" class=
"footnote">131</a>]
</sup>
5385 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5386 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5388 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5389 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5390 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5391 book.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2881046" href=
"#ftn.id2881046" class=
"footnote">132</a>]
</sup> These two different uses of my
5392 creative work are treated the same.
5394 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5395 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5396 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5397 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Mickey Mouse,
</span>”</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5398 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5400 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5401 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5402 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5404 </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>
5405 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5406 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5407 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5408 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2881113" href=
"#ftn.id2881113" class=
"footnote">133</a>]
</sup>
5412 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copies.
</span>”</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5413 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>copy
</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5414 argument at the start of this chapter, that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">creative property
</span>”</span>
5415 deserves the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">same rights
</span>”</span> as all other property, it is the
5416 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>obvious
</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5417 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5418 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5419 that in the world with the Internet, copies should
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>not
</em></span>
5420 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5421 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>always
</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5423 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5424 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5425 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5426 copyright automatically applies,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2881191" href=
"#ftn.id2881191" class=
"footnote">134</a>]
</sup>
5427 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5428 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5431 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5433 </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>
5436 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5437 its potential
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>uses
</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5438 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5439 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5440 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5441 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5442 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5443 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5444 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5445 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5446 </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>
5447 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5448 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5449 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5450 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5451 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5452 diagram on next page).
5454 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5455 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig
5456 bruk
</span>”</span>.
5457 </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
5458 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>
5459 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5460 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated. You
5461 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5462 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5463 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5464 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5465 over such
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair uses
</span>”</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5467 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1542"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig bruk
</span>”</span>.
</b></p><div class=
"figure-contents"><div><img src=
"images/1542.png" alt=
"Uregulert kopiering anses som rimelig bruk."></div></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p> </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1551"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
5468 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>
5471 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5472 sorts: (
1) unregulated uses, (
2) regulated uses, and (
3) regulated uses that
5473 are nonetheless deemed
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair
</span>”</span> regardless of the copyright
5476 Enter the Internet
—a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5477 copyrighted work produces a copy.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2881122" href=
"#ftn.id2881122" class=
"footnote">135</a>]
</sup> And
5478 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5479 network, the scope of category
1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5480 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5481 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5482 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5483 copyright, because each use also makes a copy
—category
1 gets sucked
5484 into category
2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5485 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category
3, fair uses, to bear the
5486 burden of this shift.
5489 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5490 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5491 plausible
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright
</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5492 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5493 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5494 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5495 use
—reading
— could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5496 those uses produced a copy.
5498 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5499 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5500 only once a month, then
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright law
</em></span> would aid the
5501 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5502 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5503 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5504 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5505 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5506 the copyright owner's wish.
5508 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5509 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5510 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5513 First, making category
1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5514 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5515 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5516 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5517 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5520 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5521 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5522 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5523 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>any
</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5524 machine.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copy and paste
</span>”</span> and
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">cut and paste
</span>”</span>
5525 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5526 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification. However troubling the
5527 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5528 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5531 Third, this shift from category
1 to category
2 puts an extraordinary burden
5532 on category
3 (
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use
</span>”</span>) that fair use never before had to
5533 bear. If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5534 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5535 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5536 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5537 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5538 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5539 because reading was not regulated.
5541 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5542 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5543 use
—never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5544 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5545 when the vast majority of uses are
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>unregulated
</em></span>. But
5546 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5547 fair use are not enough.
5548 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5549 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5550 business of making
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">trailer
</span>”</span> advertisements for movies
5551 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5552 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5553 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5555 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in
1997, it began to
5556 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews. The
5557 idea was to expand their
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">selling by sampling
</span>”</span> technique by
5558 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">browsing.
</span>”</span>
5559 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5560 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5561 before you bought it.
5564 In
1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5565 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5566 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5567 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5568 talk about the matter
—he had built a business on distributing this
5569 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5570 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5571 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately. Video Pipeline thought it
5572 was within their
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use
</span>”</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5573 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5574 rights were in fact their rights.
5576 Disney countersued
—for $
100 million in damages. Those damages were
5577 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">willfully
5578 infringed
</span>”</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5579 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5580 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5581 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5582 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5583 was now suing Video Pipeline for $
100 million.
5585 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5586 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5587 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5588 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5589 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5590 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5591 Disney's permission.
5592 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881588"></a><p>
5593 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5594 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5595 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5596 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5597 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">first-sale doctrine
</span>”</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5598 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5599 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5600 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5601 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5602 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5603 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5604 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881615"></a><p>
5607 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5608 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes
& Noble has the right to say you
5609 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right. But
5610 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes
& Noble
5611 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores. Competition
5612 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5613 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5614 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5615 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5616 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5617 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5620 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5621 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5622 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5623 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5624 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5625 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5626 </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>
5627 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5628 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5629 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5630 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5632 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5633 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law. The law,
5634 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5635 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5636 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5637 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881708"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5638 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5639 Brothers) og Warner Brothers. Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5640 <em class=
"citetitle">Casablanca
</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte. De skrev et
5641 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5642 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2881755" href=
"#ftn.id2881755" class=
"footnote">136</a>]
</sup>
5644 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt. De advarte
5645 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
5646 det
</span>”</span>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2881782" href=
"#ftn.id2881782" class=
"footnote">137</a>]
</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
5647 ordet
<em class=
"citetitle">Brothers
</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
5648 å forsøke å kontrollere
<em class=
"citetitle">Casablanca
</em>, så ville
5649 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over
<em class=
"citetitle">Brothers
</em>.
5651 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5652 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5653 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5654 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5656 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5657 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5658 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5659 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5660 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5661 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5662 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5663 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881840"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881849"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5664 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5666 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form. En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5667 som Adobe har publisert. Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5668 bruker å levere e-bøker. Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5669 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5671 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5674 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5675 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5676 <em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5677 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5678 <em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em> is not yet within the public
5679 domain. Consider
<em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em> first. If you click on
5680 my e-book copy of
<em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em>, you'll see a fancy
5681 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5682 </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>
5683 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5684 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5685 </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>
5688 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5689 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5690 text to the clipboard.) I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5691 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5692 button to hear
<em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em> read aloud through the
5695 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5696 Aristoteles
<em class=
"citetitle">Politikk
</em> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881973"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881979"></a>
5697 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1621"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Politikk
</span>”</span></b></p><div class=
"figure-contents"><div><img src=
"images/1621.png" alt=
"E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></div></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p>
5698 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5699 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5700 </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>
5701 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5702 e-book version of my last book,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em>:
5703 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1631"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.16. Liste med tillatelser for
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Future of Ideas
</span>”</span>.
</b></p><div class=
"figure-contents"><div><img src=
"images/1631.png" alt=
"Liste med tillatelser for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p>
5704 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5707 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5708 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">permissions
</span>”</span>— as if the publisher has the power to
5709 control how you use these works. For works under copyright, the copyright
5710 owner certainly does have the power
—up to the limits of the copyright
5711 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5712 power.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2882064" href=
"#ftn.id2882064" class=
"footnote">138</a>]
</sup> When my e-book of
5713 <em class=
"citetitle">Middlemarch
</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5714 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5715 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5716 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5718 The control comes instead from the code
—from the technology within
5719 which the e-book
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">lives.
</span>”</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5720 permissions, they are not the sort of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">permissions
</span>”</span> that most
5721 of us deal with. When a teenager gets
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">permission
</span>”</span> to stay out
5722 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5723 till
2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5724 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5725 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5726 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5727 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages. It's the
5728 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5729 button to read my book aloud
—it's not that the company will sue you if
5730 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5731 simply won't read aloud.
5734 These are
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>controls
</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5735 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5736 to type
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Warner Brothers,
</span>”</span> erased
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Brothers
</span>”</span> from
5737 the sentence.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882137"></a>
5739 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5740 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>law
</em></span> as copyright
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>code
</em></span>. The
5741 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5742 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5743 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5744 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5745 technology have no similar built-in check.
5747 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5748 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5749 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5750 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5753 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5756 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5757 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5758 Adobe site was a copy of
<em class=
"citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5759 Wonderland
</em>. This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5760 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5761 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882187"></a>
5762 </p><div class=
"figure"><a name=
"fig-1641"></a><p class=
"title"><b>Figur
10.17. Liste med tillatelser for
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Alice i Eventyrland
</span>”</span>.
</b></p><div class=
"figure-contents"><div><img src=
"images/1641.png" alt=
"Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></div></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p>
5763 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5764 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5765 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">permissions
</span>”</span> indicated, not allowed to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">read
5766 aloud
</span>”</span>!
5768 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission. For the
5769 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5770 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5771 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5772 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5775 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5776 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5777 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5778 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5779 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5780 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5781 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5782 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5783 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5784 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5786 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5787 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5788 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5789 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control. That incentive
5790 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5791 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882274"></a><p>
5792 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5793 of mine that makes the same point.
5794 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxaibo1"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxroboticdog1"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5795 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Aibo.
</span>”</span> The Aibo
5796 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5797 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5799 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5800 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5801 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5803 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5804 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5805 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5807 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Teach
</span>”</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5808 computers. You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5809 differently. So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5810 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5811 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5812 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">dog
</span>”</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5814 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5815 <em class=
"citetitle">hack
</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5816 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5817 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5818 <em class=
"citetitle">hack
</em> is a much more positive
5819 term.
<em class=
"citetitle">Hack
</em> just means code that enables the program
5820 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5821 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5822 run, or
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">drive,
</span>”</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5823 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5824 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5826 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5827 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5828 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5829 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5832 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5833 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5834 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5835 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5837 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882412"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882420"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882428"></a><p>
5839 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5840 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5841 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5842 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5843 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5844 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5845 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5846 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5847 that the owner of aibopet.com thought,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5848 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?
</em></span>
5850 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show
— not
5851 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5852 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5853 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5854 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5855 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5856 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5857 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5860 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April
2001.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2882484" href=
"#ftn.id2882484" class=
"footnote">139</a>]
</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5861 paper to be submitted at conference. The paper was intended to describe the
5862 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5863 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5865 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5866 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5867 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5868 standard that would allow the content owner to say
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">this music cannot
5869 be copied,
</span>”</span> and have a computer respect that command. The technology
5870 was to be part of a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">trusted system
</span>”</span> of control that would get
5871 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5873 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition. In
5874 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5875 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5876 problems to the consortium.
5880 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5881 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5882 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5883 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5885 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5886 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5887 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5888 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5889 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5890 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5892 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5893 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5894 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5895 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5896 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5897 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxaibo2"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxroboticdog2"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5898 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5899 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5900 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5901 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
5902 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5903 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5904 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5905 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882668"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882676"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882684"></a><p>
5906 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5907 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5908 RIAA lawyer that read:
5909 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
5911 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5912 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5913 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5914 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">DMCA
</span>”</span>).
5915 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5916 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5917 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5918 information an offense.
5920 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5921 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5922 response was to find technologies that might compensate. These new
5923 technologies would be copyright protection technologies
— technologies
5924 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5925 were designed as
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>code
</em></span> to modify the original
5926 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>code
</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5927 for copyright owners.
5929 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5930 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5931 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>legal code
</em></span> intended to buttress
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>software
5932 code
</em></span> which itself was intended to support the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>legal
5933 code of copyright
</em></span>.
5935 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5936 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5937 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5938 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5939 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5940 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5941 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882765"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882771"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882778"></a><p>
5943 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5944 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5945 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5946 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5947 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5948 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5949 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5950 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5951 system was circumvented.
5953 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5954 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5955 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5956 distributing a circumvention technology. Thus, even though he was not
5957 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5958 others to infringe others' copyright.
5959 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882825"></a><p>
5960 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in
1981 by
5961 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5962 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5963 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5964 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5965 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote"><em class=
"citetitle">Mr. Rogers
</em>,
</span>”</span> for example, had testified
5966 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5967 Neighborhood.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882848"></a>
5968 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
5969 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5970 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Neighborhood
</span>”</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5971 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5972 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5973 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5974 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Neighborhood
</span>”</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5975 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Neighborhood
</span>”</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5976 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5977 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5978 whole approach in broadcasting has always been
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">You are an important
5979 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.
</span>”</span> Maybe
5980 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5981 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5982 important.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2882887" href=
"#ftn.id2882887" class=
"footnote">140</a>]
</sup>
5983 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5986 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5987 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5990 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5991 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882928"></a>
5993 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5995 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5996 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
5997 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
5998 copyrighted material
—a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
5999 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
6000 use
—a good end.
6003 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
6004 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
6005 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
6006 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
6007 </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>
6008 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
6009 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
6010 technologies) are illegal. Flash:
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
6011 circumvention
</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
6012 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
6013 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882986"></a>
6014 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882994"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883000"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883006"></a><p>
6015 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
6016 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
6017 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6018 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6019 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6022 This is how
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>code
</em></span> becomes
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>law
</em></span>. The
6023 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6024 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6025 the code extends the law
—increasing its regulation, even if the
6026 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6027 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6028 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect
—at
6029 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6030 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6032 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6033 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6034 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6035 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6036 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6037 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6038 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6039 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6044 For example, imagine you were part of a
<em class=
"citetitle">Star Trek
</em> fan
6045 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6046 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6047 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6048 continue it.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2883071" href=
"#ftn.id2883071" class=
"footnote">141</a>]
</sup>
6050 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6051 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6052 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6053 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6054 wished without fear of legal control.
6056 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6057 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6058 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6059 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6060 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6061 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed. The law of
6062 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6065 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6066 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6067 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6068 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6069 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6070 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6071 </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>
6073 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically
—tripled in the past
6074 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well
—from
6075 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6076 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6077 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6078 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6079 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6080 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6081 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6082 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6083 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6084 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6085 to copyright's control.
6087 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6088 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6089 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6090 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6091 about all the other changes I have described.
6093 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media. In
6094 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6095 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media. Before
6096 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6097 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6098 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June
2003,
6099 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6100 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6102 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6104 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6105 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6106 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">five companies control
85 percent of our media
6107 sources.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2883184" href=
"#ftn.id2883184" class=
"footnote">142</a>]
</sup> The five recording
6108 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6109 Group, and EMI control
84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2883196" href=
"#ftn.id2883196" class=
"footnote">143</a>]
</sup> The
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6110 programming to
74 percent of the cable subscribers
6111 nationwide.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2883214" href=
"#ftn.id2883214" class=
"footnote">144</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883227"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883233"></a>
6112 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883240"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883246"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883252"></a>
6115 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6116 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6117 seventy-five stations. Today
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>one
</em></span> company owns more than
6118 1,
200 stations. During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6119 radio owners dropped by
34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6120 broadcasters control
74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6121 four companies control
90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6124 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well. Today, there are
6125 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6126 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6127 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6128 States. The top ten film studios receive
99 percent of all film revenue. The
6129 ten largest cable companies account for
85 percent of all cable
6130 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6131 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected
— by the
6134 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6135 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6136 article about Rupert Murdoch,
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883284"></a>
6137 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
6138 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6139 integration. They supply content
—Fox movies
… Fox TV shows
6140 … Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6141 sell the content to the public and to advertisers
—in newspapers, on
6142 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6143 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6144 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6145 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6146 system will serve the same function in the United States.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2883308" href=
"#ftn.id2883308" class=
"footnote">145</a>]
</sup>
6147 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6148 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6149 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6150 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6151 thousand words could do:
6152 </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>
6155 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe? Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6156 som blir distribuert? Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6157 distribuere innhold?
6159 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe. Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6160 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur. Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6161 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6162 begynt å endre mening.
6164 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6166 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883391"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883397"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883403"></a><p>
6167 I
1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for
<em class=
"citetitle">All in the
6168 Family
</em>. Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6169 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten. Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6170 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første. ABC ble fra seg. Du får
6171 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear. Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6174 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6175 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6176 andre. Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6177 nettverk-kontroll.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2883436" href=
"#ftn.id2883436" class=
"footnote">146</a>]
</sup>
6182 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6183 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6184 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6185 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as
1992, because of these rules,
6186 the vast majority of prime time television
—75 percent of it
—was
6187 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">independent
</span>”</span> of the networks.
6189 In
1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence. After
6190 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance. In
1985, there were
6191 twenty-five independent television production studios; in
2002, only five
6192 independent television studios remained.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">In
1992, only
15 percent of
6193 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6194 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6195 quintupled to
77 percent.
</span>”</span> <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">In
1992,
16 new series were
6196 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6197 one.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2883499" href=
"#ftn.id2883499" class=
"footnote">147</a>]
</sup> In
2002,
75 percent of
6198 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">In the
6199 ten-year period between
1992 and
2002, the number of prime time television
6200 hours per week produced by network studios increased over
200%, whereas the
6201 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6202 studios decreased
63%.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2883526" href=
"#ftn.id2883526" class=
"footnote">148</a>]
</sup>
6203 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883534"></a><p>
6204 Today, another Norman Lear with another
<em class=
"citetitle">All in the
6205 Family
</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6206 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6207 increasingly owned by the network.
6209 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6210 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre. Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6211 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883557"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883564"></a>
6212 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
6213 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6214 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6215 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6216 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6217 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6218 you have less than a handful.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2883582" href=
"#ftn.id2883582" class=
"footnote">149</a>]
</sup>
6219 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6220 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6221 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous. Increasingly
6222 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6223 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6224 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6225 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6226 consequence
—not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6227 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6228 the environment for a democracy.
6229 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883619"></a><p>
6230 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6231 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6232 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Innovator's Dilemma
</span>”</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6233 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6234 their core business. The same analysis could help explain why large,
6235 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6236 trends.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2883639" href=
"#ftn.id2883639" class=
"footnote">150</a>]
</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6237 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6238 there will be far too little sprinting.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883672"></a>
6240 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6241 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6242 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6244 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6247 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6248 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6249 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6252 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6253 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6254 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6255 drugs
—though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6256 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6257 is so great as to make waging the war insane. When you add together the
6258 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6259 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6260 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6261 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6262 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6263 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6264 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6266 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6267 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6268 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6269 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6270 Beginning in
1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6271 media campaign as part of the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">war on drugs.
</span>”</span> The campaign
6272 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6273 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6274 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6275 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6276 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6277 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6278 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6281 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6282 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6284 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6285 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6286 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6290 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6291 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6292 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6295 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6296 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">controversial
</span>”</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6297 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6298 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6299 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6300 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6301 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case. And the courts will
6302 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2883802" href=
"#ftn.id2883802" class=
"footnote">151</a>]
</sup>
6304 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well
—if we lived in a
6305 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6306 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6307 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6308 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6309 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6310 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6311 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6312 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883706"></a></div><div class=
"section" title=
"10.8. Sammen"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title" style=
"clear: both"><a name=
"together"></a>10.8. Sammen
</h2></div></div></div><p>
6313 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6314 warriors that the government should
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">protect my property.
</span>”</span> In
6315 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6316 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6319 But when we see how dramatically this
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property
</span>”</span> has
6320 changed
— when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6321 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6322 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different
—the claim begins to
6323 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (
1) the power of technology to
6324 supplement the law's control, and (
2) the power of concentrated markets to
6325 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6326 expanded
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property
</span>”</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6327 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6328 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6330 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6331 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6332 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6335 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6336 notwithstanding. And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6337 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6338 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6339 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6340 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6341 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6342 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6343 regulation
—a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6345 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6346 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6347 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6348 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6349 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6350 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6351 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6352 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>reductions
</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6353 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6356 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6357 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6358 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6359 together they produce an astonishing conclusion:
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Never in our
6360 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6361 our culture than now
</em></span>.
6363 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6364 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6365 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6366 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6367 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6368 networks.
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Never
</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6369 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6370 remotely as long. This form of regulation
—a tiny regulation of a tiny
6371 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding
—is now a
6372 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6373 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6374 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6375 known.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2884045" href=
"#ftn.id2884045" class=
"footnote">152</a>]
</sup>
6377 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6379 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6380 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6381 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6382 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6383 undergone. In
1790, the law looked like this:
6384 </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>
6386 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6387 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6388 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6389 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6392 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6393 </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>
6394 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law
—if published,
6395 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6396 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6399 In
1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6400 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6401 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded. Thus by
1975,
6402 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6404 </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>
6405 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6406 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6407 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6408 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6410 </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>
6412 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6413 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity
— commercial or
6414 not, transformative or not
—with the same rules designed to regulate
6415 commercial publishers.
6417 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6418 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6419 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6420 actually does any good.
6422 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying. But I
6423 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6424 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6425 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6426 chapters
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#recorders" title=
"Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6427 <a class=
"xref" href=
"#transformers" title=
"Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6428 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6429 transformation. More commercial transformative work would be created if
6430 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6432 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6433 copyright is a kind of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property,
</span>”</span> and of course, as with any
6434 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6435 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6436 rights
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2884401" href=
"#ftn.id2884401" class=
"footnote">153</a>]
</sup>) has been crafted to balance
6437 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6438 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6439 been struck in light of new technologies. And for almost half of our
6440 tradition, the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyright
</span>”</span> did not control
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>at
6441 all
</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6442 work. American culture was born free, and for almost
180 years our country
6443 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6444 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2884441"></a><p>
6446 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6447 the scope of the interests protected by
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property.
</span>”</span> The very
6448 birth of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyright
</span>”</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6449 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6450 story of chapter
6). The tradition of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fair use
</span>”</span> is animated by
6451 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6452 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6453 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6454 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter
8). And
6455 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6456 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6457 culture (chapter
9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6458 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6459 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6461 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6462 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6463 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6464 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6465 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6466 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6467 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6468 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6469 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6471 </p></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2879150" href=
"#id2879150" class=
"para">118</a>]
</sup>
6474 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R.
4783, H.R.
4794,
6475 H.R.
4808, H.R.
5250, H.R.
5488, and H.R.
5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6476 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6477 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives,
97th Cong.,
2nd
6478 sess. (
1982):
65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6479 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2879219" href=
"#id2879219" class=
"para">119</a>]
</sup>
6482 Lawyers speak of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property
</span>”</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6483 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6484 object. Thus, my
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property right
</span>”</span> to my car gives me the right
6485 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at
150 miles an hour. For the
6486 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property
</span>”</span> to
6487 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">lawyer talk,
</span>”</span> see Bruce Ackerman,
<em class=
"citetitle">Private Property
6488 and the Constitution
</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1977),
6490 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2879647" href=
"#id2879647" class=
"para">120</a>]
</sup>
6493 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6494 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6495 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6496 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6497 more timidly expressed. See Lawrence Lessig,
<em class=
"citetitle">Code: And Other
6498 Laws of Cyberspace
</em> (New York: Basic Books,
1999):
90–95;
6499 Lawrence Lessig,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The New Chicago School,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Journal
6500 of Legal Studies
</em>, June
1998.
6501 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2879723" href=
"#id2879723" class=
"para">121</a>]
</sup>
6503 Some people object to this way of talking about
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">liberty.
</span>”</span> They
6504 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6505 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6506 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6507 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6508 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6509 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6510 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life. I don't mean to deny the value
6511 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6512 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6513 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in
<em class=
"citetitle">Code
</em>, we
6514 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6515 the narrow question of what the government did when. John Stuart Mill
6516 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6517 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill,
<em class=
"citetitle">On
6518 Liberty
</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co.,
1978),
19. John
6519 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6520 imposed by the market; John R. Commons,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Right to Work,
</span>”</span> in
6521 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds.,
<em class=
"citetitle">John R. Commons:
6522 Selected Essays
</em> (London: Routledge:
1997),
62. The Americans
6523 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6524 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6525 making access to those places easier;
42 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
6526 Code
</em>, section
12101 (
2000). Each of these interventions to
6527 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6528 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6529 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879788"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879798"></a>
6530 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879804"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2879811"></a>
6531 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2879990" href=
"#id2879990" class=
"para">122</a>]
</sup>
6534 See Geoffrey Smith,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6535 Bridge?
</span>”</span> BusinessWeek online,
2 August
1999, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
23</a>. For a more recent
6536 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6537 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?
</span>”</span> Forbes.com,
6 October
6538 2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
6540 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880059" href=
"#id2880059" class=
"para">123</a>]
</sup>
6543 Fred Warshofsky,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Patent Wars
</em> (New York: Wiley,
6544 1994),
170–71.
6545 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880243" href=
"#id2880243" class=
"para">124</a>]
</sup>
6548 Se for eksempel James Boyle,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6549 Environmentalism for the Net?
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Duke Law
6550 Journal
</em> 47 (
1997):
87.
6551 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880480" href=
"#id2880480" class=
"para">125</a>]
</sup>
6553 William W. Crosskey,
<em class=
"citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6554 of the United States
</em> (London: Cambridge University Press,
1953),
6555 vol.
1,
485–86:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6556 supreme Law of the Land,'
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6557 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law
</em></span></span>”</span>
6558 (emphasis added).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2880498"></a>
6559 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880553" href=
"#id2880553" class=
"para">126</a>]
</sup>
6562 Although
13,
000 titles were published in the United States from
1790 to
6563 1799, only
556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel,
<em class=
"citetitle">A
6564 History of Book Publishing in the United States
</em>, vol.
1,
6565 <em class=
"citetitle">The Creation of an Industry,
1630–1865</em> (New
6566 York: Bowker,
1972),
141. Of the
21,
000 imprints recorded before
1790, only
6567 twelve were copyrighted under the
1790 act; William J. Maher,
6568 <em class=
"citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6569 1790 in Historical Context
</em>,
7–10 (
2002), available at
6570 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
25</a>. Thus, the
6571 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6572 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6573 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6574 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6575 years. Copyright Act of May
31,
1790, §
1,
1 stat.
124.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880621" href=
"#id2880621" class=
"para">127</a>]
</sup>
6578 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6579 the
25,
006 copyrights registered in
1883, only
894 were renewed in
1910. For
6580 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6581 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Study No.
31: Renewal of Copyright,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Studies on
6582 Copyright
</em>, vol.
1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute,
1963),
6583 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6584 Richard A. Posner,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,
</span>”</span>
6585 <em class=
"citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review
</em> 70 (
2003):
471,
6586 498–501, and accompanying figures.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880656" href=
"#id2880656" class=
"para">128</a>]
</sup>
6589 Se Ringer, kap.
9, n.
2.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880758" href=
"#id2880758" class=
"para">129</a>]
</sup>
6592 These statistics are understated. Between the years
1910 and
1962 (the first
6593 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6594 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6595 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,
</span>”</span> loc. cit.
6596 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880911" href=
"#id2880911" class=
"para">130</a>]
</sup>
6599 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6600 Creation of American Literature,
</span>”</span> 29 <em class=
"citetitle">New York University
6601 Journal of International Law and Politics
</em> 255 (
1997), and James
6602 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records,
1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6605 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2880998" href=
"#id2880998" class=
"para">131</a>]
</sup>
6607 Jonathan Zittrain,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Copyright Cage
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Legal
6608 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=
"id2881027"></a>
6609 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2881046" href=
"#id2881046" class=
"para">132</a>]
</sup>
6611 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6612 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6613 First Amendment) between mere
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copies
</span>”</span> and derivative
6614 works. See Jed Rubenfeld,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6615 Constitutionality,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Yale Law Journal
</em> 112
6616 (
2002):
1–60 (see especially pp.
53–59).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881064"></a>
6617 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2881113" href=
"#id2881113" class=
"para">133</a>]
</sup>
6620 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6621 regulates more than
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copies
</span>”</span>—a public performance of a
6622 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6623 doesn't make a copy;
17 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>, section
6624 106(
4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copy
</span>”</span>;
6625 17 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>, section
112(a). But the
6626 presumption under the existing law (which regulates
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copies;
</span>”</span>
6627 17 <em class=
"citetitle">United States Code
</em>, section
102) is that if there
6628 is a copy, there is a right.
6629 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2881191" href=
"#id2881191" class=
"para">134</a>]
</sup>
6632 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6633 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6634 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6635 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6636 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2881122" href=
"#id2881122" class=
"para">135</a>]
</sup>
6639 I don't mean
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">nature
</span>”</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6640 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6641 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6642 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6643 number of copies remain.
6644 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2881755" href=
"#id2881755" class=
"para">136</a>]
</sup>
6647 Se David Lange,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Recognizing the Public Domain
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Law
6648 and Contemporary Problems
</em> 44 (
1981):
172–73.
6649 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2881782" href=
"#id2881782" class=
"para">137</a>]
</sup>
6651 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyrights and
6652 Copywrongs
</em>,
1–3.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881770"></a>
6653 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2882064" href=
"#id2882064" class=
"para">138</a>]
</sup>
6656 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6657 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6658 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6659 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6660 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6661 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6662 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2882484" href=
"#id2882484" class=
"para">139</a>]
</sup>
6664 See Pamela Samuelson,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6665 Science,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Science
</em> 293 (
2001):
2028; Brendan
6666 I. Koerner,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6667 New Tricks,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">American Prospect
</em>, January
2002;
6668 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,
</span>”</span>
6669 <em class=
"citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter
</em>,
11
6670 December
2001; Bill Holland,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6671 Concerns,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Billboard
</em>, May
2001; Janelle Brown,
6672 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?
</span>”</span> Salon.com, April
2001; Electronic
6673 Frontier Foundation,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6674 <em class=
"citetitle">Felten and USENIX
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">RIAA
</em>
6675 Legal Case,
</span>”</span> available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
27</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2882540"></a>
6676 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2882887" href=
"#id2882887" class=
"para">140</a>]
</sup>
6678 <em class=
"citetitle">Sony Corporation of America
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Universal
6679 City Studios, Inc
</em>.,
464 U.S.
417,
455 fn.
27 (
1984). Rogers
6680 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner,
<em class=
"citetitle">Fast
6681 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR
</em>
6682 (New York: W. W. Norton,
1987),
270–71.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2881790"></a>
6683 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883071" href=
"#id2883071" class=
"para">141</a>]
</sup>
6686 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Legal
6687 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,
</span>”</span>
6688 <em class=
"citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal
</em> 17
6690 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883184" href=
"#id2883184" class=
"para">142</a>]
</sup>
6693 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6694 Transportation Committee,
108th Cong.,
1st sess. (
22 May
2003) (statement
6695 of Senator John McCain).
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883196" href=
"#id2883196" class=
"para">143</a>]
</sup>
6698 Lynette Holloway,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6699 Slide,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
23 December
2002.
6700 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883214" href=
"#id2883214" class=
"para">144</a>]
</sup>
6703 Molly Ivins,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,
</span>”</span>
6704 <em class=
"citetitle">Charleston Gazette
</em>,
31 May
2003.
6705 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883308" href=
"#id2883308" class=
"para">145</a>]
</sup>
6707 James Fallows,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Age of Murdoch
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Atlantic
6708 Monthly
</em> (September
2003):
89.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883327"></a>
6709 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883436" href=
"#id2883436" class=
"para">146</a>]
</sup>
6712 Leonard Hill,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Axis of Access,
</span>”</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6713 Center Forum,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,
</span>”</span>
6714 St. Louis, Missouri,
3 April
2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6715 at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
28</a>; for the Lear
6716 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
29</a>).
6717 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883499" href=
"#id2883499" class=
"para">147</a>]
</sup>
6720 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6721 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee,
108th Cong.,
1st
6722 sess. (
2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6723 the Consumer Federation of America), available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6724 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6725 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia,
27 February
2003.
6726 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883526" href=
"#id2883526" class=
"para">148</a>]
</sup>
6730 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883582" href=
"#id2883582" class=
"para">149</a>]
</sup>
6733 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Now with
6734 Bill Moyers
</em>, Bill Moyers,
25 April
2003, redigert avskrift
6735 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
6737 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883639" href=
"#id2883639" class=
"para">150</a>]
</sup>
6740 Clayton M. Christensen,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6741 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6742 Business
</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6743 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6744 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6745 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Research
6746 Policy
</em> 14 (
1985):
235–51. For a more recent study, see
6747 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan,
<em class=
"citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6748 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market
—and How to
6749 Successfully Transform Them
</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6750 2001).
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2883802" href=
"#id2883802" class=
"para">151</a>]
</sup>
6752 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February
2003, sought to place ads that
6753 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6754 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">against [their]
6755 policy.
</span>”</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6756 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6757 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6758 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine,
15 October
2003.
6759 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6760 example, Nat Ives,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6761 with Rejection from TV Networks,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New York
6762 Times
</em>,
13 March
2003, C4. Outside of election-related air time
6763 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6764 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Ad Hoc
6765 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6766 Radio,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review
</em> 6 (
1988):
6767 449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6768 courts, see
<em class=
"citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6769 Association
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">FCC
</em>,
184 F.
3d
872
6770 (D.C. Cir.
1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6771 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6772 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6773 Matier and Andrew Ross,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6774 Ad,
</span>”</span> SFGate.com,
16 June
2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
32</a>. The ground was that
6775 the criticism was
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">too controversial.
</span>”</span> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883865"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883873"></a>
6776 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883880"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883886"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883892"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883898"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883905"></a>
6777 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2884045" href=
"#id2884045" class=
"para">152</a>]
</sup>
6779 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fire
6780 kapitulasjoner
</span>”</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
6781 Vaidhyanathan,
159–60.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2883837"></a>
6782 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2884401" href=
"#id2884401" class=
"para">153</a>]
</sup>
6784 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6785 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6786 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Disintegration of
6787 Property,
</span>”</span> in
<em class=
"citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property
</em>, J. Roland
6788 Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6789 1980).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2884416"></a>
6790 </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>
6791 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6792 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6793 the Peruvian Andes.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2884573" href=
"#ftn.id2884573" class=
"footnote">154</a>]
</sup> The valley is
6794 extraordinarily beautiful, with
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
6795 climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
6796 excellent fruit.
</span>”</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
6797 as an opportunity.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">In the Country of the Blind,
</span>”</span> he tells
6798 himself,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.
</span>”</span> So he resolves to live
6799 with the villagers to explore life as a king.
6801 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6802 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6803 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">blind.
</span>”</span> They don't have the word
6804 <em class=
"citetitle">blind
</em>. They think he's just thick. Indeed, as they
6805 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6806 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6807 becomes increasingly frustrated.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6808 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6809 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'
</span>”</span>
6813 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6814 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6815 a young woman who to him seems
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6816 of creation,
</span>”</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6817 what he sees
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6818 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6819 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.
</span>”</span> <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">She
6820 did not believe,
</span>”</span> Wells tells us, and
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">she could only half
6821 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.
</span>”</span>
6823 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">mysteriously
6824 delighted
</span>”</span> love, the father and the village object.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">You see,
6825 my dear,
</span>”</span> her father instructs,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">he's an idiot. He has
6826 delusions. He can't do anything right.
</span>”</span> They take Nunez to the
6829 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">His brain
6830 is affected,
</span>”</span> he reports.
6832 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">What affects it?
</span>”</span> the father asks.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Those queer things
6833 that are called the eyes
… are diseased
… in such a way as to
6834 affect his brain.
</span>”</span>
6836 The doctor continues:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6837 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6838 easy surgical operation
—namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6839 eyes].
</span>”</span>
6842 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Thank Heaven for science!
</span>”</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6843 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6844 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6845 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.) It
6846 sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
6847 fusion produces a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">chimera.
</span>”</span> A chimera is a single creature
6848 with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
6849 from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6850 mysteries.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">But the DNA shows with
100 percent certainty that she was
6851 not the person whose blood was at the scene.
…</span>”</span>
6852 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2884728"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2884736"></a><p>
6853 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible. A
6854 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6855 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6856 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6857 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">person
</span>”</span> should
6858 reflect this reality.
6860 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6861 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6862 enough,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the copyright wars,
</span>”</span> the more I think we're dealing
6863 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">What is
6864 p2p file sharing?
</span>”</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6865 wrong. One side says,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6866 others' records
—the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6867 years without any question at all.
</span>”</span> That's true, at least in
6868 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6869 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6870 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6871 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6873 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6874 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6875 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6876 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">friends
</span>”</span> beyond recognition to say
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">my ten thousand best
6877 friends
</span>”</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6878 friend is what
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">we have always been allowed to do,
</span>”</span> we have not
6879 always been allowed to share music with
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">our ten thousand best
6880 friends.
</span>”</span>
6882 Likewise, when the other side says,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">File sharing is just like walking
6883 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6884 it,
</span>”</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6885 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6886 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6887 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2884819"></a>
6892 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6893 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6894 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6895 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6896 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6897 California law, at least, is $
1,
000. According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6898 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $
1,
500,
000 in damages.)
6900 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6901 is both
—both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6902 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6903 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6904 rules should govern it?
6906 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6907 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6908 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6909 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6910 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6911 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6912 been proposed or actually implemented.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2884860" href=
"#ftn.id2884860" class=
"footnote">155</a>]
</sup>
6914 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2884958"></a><p>
6915 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6916 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6917 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6918 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6919 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6921 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake. Rather than
6922 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6923 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6924 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6925 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6926 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>either
</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6927 alternative. But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6928 of the two extremes.
6933 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6934 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6935 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6936 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6937 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6940 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">steal
</span>”</span>
6941 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6942 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6943 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6944 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6945 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6946 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6947 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6948 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6949 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
6950 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6951 and we want to protect those rights.
6953 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6954 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6955 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6956 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6959 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6960 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6961 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6962 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6963 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6964 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6965 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6966 everyone's interests.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2885046" href=
"#ftn.id2885046" class=
"footnote">156</a>]
</sup>
6967 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6968 In April
2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6969 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the major labels.
</span>”</span> Its position on these matters has now
6970 changed.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885072"></a>
6972 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6973 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6974 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6975 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2884573" href=
"#id2884573" class=
"para">154</a>]
</sup>
6978 H. G. Wells,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Country of the Blind
</span>”</span> (
1904,
1911). Se
6979 H. G. Wells,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6980 Stories
</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6982 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2884860" href=
"#id2884860" class=
"para">155</a>]
</sup>
6984 For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
6985 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
6986 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,
</span>”</span> 27 June
6987 2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
6988 #
33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
6989 (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized on-line
6990 copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high as five years
6991 imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on
6992 Piracy,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles Times
</em>,
17 July
2003,
6993 available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
6994 #
34</a>. Civil penalties are currently set at $
150,
000 per copied
6995 song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
6996 that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than
600
6997 songs through a family computer, see
<em class=
"citetitle">RIAA
</em>
6998 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In re. Verizon Internet
6999 Services)
</em>,
240 F. Supp.
2d
24 (D.D.C.
2003). Such a user could
7000 face liability ranging as high as $
90 million. Such astronomical figures
7001 furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
7002 sharers. Settlements ranging from $
12,
000 to $
17,
500 for four students
7003 accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
7004 pittance next to the $
98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
7005 proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Downloading Could Lead to
7006 Fines,
</span>”</span> redandblack.com, August
2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
35</a>. For an example of the
7007 RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
7008 universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
7009 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,
</span>”</span>
7010 <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=
"id2884941"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2884950"></a>
7011 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2885046" href=
"#id2885046" class=
"para">156</a>]
</sup>
7014 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
7015 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
7016 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
7017 Committee on Commerce,
106th Cong.
29 (
1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
7018 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7019 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>
7020 To fight
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy,
</span>”</span> to protect
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property,
</span>”</span> the
7021 content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
7022 contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
7023 war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
7024 of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
7026 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7027 particular, the consequences for
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free culture.
</span>”</span> But my aim now
7028 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7031 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7032 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7033 the property called
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">intellectual property
</span>”</span> is at its greatest
7035 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885133"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885140"></a><p>
7036 Yet
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">common sense
</span>”</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7037 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7038 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7039 rejection of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy
</span>”</span> still has play.
7040 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885159"></a><p>
7043 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7044 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7045 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7046 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7047 today's monopolists of culture.
7048 </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>
7049 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7050 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7051 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7052 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7053 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7054 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7055 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7056 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7057 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7058 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7059 together a string
—a mash-up
— of songs from your favorite artists
7060 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7062 This digital
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">capturing and sharing
</span>”</span> is in part an extension of
7063 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7064 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7065 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7066 digital
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">capturing and sharing
</span>”</span> promises a world of
7067 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7068 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7069 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7070 contribute to the culture all around.
7073 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7074 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7075 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7076 samling med naboer i en liten landsby. Forestill deg så den samme
7077 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7079 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7080 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7081 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7082 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7083 cartoons from the
1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7084 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7085 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7086 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7087 presumptively illegal.
7089 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7090 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7091 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7092 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh. The
7093 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter
3
7094 was just one) were threatened with a $
98 billion lawsuit for building search
7095 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com
—which
7096 defrauded investors of $
11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7097 market capitalization of over $
200 billion
—received a fine of a mere
7098 $
750 million.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2885262" href=
"#ftn.id2885262" class=
"footnote">157</a>]
</sup> And under legislation
7099 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7100 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $
250,
000 in
7101 damages for pain and suffering.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2885301" href=
"#ftn.id2885301" class=
"footnote">158</a>]
</sup> Can
7102 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7103 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7104 negligently butchering a patient?
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885344"></a>
7105 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885351"></a><p>
7106 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7107 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7108 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7109 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7110 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">pirates.
</span>”</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7111 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7112 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7113 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7114 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7115 world of underground art
—not because the message is necessarily
7116 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7117 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">illegal
7118 art
</span>”</span> tour the United States.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2885370" href=
"#ftn.id2885370" class=
"footnote">159</a>]
</sup> In
7119 what does their
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">illegality
</span>”</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7120 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7122 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7123 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
7124 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7125 file-sharing systems discovered in
2002, it is a trivial matter for
7126 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7127 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7128 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7129 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7131 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7132 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7133 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7134 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7135 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7136 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7137 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7138 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7139 them is not similarly free.
7141 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7142 in chapter
<a class=
"xref" href=
"#recorders" title=
"Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7143 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7144 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7145 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7150 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7151 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7152 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad
—in practically
7153 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7154 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7155 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7156 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7159 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7160 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">breathing room
</span>”</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7161 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7162 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7163 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7164 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists
— these
7165 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7166 relationship to the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">law
</span>”</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7168 For in a world that threatens $
150,
000 for a single willful infringement of
7169 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7170 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7171 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7172 her right to speak
—in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7173 that pass under the name
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyright
</span>”</span> silence speech and
7174 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7175 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7177 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7178 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7180 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7181 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7182 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7183 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made
… you're not going to
7184 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7185 from a lawyer saying,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">This has been cleared.
</span>”</span> You're not even
7186 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7187 which they control it.
7188 </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>
7189 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story
—creativity
7190 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7191 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7192 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything. And
7193 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7196 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense. Indeed,
7197 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7198 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that,
188
7199 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7200 substituting
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free market
</span>”</span> every place I've spoken of
7201 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free culture.
</span>”</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7202 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7203 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885584"></a><p>
7204 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7205 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7206 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary
—at a minimum, we
7207 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7208 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7209 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7210 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7211 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7212 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7213 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7214 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885592"></a><p>
7216 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7217 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
7218 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7219 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7220 from last generation's dominant industries. That lesson has been taught
7221 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7222 capitalists a lesson. That lesson
—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7223 calls a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">nuclear pall
</span>”</span> that has fallen over the
7224 Valley
—has been learned.
7226 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7227 <em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em> and which has progressed in a way
7228 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7229 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885648"></a><p>
7230 In
1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com was
7231 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7232 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7233 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7234 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7237 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7238 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7239 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7240 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7241 so on.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885671"></a>
7243 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7244 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7245 data. In January
2000, the company launched a service called
7246 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7247 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7248 the CD, and then give the user access to that content. So, for example, if
7249 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were
—at work or at
7250 home
—you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7251 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7254 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7255 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7256 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7257 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7260 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy
50,
000 CDs to
7261 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7262 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7263 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased
50,
000 CDs from a
7264 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7265 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7266 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7267 this was
50,
000 copies, it was
50,
000 copies directed at giving customers
7268 something they had already bought.
7269 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7270 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7271 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7272 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7273 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7274 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $
118 million. MP3.com
7275 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7276 $
54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7278 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før. Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7280 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7281 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7282 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7283 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7284 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7285 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7286 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7289 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7290 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7291 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7292 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7293 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem. Det får
7294 også du. Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7295 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7296 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885785"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885794"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885800"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885806"></a><p>
7297 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April
2003, Universal
7298 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7299 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7300 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2885819" href=
"#ftn.id2885819" class=
"footnote">160</a>]
</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7301 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7302 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7303 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7304 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7305 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7306 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well. Your investment
7307 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit. So extreme has the
7308 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7309 that touch content. In an article in
<em class=
"citetitle">Business
2.0</em>,
7310 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW:
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885867"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885873"></a>
7311 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885883"></a><p>
7312 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7313 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7314 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7315 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7316 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7317 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players.
… <sup>[
<a name=
"id2885540" href=
"#ftn.id2885540" class=
"footnote">161</a>]
</sup>
7318 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7319 Dette er verden til mafiaen
—fylt med
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">penger eller
7320 livet
</span>”</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
7321 loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
7322 åpenbart og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å
7323 starte et selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av
7329 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7330 enterprises. The point is the definition of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">illegal.
</span>”</span> The law
7331 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7332 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7333 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7334 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7335 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7336 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7337 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7338 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7339 and much less creativity.
7340 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885969"></a><p>
7341 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7342 use. Whatever the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">real
</span>”</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7343 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7344 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7345 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7346 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7347 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7348 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7349 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7352 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7353 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7354 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture
—a culture in
7355 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7356 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7357 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7358 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7359 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7360 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7361 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7362 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7363 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7364 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity. Someone needs to do a lot of
7365 justifying to justify that result. The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7366 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7367 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7368 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7371 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7372 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7373 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7374 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">bug.
</span>”</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7375 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7376 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7377 efficient. If the Internet enables
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piracy,
</span>”</span> then, this
7378 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7380 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7381 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7382 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7383 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886066" href=
"#ftn.id2886066" class=
"footnote">162</a>]
</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7384 explore a mandatory
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">broadcast flag
</span>”</span> that would be required on
7385 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7386 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7387 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7388 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7389 down copyright violators and disable their machines.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886096" href=
"#ftn.id2886096" class=
"footnote">163</a>]
</sup>
7392 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7393 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7394 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7395 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7396 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7398 In March
2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7399 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7400 impose.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886119" href=
"#ftn.id2886119" class=
"footnote">164</a>]
</sup> Their argument was obviously
7401 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7402 protection should not do more harm than good.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886132"></a>
7404 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7405 innovation
—again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7408 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7409 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others. When
7410 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7411 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7413 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
7414 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7415 <em class=
"citetitle">Digital Copyright
</em>,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886167" href=
"#ftn.id2886167" class=
"footnote">165</a>]
</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter
10
7416 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7417 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7418 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7419 case of the VCR) has been another.
7421 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7422 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7423 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7424 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7425 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7427 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886203" href=
"#ftn.id2886203" class=
"footnote">166</a>]
</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7428 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7429 here.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886238" href=
"#ftn.id2886238" class=
"footnote">167</a>]
</sup> But there is one example that
7430 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7432 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886286"></a><p>
7435 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
7436 doesn't get paid for that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">radio performance
</span>”</span> unless he or she
7437 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7438 version of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Happy Birthday
</span>”</span>—to memorialize her famous
7439 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden
— then
7440 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7441 owners of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Happy Birthday
</span>”</span> would get some money, whereas
7442 Marilyn Monroe would not.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886326"></a>
7444 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7445 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7446 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7447 more likely that her records would be purchased. Thus, the recording artist
7448 got something, even if only indirectly. Probably this reasoning had less to
7449 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7450 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7451 compensation to the recording artists.
7453 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7454 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7455 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum. Thus, I can
7456 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">tune in
</span>”</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7457 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7458 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7460 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7461 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7462 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7463 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7464 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7465 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7466 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7467 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7468 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7469 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7470 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886386"></a><p>
7474 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7475 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7476 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7477 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7478 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7479 struggle to enable FM radio,
7480 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7481 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7482 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7483 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7484 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7485 restrictions.
… Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7486 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7487 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7488 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7489 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7490 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7491 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7492 shackles.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2885898" href=
"#ftn.id2885898" class=
"footnote">168</a>]
</sup>
7493 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7494 This potential for FM radio was never realized
—not because Armstrong
7495 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7496 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2886440" href=
"#ftn.id2886440" class=
"footnote">169</a>]
</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7498 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7499 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7500 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7501 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7502 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7503 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxartistspayments2"></a><p>
7505 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7506 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7507 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7508 radio in
1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7509 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7510 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7511 it plays her hypothetical recording of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Happy Birthday
</span>”</span> on the
7512 air,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Internet radio does
</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7513 neutral toward Internet radio
—the law actually burdens Internet radio
7514 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7516 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7517 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7518 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7519 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $
1 million a
7520 year.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886511" href=
"#ftn.id2886511" class=
"footnote">170</a>]
</sup> A regular radio station
7521 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7522 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886567"></a><p>
7523 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7524 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7525 would have to collect the following data from
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>every listening
7526 transaction
</em></span>:
7527 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"1"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7529 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7530 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7531 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7532 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7533 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7535 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7536 tidspunkt for sending;
7537 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7538 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7539 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7540 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7541 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7542 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7543 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7544 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7545 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7546 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7547 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7548 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7549 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7551 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7552 spillende plateartist;
7553 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7554 tittel på album i butikker;
7555 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7557 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7558 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7559 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7561 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7562 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7563 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7564 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7565 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7566 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7567 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7568 kanal eller program;
7569 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7570 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7571 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7572 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7573 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7574 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7575 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7576 unik bruker-identifikator;
7577 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
7578 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7579 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7580 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7581 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7582 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7583 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7584 pay a
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee
</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7587 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7588 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7589 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7590 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886742"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
7591 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7592 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7593 Real Networks, told me,
7594 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7596 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7597 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7598 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7599 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7600 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA,
… <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">How do you come
7601 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7602 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7603 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7604 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business.
…</span>”</span>
7605 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886777"></a><p>
7606 And the RIAA experts said,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7607 industry with thousands of webcasters,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7608 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7609 and it's a stable, predictable market
</em></span>.
</span>”</span> (Emphasis added.)
7610 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886816"></a><p>
7611 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7612 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7613 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7614 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7615 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7616 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7617 </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>
7618 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7619 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7620 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7622 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7623 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7624 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7627 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7628 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7629 of citizens. According to
<em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em>,
43
7630 million Americans downloaded music in May
2002.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886869" href=
"#ftn.id2886869" class=
"footnote">171</a>]
</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those
43 million Americans
7631 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform
20 percent of
7632 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7633 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7634 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7635 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7636 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7637 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7639 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7640 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7641 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7642 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($
15,
000,
000) or almost all
7643 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7644 in damages ($
250,
000 in legal fees) led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7645 money he had in the world ($
12,
000) to make the suit go away. The same
7646 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7647 2003, the RIAA sued
261 individuals
—including a twelve-year-old girl
7648 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7649 file sharing was.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886502" href=
"#ftn.id2886502" class=
"footnote">172</a>]
</sup> As these scapegoats
7650 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7651 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7652 Jordan, paid her life savings of $
2,
000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7653 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7654 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7655 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7657 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7658 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7659 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was
1.5
7660 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7661 consumption to just
30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7662 of prohibition, consumption was up to
70 percent of the preprohibition
7663 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7664 were criminals.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886950" href=
"#ftn.id2886950" class=
"footnote">173</a>]
</sup> We have launched a war
7665 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that
7
7666 percent (or
16 million) Americans now use.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886966" href=
"#ftn.id2886966" class=
"footnote">174</a>]
</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in
1979 of
14 percent of
7667 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7668 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7669 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2886983" href=
"#ftn.id2886983" class=
"footnote">175</a>]
</sup> We pride ourselves on our
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free
7670 society,
</span>”</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7671 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7672 regularly violate at least some law.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887005"></a>
7674 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7675 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7676 about the importance of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ethics.
</span>”</span> As my colleague Charlie
7677 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7678 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7679 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7680 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7681 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7682 behave ethically
—how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7683 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7684 case is over. Generations of Americans
—more significantly in some
7685 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7686 today
—can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7687 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">normally
</span>”</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7688 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887023"></a>
7690 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7691 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7692 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7693 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7694 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7695 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed. Alternatively, if the costs
7696 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7697 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7702 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7703 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7704 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7705 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7706 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7708 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7709 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7710 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7711 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7712 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7713 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7714 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7715 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7716 the extreme of regulation they impose. Twenty million Americans have come
7717 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7718 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sharing.
</span>”</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7719 Americans
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">citizens,
</span>”</span> not
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">felons.
</span>”</span>
7721 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7722 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7723 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7724 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7725 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7726 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7727 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7728 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7729 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7731 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7734 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7735 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought. The law
7736 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7737 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7738 and buy jazz records to replace them. That
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">use
</span>”</span> of the
7741 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7742 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7743 copy-protection technologies, I am
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free
</span>”</span> to copy, or
7744 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rip,
</span>”</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7745 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">freedom
</span>”</span> was
7746 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Rip, Mix,
7747 Burn
</span>”</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7748 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887151"></a><p>
7749 This
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">use
</span>”</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7750 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7751 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7752 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7753 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others
—the potential is
7754 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7755 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7756 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7759 This use is enabled by unprotected media
—either CDs or records. But
7760 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7761 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7762 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7763 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7764 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7765 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7768 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7769 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7770 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7771 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7772 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7773 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7774 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7775 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7776 part of a massively complex
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">digital rights management
</span>”</span> system.
7778 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7779 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7780 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7781 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7782 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7783 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7786 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7787 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7788 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7789 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7790 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7791 reason to pursue this alternative
—namely, freedom. The choice, in
7792 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7793 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7795 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7796 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7797 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7798 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7799 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7800 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7803 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7804 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7805 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7806 as criminals and their own survival.
7808 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7809 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7810 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7811 important as our tradition of free culture. There's one more aspect to this
7812 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7813 directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7814 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">collateral
7815 damage
</span>”</span> that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7816 of the population into criminals.
</span>”</span> This is the collateral damage to
7817 civil liberties generally.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887275"></a>
7819 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter
</span>”</span>, forklarer
7820 von Lohmann,
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887291"></a>
7821 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7822 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7823 one degree or another.
… If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7824 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7825 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7826 continue to receive Internet access?
… Our sensibilities change as
7827 soon as we think,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7828 lawbreaker.
</span>”</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7829 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7830 into
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">lawbreakers.
</span>”</span>
7831 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7832 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7833 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7834 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7836 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in
2003 as the RIAA
7837 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7838 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7839 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7840 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7844 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7845 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7846 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7847 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7848 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7849 for $
2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7850 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2887349" href=
"#ftn.id2887349" class=
"footnote">176</a>]
</sup>
7853 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7854 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7855 to track Napster users.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2887404" href=
"#ftn.id2887404" class=
"footnote">177</a>]
</sup> Using a
7856 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7857 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7858 MP3s will have the same
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fingerprint.
</span>”</span>
7860 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7861 CD to your daughter
—a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7862 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7863 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7864 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7865 if the college network is
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">cooperating
</span>”</span> with the RIAA's
7866 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7867 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7868 identify your daughter as a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">criminal.
</span>”</span> And under the rules
7869 that universities are beginning to deploy,
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2887449" href=
"#ftn.id2887449" class=
"footnote">178</a>]
</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7870 network. She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7872 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7873 lawyer for her (at $
300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7874 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7875 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7876 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7877 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">contraband
</span>”</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7878 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7879 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7880 Says von Lohmann,
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887536"></a>
7881 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
7882 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7883 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7884 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7885 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7886 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7887 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7888 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7889 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7890 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7891 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7892 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7893 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7894 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use.
… If forty to
7895 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7896 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7898 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7899 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7900 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">criminals
</span>”</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7901 same objective
— securing rights to authors
—without these
7902 millions being considered
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">criminals,
</span>”</span> who is the villain?
7903 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7904 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7905 </p></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2885262" href=
"#id2885262" class=
"para">157</a>]
</sup>
7907 Se Lynne W. Jeter,
<em class=
"citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7908 WorldCom
</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley
& Sons,
2003),
176,
204;
7909 for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">MCI Wins
7910 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement
</span>”</span> (
7. juli
2003),
7911 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
7912 #
37</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885288"></a>
7913 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2885301" href=
"#id2885301" class=
"para">158</a>]
</sup>
7914 The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7915 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July
2003. For an
7916 overview, see Tanya Albert,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7917 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,
</span>”</span> amednews.com,
28 July
2003, available at
7918 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
38</a>, and
7919 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,
</span>”</span> CBSNews.com,
9 July
2003,
7920 available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
7921 #
39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7922 months.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885331"></a>
7923 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2885370" href=
"#id2885370" class=
"para">159</a>]
</sup>
7927 Se Danit Lidor,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free
</span>”</span>,
7928 <em class=
"citetitle">Wired
</em>,
7. juli
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
40</a>. For en oversikt over
7929 utstillingen, se
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
7931 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2885819" href=
"#id2885819" class=
"para">160</a>]
</sup>
7934 See Joseph Menn,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,
</span>”</span>
7935 <em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles Times
</em>,
23 April
2003. For a parallel
7936 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7937 Janelle Brown,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,
</span>”</span>
7938 Salon.com,
1 June
2001, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
42</a>. See also Jon Healey,
7939 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Online Music Services Besieged,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles
7940 Times
</em>,
28 May
2001.
7941 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2885540" href=
"#id2885540" class=
"para">161</a>]
</sup>
7943 Rafe Needleman,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s
</span>”</span>,
7944 <em class=
"citetitle">Business
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
7945 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2885918"></a>
7946 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886066" href=
"#id2886066" class=
"para">162</a>]
</sup>
7948 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,
</span>”</span>
7949 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7950 School (
2003),
33–35, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
44</a>.
7951 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886096" href=
"#id2886096" class=
"para">163</a>]
</sup>
7954 GartnerG2,
26–27.
7955 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886119" href=
"#id2886119" class=
"para">164</a>]
</sup>
7958 See David McGuire,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,
</span>”</span>
7959 Newsbytes, February
2002 (Entertainment).
7960 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886167" href=
"#id2886167" class=
"para">165</a>]
</sup>
7962 Jessica Litman,
<em class=
"citetitle">Digital Copyright
</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7963 Prometheus Books,
2001).
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886174"></a>
7964 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886203" href=
"#id2886203" class=
"para">166</a>]
</sup>
7967 The only circuit court exception is found in
<em class=
"citetitle">Recording Industry
7968 Association of America (RIAA)
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7969 Systems
</em>,
180 F.
3d
1072 (
9th Cir.
1999). There the court of
7970 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7971 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7972 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7973 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7974 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7975 <em class=
"citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7976 Inc
</em>. v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Grokster, Ltd
</em>.,
259 F. Supp.
2d
7977 1029 (C.D. Cal.,
2003), where the court found the link between the
7978 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7979 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7980 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886238" href=
"#id2886238" class=
"para">167</a>]
</sup>
7982 For example, in July
2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
7983 Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R.
5211), which would immunize
7984 copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
7985 copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In August
7986 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate that
7987 technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films broadcast on
7988 TV (i.e., computers) respect a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">broadcast flag
</span>”</span> that would
7989 disable copying of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator
7990 Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
7991 Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital
7992 media devices. See GartnerG2,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a
7993 Post-Napster World,
</span>”</span> 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=
"id2886268"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886276"></a>
7994 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2885898" href=
"#id2885898" class=
"para">168</a>]
</sup>
7998 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886440" href=
"#id2886440" class=
"para">169</a>]
</sup>
8002 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886511" href=
"#id2886511" class=
"para">170</a>]
</sup>
8004 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
8005 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
8006 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford),
3 July
8007 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
8008 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected. See Jonathan
8009 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
8010 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
8011 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright as
8012 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Antitrust
8013 Bulletin
</em> (Summer/Fall
2002):
461:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">This was not confusion,
8014 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
8015 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
8016 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
8017 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
8018 media-neutral way.
</span>”</span> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886548"></a>
8019 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2886557"></a>
8020 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886869" href=
"#id2886869" class=
"para">171</a>]
</sup>
8022 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,
</span>”</span>
8023 Pew Internet and American Life Project (
24 April
2001), available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
46</a>. The Pew Internet and
8024 American Life Project reported that
37 million Americans had downloaded
8025 music files from the Internet by early
2001.
8026 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886502" href=
"#id2886502" class=
"para">172</a>]
</sup>
8029 Alex Pham,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8030 Case,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles Times
</em>,
10 September
2003,
8032 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886950" href=
"#id2886950" class=
"para">173</a>]
</sup>
8035 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8036 Prohibition,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">American Economic Review
</em> 81,
8038 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886966" href=
"#id2886966" class=
"para">174</a>]
</sup>
8041 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8042 Committee,
108th Cong.,
1st sess. (
5 March
2003) (statement of John
8043 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8044 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2886983" href=
"#id2886983" class=
"para">175</a>]
</sup>
8047 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Tax
8048 Compliance,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature
</em> 36
8049 (
1998):
818 (survey of compliance literature).
8050 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2887349" href=
"#id2887349" class=
"para">176</a>]
</sup>
8053 See Frank Ahrens,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8054 Mother in Calif.,
12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,
</span>”</span>
8055 <em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>,
10 September
2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8056 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8057 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8058 to Avoid Being Sued,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8059 Tribune
</em>,
30 August
2003, C1; Jefferson Graham,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Recording
8060 Industry Sues Parents,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">USA Today
</em>,
15
8061 September
2003,
4D; John Schwartz,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8062 Snoop Fan, Either,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
25
8063 September
2003, C1; Margo Varadi,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?
</span>”</span>
8064 <em class=
"citetitle">Toronto Star
</em>,
18 September
2003, P7.
8065 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2887404" href=
"#id2887404" class=
"para">177</a>]
</sup>
8068 Se Nick Brown,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
8069 Age
</span>”</span>, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
49</a>.
8070 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2887449" href=
"#id2887449" class=
"para">178</a>]
</sup>
8073 See Jeff Adler,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8074 Penitent,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Boston Globe
</em>,
18 May
2003, City
8075 Weekly,
1; Frank Ahrens,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8076 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,
</span>”</span>
8077 <em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>,
4 April
2003, E1; Elizabeth
8078 Armstrong,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,
</span>”</span>
8079 <em class=
"citetitle">Christian Science Monitor
</em>,
2 September
2003,
20;
8080 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8081 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,
</span>”</span>
8082 <em class=
"citetitle">Chicago Tribune
</em>,
16 July
2003,
1C; Beth Cox,
8083 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,
</span>”</span>
8084 <em class=
"citetitle">Internet News
</em>,
30 January
2003, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
48</a>; Benny Evangelista,
8085 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Download Warning
101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8086 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">San
8087 Francisco Chronicle
</em>,
11 August
2003, E11;
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Raid, Letters
8088 Are Weapons at Universities,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">USA Today
</em>,
26
8090 </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>
8091 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
8092 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
8093 hvordan du slokker den. Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
8094 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8096 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi. I panikk griper
8097 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe
—eller før
8098 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe
—er bøtten i svevet. Bensinen er på
8099 tur mot den brennende bilen. Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8100 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8102 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt
— og vi fokuserer alle på feil
8103 ting. Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
8104 virksomheter. Uten tvil kan de true artister. Men teknologier endrer seg.
8105 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
8106 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet. Dette er en brann som overlatt til
8107 seg selv vil brenne ut.
8111 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8112 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8113 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det. Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8114 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot. For
8115 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8116 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8118 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8119 viktige og fundametale problemet. Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8120 bensin på denne brannen.
8122 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå. Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8123 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning. Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8124 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8125 som består. Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8126 burde holde øynene på veien.
8128 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene. Det har også vært
8129 min falitt. I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8130 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten. Vi
8131 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8133 </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>
8134 In
1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
8135 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
8136 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
8137 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
8138 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
8139 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
8141 It didn't work
—at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8142 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8143 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8144 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8147 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8148 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8149 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8150 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8151 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8152 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8153 accessible
—technically accessible
—today.
8155 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8156 as Disney's. Hawthorne's
<em class=
"citetitle">Scarlet Letter
</em> had passed
8157 into the public domain in
1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8158 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8159 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8160 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8161 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8162 successfully (
<em class=
"citetitle">Cinderella
</em>), sometimes not
8163 (
<em class=
"citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame
</em>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Treasure
8164 Planet
</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8166 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887787"></a><p>
8167 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8168 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8169 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8170 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8171 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8172 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">noncommercial publishing industry,
</span>”</span> which before the Internet
8173 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8174 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8175 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2887810" href=
"#ftn.id2887810" class=
"footnote">179</a>]
</sup>
8177 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In
1998, Robert Frost's collection
8178 of poems
<em class=
"citetitle">New Hampshire
</em> was slated to pass into the
8179 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8180 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
8181 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8182 copyrights
—this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8183 any works more recent than
1923 to his collection until
2019. Indeed, no
8184 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8185 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8186 period, more than
1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8187 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887849"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887865"></a><p>
8190 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8191 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8192 Mary Bono, says, believed that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyrights should be
8193 forever.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2887879" href=
"#ftn.id2887879" class=
"footnote">180</a>]
</sup>
8196 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8197 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8198 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8199 passed in
1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8200 would make Eldred a felon
—whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8201 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8203 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8204 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8205 interpretation. And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8206 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8207 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8208 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
8209 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science
… by
8210 securing for limited Times to Authors
… exclusive Right to their
8211 … Writings.
…
8212 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8213 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8214 Article I, section
8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8215 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something
—for
8216 example, to regulate
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">commerce among the several states
</span>”</span> or
8217 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">declare War.
</span>”</span> But here, the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">something
</span>”</span> is
8218 something quite specific
—to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">promote
…
8219 Progress
</span>”</span>—through means that are also specific
— by
8220 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">securing
</span>”</span> <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">exclusive Rights
</span>”</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8221 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">for limited Times.
</span>”</span>
8223 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8224 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8225 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8226 requirement that terms be
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited
</span>”</span> will have no practical
8227 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8228 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8229 forbids
—perpetual terms
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">on the installment plan,
</span>”</span> as
8230 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887991"></a>
8232 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8233 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8234 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8235 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8236 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8237 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8238 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8239 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8241 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8242 government.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Corruption
</span>”</span> not in the sense that representatives
8243 are bribed. Rather,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">corruption
</span>”</span> in the sense that the system
8244 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8245 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8246 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8247 do
—and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8249 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8250 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8251 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8252 example. Frost died in
1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8253 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8254 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8255 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8257 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $
100,
000 a year from three of
8258 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8259 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate. Your financial
8260 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8263 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Next year,
</span>”</span> the adviser announces,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">our copyrights in
8264 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8265 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $
100,
000 from the publishers
8266 of those works.
</span>”</span>
8268 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,
</span>”</span> she continues,
8269 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8270 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8271 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.
</span>”</span>
8273 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Hope?
</span>”</span> a fellow board member says.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Can't we be doing
8274 something about it?
</span>”</span>
8276 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Well, obviously, yes,
</span>”</span> the adviser responds.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">We could
8277 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8278 that they support the bill.
</span>”</span>
8280 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8281 whether this disgusting practice is worth it.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">How much would we get
8282 if this extension were passed?
</span>”</span> you ask the adviser.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">How much
8283 is it worth?
</span>”</span>
8285 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Well,
</span>”</span> the adviser says,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">if you're confident that you
8286 will continue to get at least $
100,
000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8287 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (
6
8288 percent), then this law would be worth $
1,
146,
000 to the estate.
</span>”</span>
8290 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8293 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8294 $
1,
000,
000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8295 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?
</span>”</span>
8297 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Absolutely,
</span>”</span> the adviser responds.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">It is worth it to
8298 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8299 these copyrights. Which for us means over $
1,
000,
000.
</span>”</span>
8302 You quickly get the point
—you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8303 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8304 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8305 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8306 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8307 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8310 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8311 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8312 buy further extensions of copyright.
8314 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8315 Extension Act, this
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">theory
</span>”</span> about incentives was proved
8316 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8317 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8318 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2888202" href=
"#ftn.id2888202" class=
"footnote">181</a>]
</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8319 over $
1.5 million lobbying in the
1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8320 than $
200,
000 in campaign contributions.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2888220" href=
"#ftn.id2888220" class=
"footnote">182</a>]
</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $
800,
000 to
8321 reelection campaigns in the cycle.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2888238" href=
"#ftn.id2888238" class=
"footnote">183</a>]
</sup>
8324 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8325 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8326 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8327 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8328 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8329 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8330 constitutional requirement that terms be
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited.
</span>”</span> If they
8331 could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8334 It was also my judgment that
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>this
</em></span> Supreme Court would
8335 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8336 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8337 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8338 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8339 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in
1995 to
8340 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8342 Since
1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8343 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8344 only
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">commerce among the several states
</span>”</span> (aka
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">interstate
8345 commerce
</span>”</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8346 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8348 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8349 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8350 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce. A Constitution
8351 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8353 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2888317"></a><p>
8354 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8355 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>. The
8356 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8357 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8358 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8359 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8360 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8361 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8362 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8363 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8365 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8366 arguments,
</span>”</span> the Chief Justice wrote.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2888360" href=
"#ftn.id2888360" class=
"footnote">184</a>]
</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8367 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8368 power. The decision in
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> was reaffirmed five
8369 years later in
<em class=
"citetitle">United States
</em>
8370 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Morrison
</em>.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2888387" href=
"#ftn.id2888387" class=
"footnote">185</a>]
</sup>
8373 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8374 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2888407" href=
"#ftn.id2888407" class=
"footnote">186</a>]
</sup>
8375 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8376 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8377 extend an existing term, then there would be no
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">stopping
8378 point
</span>”</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8379 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8380 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8381 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8383 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>If
</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8384 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> stood for a principle. Many believed the
8385 decision in
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> stood for politics
—a
8386 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8387 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8388 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8389 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fidelity
</span>”</span>
8390 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8391 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8392 boring. I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8393 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8395 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8396 <em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8397 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8398 piracy. Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8399 piracy
—piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8400 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8401 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8402 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8403 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8404 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8405 these entities were using their power
—expressed through the power of
8406 lobbyists' money
—to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8407 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8408 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8410 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8411 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8412 domain is nothing more than
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">legal piracy.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2888497" href=
"#ftn.id2888497" class=
"footnote">187</a>]
</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8413 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8414 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8415 pirate's charter.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2888523"></a>
8417 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8418 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8419 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8420 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8421 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8422 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8423 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8425 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8426 Mickey Mouse and
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Rhapsody in Blue.
</span>”</span> These works are too
8427 valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
8428 from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's. Forget
8429 Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the
1920s and
8430 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
8431 comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
8432 not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8434 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (
1923 to
1942)
8435 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act,
2 percent of that
8436 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8437 that
2 percent who pushed the CTEA through. But the law and its effect were
8438 not limited to that
2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8439 generally.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2888567" href=
"#ftn.id2888567" class=
"footnote">188</a>]
</sup>
8443 Think practically about the consequence of this extension
—practically,
8444 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In
1930,
8445 10,
047 books were published. In
2000,
174 of those books were still in
8446 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8447 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining
9,
873. What would you
8449 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2888594"></a><p>
8450 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the
9,
873 books were still
8451 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8452 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8453 authors of the
9,
873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8454 records for works published in
1930. That will produce a list of books still
8457 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8458 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8460 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8461 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8462 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8464 But there is no list. There may be a name from
1930, and then in
1959, of
8465 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8466 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8467 records
—especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8468 the current owner. And we're just talking about
1930!
8470 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,
</span>”</span> the
8471 apologists for the system respond.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Why should there be a list of
8472 copyright owners?
</span>”</span>
8474 Well, actually, if you think about it, there
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>are
</em></span> plenty
8475 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8476 to cars. And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8477 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8478 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8479 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8482 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8483 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8484 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8485 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8486 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8487 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8488 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8489 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8490 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8492 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library. The
8493 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8494 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8495 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8496 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8497 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8498 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8499 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8502 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8503 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8504 creative works is much more dire.
8505 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxageemichael"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2888715"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2888721"></a><p>
8506 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8507 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8508 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8509 1921 and
1951. Only one of these films,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Lucky
8510 Dog
</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8511 after
1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8512 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8513 of money. According to one estimate,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Roach has sold about
60,
000
8514 videocassettes and
50,
000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8515 films.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2888745" href=
"#ftn.id2888745" class=
"footnote">189</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2888768"></a>
8517 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8518 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8519 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8520 a whole generation of American film.
8523 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8524 continuing commercial value. The rest
—to the extent it survives at
8525 all
—sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8526 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8527 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8528 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8530 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs. For most
8531 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8532 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8533 $
10,
000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in
1993, it can now
8534 cost as little as $
100 to digitize one hour of mm film.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2888805" href=
"#ftn.id2888805" class=
"footnote">190</a>]
</sup>
8537 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8538 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8539 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8540 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8541 locate the copyright owner.
8543 Or more accurately,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>owners
</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8544 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8545 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8546 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8547 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8550 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8551 copyright owner when she shows up?
</span>”</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8552 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8553 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8554 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8555 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8556 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8557 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8558 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8561 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8562 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8563 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8564 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8566 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2888882"></a><p>
8567 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8568 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8569 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8570 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8572 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8573 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8574 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8575 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8576 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">engine of free
8577 expression.
</span>”</span>
8579 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8580 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8581 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8582 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving. And when a
8583 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8584 commercial life ends.
8586 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8587 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes
& Noble, and we don't
8588 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8589 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a
1930
8590 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8591 valuable
—for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8592 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8593 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8596 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression. In
8597 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8600 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8601 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8602 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright-related use
</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8603 exclusive right. When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8604 publisher. But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8605 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8606 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8607 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8609 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8610 film
—the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs
—were so high,
8611 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8612 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8613 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8614 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8616 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8617 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8618 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8619 interfered with anything.
8621 But this situation has now changed.
8622 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
8623 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8624 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of. Digital
8625 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8626 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8627 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8628 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8629 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8630 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8631 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8635 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8636 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8637 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8638 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8639 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8640 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8641 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8642 radically different context.
8644 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8645 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8646 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8647 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>copyright
</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8648 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8649 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8650 is serving no purpose
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>at all
</em></span> related to the spread of
8651 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8652 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8654 You may well ask,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8655 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too. So
8656 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8657 widely?
</span>”</span>
8659 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8660 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes
& Noble offered
8661 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8662 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8663 what
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the market
</span>”</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8664 library is bigger than this
—if you think its role is to archive
8665 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8666 not
—then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8668 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889070"></a><p>
8669 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8670 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8671 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8672 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8673 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture,
94 percent of the
8674 films, books, and music produced between and
1946 is not commercially
8675 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8676 value, then
6 percent is a failure to provide that value.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2889096" href=
"#ftn.id2889096" class=
"footnote">191</a>]
</sup>
8679 In January
1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8680 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8681 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8682 that we made were (
1) that extending existing terms violated the
8683 Constitution's
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited Times
</span>”</span> requirement, and (
2) that
8684 extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8686 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument. A
8687 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8688 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8689 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8690 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8692 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8693 be for
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited Times
</span>”</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8694 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8695 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">stopping point
</span>”</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8696 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8697 grant terms that are
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited.
</span>”</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8698 the court had to interpret the term
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited Times
</span>”</span> to give it
8699 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8700 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8702 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8703 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8704 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8705 the court will sit
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">en banc
</span>”</span> to hear the case.
8708 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc. This
8709 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8710 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8711 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8714 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8715 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8716 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8717 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8718 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8720 But in February
2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8721 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8722 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8724 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8725 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8726 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8727 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8728 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8729 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8730 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8731 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8733 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8734 burde ha vært vunnet. Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8735 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8737 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889225"></a><p>
8739 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8740 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8741 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8742 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8743 på grunn av sin støtte til oss. De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8744 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8746 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889247"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889254"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889260"></a><p>
8747 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8748 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8749 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8750 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8751 få problemet til å virke
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">viktig
</span>”</span> for Høyesterett. Det måtte
8752 synes som om dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur,
8753 ellers ville de aldri stemt mot
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">de mektigste mediaselskapene i
8754 verden
</span>”</span>.
8756 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8757 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8758 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8759 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8760 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">right
</span>”</span> as in
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">true,
</span>”</span> I thought, but it is
8761 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">wrong
</span>”</span> as in
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">it just shouldn't be that way.
</span>”</span> As
8762 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8763 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8764 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8765 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8766 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8767 that we had to sell our case like soap. Just as a law that bans the
8768 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8769 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8770 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8771 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8772 put in the Constitution.
8774 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8775 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8776 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8777 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8778 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8781 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8782 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8783 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8784 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8785 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8786 simply the preference of a small political minority. Although my focus in
8787 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8788 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8789 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8790 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8791 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>law
</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8792 widest range of credible critics
—credible not because they were rich
8793 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8794 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8796 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8797 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8798 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November
1998,
8799 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8800 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8801 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8802 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8803 the general public seem to get bogged down?
</span>”</span> The answer, as the
8804 editorial documented, was the power of money. Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8805 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8806 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8807 Schlafly argued.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889393"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889399"></a>
8809 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8810 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8811 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8812 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms. That strong
8813 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8815 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8816 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8817 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8818 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8819 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8820 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8821 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8822 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8823 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889428"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889437"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889443"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889449"></a>
8825 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8826 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8827 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8828 National Writers Union.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889463"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889470"></a>
8829 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889477"></a><p>
8830 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8831 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8832 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8833 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8834 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889492"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889498"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889504"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889510"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889517"></a><p>
8835 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8836 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8837 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8838 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8839 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8840 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8841 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8842 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rent-seeking
</span>”</span>—the fancy term economists use to describe
8843 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8845 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8846 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8847 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8848 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8849 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8850 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8851 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8852 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8853 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8854 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889552"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889561"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889567"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889573"></a>
8856 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8857 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8858 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8859 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8860 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8861 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8862 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8863 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8864 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889594"></a>
8866 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8867 well. Significantly, however, none of these
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">friends
</span>”</span> included
8868 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8869 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8872 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8873 law. The congressmen were not surprising either
—they were defending
8874 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8875 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8876 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8877 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8879 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8880 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work
— better
8881 than allowing it to fall into the public domain
—because if this
8882 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8883 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2889633" href=
"#ftn.id2889633" class=
"footnote">192</a>]
</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8884 which defended its
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">protection
</span>”</span> of the work of George
8885 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license
<em class=
"citetitle">Porgy and
8886 Bess
</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8887 cast.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2889658" href=
"#ftn.id2889658" class=
"footnote">193</a>]
</sup> That's their view of how this
8888 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8889 help them effect that control.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889674"></a>
8891 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8892 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8893 making a choice about which speakers it will favor. Famous and beloved
8894 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8895 Congress and say,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8896 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8897 else.
</span>”</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8898 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8899 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8900 traditionally meant to block.
8902 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8903 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8904 copyrights
—extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8905 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8906 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. Between
8907 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8908 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8909 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889704"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889720"></a><p>
8910 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8911 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the Conservatives.
</span>”</span> The other we called
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the
8912 Rest.
</span>”</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8913 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8914 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8915 five who had supported the
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez/Morrison
</em> line of
8916 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8917 that Congress's powers had limits.
8918 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889747"></a><p>
8920 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8921 Congress's power. These four
—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8922 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer
—had repeatedly argued that the
8923 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8924 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8925 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8926 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8927 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8929 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8930 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8931 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8932 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8933 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8934 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8935 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8936 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8937 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889790"></a><p>
8938 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8939 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8940 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8941 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8942 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8944 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8945 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8946 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8947 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8948 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8949 confident he would recognize limits here.
8951 This analysis of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the Rest
</span>”</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8952 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8953 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8954 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8955 most important jurisprudential innovation
—the argument that Judge
8956 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8957 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8960 This then was the core of our strategy
—a strategy for which I am
8961 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8962 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8963 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8964 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8965 that this power was supposed to be
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited.
</span>”</span> Our aim would be
8966 to get the Court to reconcile
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> with
8967 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8968 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8971 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8972 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8973 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8974 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8975 practice is unconstitutional.
8977 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8978 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in
1831 and in
1909. And of
8979 course, in
1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8980 regularly
—eleven times in forty years.
8983 But this
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">consistency
</span>”</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
8984 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic. It
8985 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
8986 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8987 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8988 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8989 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8990 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension. There was no reason it
8991 couldn't intervene here. Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8992 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8993 weeks, I was repeatedly
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">mooted
</span>”</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
8994 to help in the case. Such
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">moots
</span>”</span> are basically practice
8995 rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
8997 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
8998 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
8999 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
9000 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
9001 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
9002 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
9003 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889917"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889923"></a><p>
9004 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
9005 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
9006 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
9007 of the moot, he let his concern speak:
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889936"></a>
9009 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
9010 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
9011 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
9012 harm
—passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
9013 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.
</span>”</span>
9014 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2889949"></a><p>
9016 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
9017 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
9018 thing
—not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
9019 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9020 right thing
—not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9021 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9022 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough. Let the
9023 politicians learn to see that it was also good. The night before the
9024 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
9025 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
9026 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
9027 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
9028 would be assured a seat.
9030 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9031 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9032 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9033 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9034 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9035 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9036 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9037 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9038 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9039 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9040 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9042 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9043 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9044 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9045 powers had any limit.
9046 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890007"></a><p>
9047 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening. The history
9049 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9050 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9051 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9052 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9054 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9055 She was quite willing to concede
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">that this flies directly in the face
9056 of what the framers had in mind.
</span>”</span> But my response again and again was
9057 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9058 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9060 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9061 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9062 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9063 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9064 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9065 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9066 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9067 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '
76 act,
9068 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9069 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9070 progress in science and the useful arts. I just don't see any empirical
9072 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9073 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9075 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9076 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all. Nothing
9077 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9078 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9079 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9080 under the copyright laws.
9081 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890085"></a><p>
9082 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9083 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9084 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9085 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9086 was a swing and a miss.
9088 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9089 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>
9090 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9093 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9094 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9097 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9098 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9099 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9101 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9102 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9103 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9104 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9105 </p></blockquote></div><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890133"></a><p>
9106 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9107 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9109 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9110 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9111 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9112 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9113 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9114 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9115 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal. Olson's
9116 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9117 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9118 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9119 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9120 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9121 the Copyright and Patent Clause
— indeed, the very first case striking
9122 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9123 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9127 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
9128 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
9129 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
9131 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9132 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9133 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9134 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9135 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9136 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9137 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9138 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9139 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9140 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court
—in
9141 particular, the Conservatives
—would feel itself constrained by the
9142 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9144 The morning of January
15,
2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
9145 missed the
7:
00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
9146 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
9147 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
9148 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
9150 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9151 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9152 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9154 My
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>reasoning
</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9155 in the world against
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>reasoning
</em></span>. And here was the last
9156 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9158 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9159 principle in this case from the principle in
9160 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9161 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9162 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9167 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument. Consistent
9168 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9169 Congress's power not limited here.
9171 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable
—for her, and for Justice
9172 Souter. Neither believes in
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>. It would be too
9173 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9174 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9176 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9177 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9178 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9179 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9180 simply
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument
</em></span>. There was no
9181 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together. There was
9182 therefore no principle that followed from the
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>
9183 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9184 context it would not.
9186 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9187 would respect? By what right did they
—the silent five
—get to
9188 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9189 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9190 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9191 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9192 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9193 will respect, that is the system we have.
9194 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890281"></a><p>
9195 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9196 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9197 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9198 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9199 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9200 parallel
—without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9201 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9202 the words were about patents or copyrights. The Court let Justice Stevens's
9203 charge go unanswered.
9204 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890300"></a><p>
9207 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9208 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9209 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9210 current term, a copyright gave an author
99.8 percent of the value of a
9211 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9212 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9213 Constitution said a term had to be
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited,
</span>”</span> and the existing
9214 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9217 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9218 neither believed in the
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> case, neither was
9219 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9220 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9221 from Judge Sentelle. It was
<em class=
"citetitle">Hamlet
</em> without the
9224 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9225 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9226 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9227 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890358"></a><p>
9228 It was first anger with the five
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Conservatives.
</span>”</span> It would have
9229 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9230 <em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9231 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9232 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9233 an act of integrity. These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9234 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9235 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">originalism
</span>”</span>—to first understand the framers' text,
9236 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9237 Constitution. That method had produced
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em> and many
9238 other
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">originalist
</span>”</span> rulings. Where was their
9239 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">originalism
</span>”</span> now?
9242 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9243 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9244 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9245 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9246 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9247 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9248 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9249 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9250 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9251 consistent with their own principles.
9253 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself. For I
9254 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9256 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890420"></a><p>
9257 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9258 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular. Most have a
9259 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9260 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9261 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9262 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9263 simple application of a set of principles. I had an argument that followed
9264 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9268 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9269 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9270 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9271 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9272 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9273 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9274 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9275 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9276 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9277 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9278 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9279 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9280 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9281 on which a court should decide the issue.
9282 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890462"></a><p>
9283 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9284 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9285 Sullivan?
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890473"></a>
9287 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9288 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9289 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9290 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9292 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9293 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9294 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9295 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9298 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9299 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9300 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9301 was a mistake.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Court is not ready,
</span>”</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9302 issue should not be raised until it is.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890507"></a>
9305 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9306 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9307 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9308 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9309 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9310 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case
—a decision I
9311 had made four years before
—was wrong. While the reaction to the Sonny
9312 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9313 decision was mixed. No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9314 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9315 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9316 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9317 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9318 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9319 law.
<em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em> wrote in its editorial,
9320 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
9321 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9322 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9323 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9324 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9325 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9327 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9328 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9329 images
—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9330 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
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">powerful and wealthy
</span>”</span> line is a bit
9331 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890569"></a>
9332 </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=
"id2890590"></a></div></div><br class=
"figure-break"><p>
9333 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9334 <em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em>. That
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">grand
9335 experiment
</span>”</span> we call the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">public domain
</span>”</span> is over? When I
9336 can make light of it, I think,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9337 Constitution.
</span>”</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9338 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9339 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9340 have made them see differently.
9341 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2887810" href=
"#id2887810" class=
"para">179</a>]
</sup>
9344 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9345 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9346 noncommercial pornographers
—people who were distributing porn but were
9347 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution. Such a
9348 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9349 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9350 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9351 Communications Decency Act of
1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9352 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9353 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9354 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9355 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9356 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2887879" href=
"#id2887879" class=
"para">180</a>]
</sup>
9358 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887884"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2887893"></a> The full text is:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9359 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9360 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9361 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9362 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9363 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,
</span>”</span> 144
9364 Cong. Rec. H9946,
9951-
2 (October
7,
1998).
9365 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888202" href=
"#id2888202" class=
"para">181</a>]
</sup>
9367 Associated Press,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9368 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators
20 More Years
</span>”</span>,
9369 <em class=
"citetitle">Chicago Tribune
</em>,
17. oktober
1998,
22.
9370 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888220" href=
"#id2888220" class=
"para">182</a>]
</sup>
9372 Se Nick Brown,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9373 Age
</span>”</span>, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
49</a>.
9374 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888238" href=
"#id2888238" class=
"para">183</a>]
</sup>
9377 Alan K. Ota,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars
</span>”</span>,
9378 <em class=
"citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week
</em>,
8. august
1990,
9379 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
9381 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888360" href=
"#id2888360" class=
"para">184</a>]
</sup>
9383 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Lopez
</em>,
514
9384 U.S.
549,
564 (
1995).
9385 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888387" href=
"#id2888387" class=
"para">185</a>]
</sup>
9388 <em class=
"citetitle">United States
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Morrison
</em>,
529
9390 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888407" href=
"#id2888407" class=
"para">186</a>]
</sup>
9393 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9394 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9395 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9396 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce
—the
9397 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9398 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9399 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9400 copyrights
—the limitation to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">limited times
</span>”</span>
9402 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888497" href=
"#id2888497" class=
"para">187</a>]
</sup>
9405 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9406 <em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
537 U.S.
9407 186 (
2003) (No.
01-
618), n
.10, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
51</a>.
9408 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888567" href=
"#id2888567" class=
"para">188</a>]
</sup>
9410 The figure of
2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9411 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9412 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
9413 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
7, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
52</a>.
9414 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888745" href=
"#id2888745" class=
"para">189</a>]
</sup>
9417 See David G. Savage,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9418 Law,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Los Angeles Times
</em>,
6 October
2002; David
9419 Streitfeld,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9420 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,
</span>”</span>
9421 <em class=
"citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune
</em>,
9 October
2002.
9422 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2888805" href=
"#id2888805" class=
"para">190</a>]
</sup>
9425 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9426 Petitoners,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
9427 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
537 U.S.
186 (
2003) (No.
01-
618),
9428 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9429 Internet Archive,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
9430 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
53</a>.
9431 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2889096" href=
"#id2889096" class=
"para">191</a>]
</sup>
9434 Jason Schultz,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Myth of the
1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory
</span>”</span>,
9435 20 December
2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
54</a>.
9436 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2889633" href=
"#id2889633" class=
"para">192</a>]
</sup>
9439 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al.,
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
9440 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>,
537 U.S. (
2003) (No.
01-
618),
19.
9441 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2889658" href=
"#id2889658" class=
"para">193</a>]
</sup>
9444 Dinitia Smith,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9445 Joins the Fray,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">New York Times
</em>,
28 March
9447 </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>
9448 The day
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9449 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9450 <em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em> was denied
—meaning the case was really
9451 finally over
—fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9452 technologists at Disney World.) This was a particularly long flight to my
9453 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9454 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9455 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890641"></a><p>
9456 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9457 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9458 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9459 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9460 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9461 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.
</span>”</span> And
9462 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9463 turned to an argument of politics.
9466 <em class=
"citetitle">The New York Times
</em> published the piece. In it, I
9467 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9468 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9469 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9470 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9472 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name. Eric
9473 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9474 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9476 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9477 the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act
</span>”</span> or the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright
9478 Term Deregulation Act.
</span>”</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9479 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9480 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9481 for those works where its worth is at least $
1. But for everything else, let
9483 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890707"></a><p>
9484 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9485 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9486 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9487 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9488 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9489 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9490 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9491 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9492 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9494 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9495 requirement. For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9496 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9497 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9498 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9499 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9500 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9501 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9502 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890751"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890757"></a><p>
9504 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,
9505 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9506 before a copyright is granted.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2890775" href=
"#ftn.id2890775" class=
"footnote">194</a>]
</sup> The
9507 Europeans are said to view copyright as a
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">natural right.
</span>”</span>
9508 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9509 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9510 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9511 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9512 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9514 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9515 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9516 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Walt
9517 Disney creativity
</span>”</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9518 what's protected and what's not.
9519 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890837"></a><p>
9520 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9521 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in
1908,
9522 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9523 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9524 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9525 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9526 <em class=
"citetitle">i
</em> or cross a
<em class=
"citetitle">t
</em> resulted in the
9527 loss of widows' only income.
9529 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9530 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9531 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9532 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9533 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9536 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9537 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9538 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9539 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9540 imposed upon creators.
9543 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in
1908, there was a moral
9544 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9545 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9546 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government. He has
9547 a property right over the table
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">naturally,
</span>”</span> and he can assert
9548 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9549 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9551 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9552 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9553 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9554 the special problems that creative property presents. The law of
9555 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9556 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9558 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9559 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9560 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9561 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license. In both
9562 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9563 registration
—both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9564 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9565 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9566 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9567 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9568 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9569 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9570 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9572 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9573 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9574 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9575 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9576 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9577 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9578 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9579 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9580 formalities. Complex, expensive,
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>lawyer
</em></span> transactions
9581 take their place.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2890949"></a>
9583 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9584 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9585 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">get.
</span>”</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9586 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9587 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">short,
</span>”</span> then
9588 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9589 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9590 presumptively uncontrolled.
9592 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9593 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9594 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9595 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9596 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9597 in a way that has never been seen before
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>because there are no
9598 formalities
</em></span>.
9600 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9601 worth $
1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9602 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9603 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9604 extended copyright term.
9606 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9607 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9608 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9609 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9610 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $
1 to you.
9612 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9613 registrere verket at beløpet $
1 egentlig er misvisende? Er ikke
9614 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $
1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9618 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9619 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9620 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9621 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9622 the real problem of
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>governments
</em></span> standing at the core of
9623 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9624 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9625 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9626 registration. The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9627 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9628 system would move up to
98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9629 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9630 years. What do you think?
9631 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891049"></a><p>
9632 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9633 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9634 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9635 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9637 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9638 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9639 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9640 opphavsretter. I mai
2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9641 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">vi er nære
</span>”</span>. Det
9642 oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
9643 her.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891086"></a>
9645 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9646 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9647 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9648 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9649 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9650 about what this debate is really about.
9653 The MPAA argued first that Congress had
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">firmly rejected the central
9654 concept in the proposed bill
</span>”</span>—that copyrights be renewed. That
9655 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">firm rejection
</span>”</span> had
9656 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9657 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9658 owners
—apparently those who could not afford the $
1 fee. Third, they
9659 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9660 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9661 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9662 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9663 unless the $
1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9664 impose
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">enormous
</span>”</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9665 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9666 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9667 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9668 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9669 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9671 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9672 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9673 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9674 they are free to give away their copyright or not
—a controversial
9675 claim in any case
—unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9678 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9679 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed. In the other,
9680 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9681 power of the opposition
—the power of the side that fought to defend
9682 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9683 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9684 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9686 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9687 boken har handlet om. For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9688 til å reagere. Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9689 med sunn fornuft. Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9695 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9696 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9697 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9698 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9699 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9700 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9701 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9702 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9705 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9706 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9707 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9708 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9709 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9710 what Kevin Kelly calls the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Dark Content
</span>”</span> that fills archives
9711 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9712 ask one simple question:
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891215"></a>
9714 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9716 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9717 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9718 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>their
</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9719 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9720 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9721 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9722 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9723 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>their
</em></span> permission first.
9725 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9726 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9727 the protection of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property
</span>”</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9728 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs.
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9729 assure that all there is is what is theirs
</em></span>.
9732 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9733 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9734 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9735 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9736 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9738 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891272"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891278"></a><p>
9739 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9740 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom. MPAA
9741 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9742 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9743 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9745 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9746 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">property
</span>”</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9747 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9748 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">permission
9749 society.
</span>”</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9750 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9751 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9752 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2890775" href=
"#id2890775" class=
"para">194</a>]
</sup>
9755 Until the
1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9756 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9757 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9758 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the
1908 act, every text
9759 of the Convention has provided that
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">the enjoyment and the
9760 exercise
</span>”</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">shall not be
9761 subject to any formality.
</span>”</span> The prohibition against formalities is
9762 presently embodied in Article
5(
2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
9763 Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
9764 registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
9765 law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
9766 repositories, principally the National Museum. Copies of books published in
9767 the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
9768 Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
9769 name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
9770 Goldstein,
<em class=
"citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
9771 Materials
</em> (New York: Foundation Press,
2001),
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><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
9772 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9773 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten
9774 millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9775 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere. Viktigere er det at dette er
9776 17 millioner afrikanere.
9778 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9779 sykdommens utvikling. Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9780 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede. I USA øker
9781 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9782 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9785 Disse medisinene er dyre. Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9786 mellom $
10 000 og $
15 000 pr. person hvert år. I dag koster noen
9787 av dem $
25 000 pr. år. Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9788 afrikansk stat råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9789 $
15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9790 Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9791 utilgjengelig.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2891402" href=
"#ftn.id2891402" class=
"footnote">195</a>]
</sup>
9795 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9796 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9797 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9798 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser. De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9799 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet. Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9802 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9803 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9804 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9805 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9806 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9807 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9808 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9809 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9810 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9812 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9813 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9814 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9815 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9818 I
1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming. Landet vedtok en lov som
9819 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9820 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren. For eksempel,
9821 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9822 fra India. Dette kalles
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">parallellimport
</span>”</span> og er generelt
9823 tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
9824 europeiske union.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2891494" href=
"#ftn.id2891494" class=
"footnote">196</a>]
</sup>
9826 Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9827 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9828 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika
… til å ikke tillate
9829 tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport
</span>”</span><sup>[
<a name=
"id2887960" href=
"#ftn.id2887960" class=
"footnote">197</a>]
</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
9830 (USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven
—og for å legge
9831 press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i
1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
9832 som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner. Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9833 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9834 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU. Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9835 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9836 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter
—farmasøytiske
9837 patenter. Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9838 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9839 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9840 Sør-Afrika.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2891563" href=
"#ftn.id2891563" class=
"footnote">198</a>]
</sup>
9842 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng. Det er ingen tvil om at
9843 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9844 til medisiner. Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9845 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9846 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9847 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9848 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9850 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9851 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9852 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9853 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9854 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde
15 til
9857 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9858 medisinselskapene i USA
— i hvert fall ikke betydelig. Det var jo ikke
9859 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9860 som medisinselskapene forlangte. Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9861 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene. Å blokkere for
9862 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9863 selskapene betydelig.
9865 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9866 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9867 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2891657" href=
"#ftn.id2891657" class=
"footnote">199</a>]
</sup> Det var på
9868 grunn av at
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">intellektuell eiendom
</span>”</span> ville bli krenket at disse
9869 medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om
9870 viktigheten av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">intellektuell eiendom
</span>”</span> som fikk disse
9871 myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9873 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk. En gang om tredve år vil våre
9874 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje? Hvordan
9875 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få
15
9876 til
30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9877 fordel var å opprettholde
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ukrenkeligheten
</span>”</span> til en idé? Hva
9878 slags berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i
9879 så mange døde? Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange
9880 dør for slik en abstraksjon?
9882 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene. Det gjør ikke jeg. De er selskaper, og
9883 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene. De presser på for
9884 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9885 som gjør at de tjener mest penger. Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9886 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system
— en
9887 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9889 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet. For
9890 medisinprodusentene ville elske
—sier de selv, og jeg tror dem
—
9891 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9892 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9893 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9897 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9898 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9899 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">hvordan har det seg at du
9900 kan selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $
1 pr. pille, mens samme pille
9901 koster en amerikansker $
1 500?
</span>”</span> Da det ikke finnes et
9902 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kjapt svar
</span>”</span> på det spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering
9903 av priser i Amerika. Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å
9904 sikre at det første steget ikke tas. De forsterker idéen om at
9905 eierrettigheter skal være ukrenkelige. De legger seg på en rasjonell
9906 strategi i en irrasjonell omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at
9907 kanskje millioner dør. Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
9908 hjel av dette ideal
—helligheten til en idé som kalles
9909 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">immaterielle rettigheter
</span>”</span>.
9911 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si? Når den
9912 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9913 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det? Hva er argumentet?
9915 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9916 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9917 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9918 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9919 kultur perfekt og for alltid. En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9920 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9921 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9922 markedsprisen. En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9923 balansert politikk. For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9924 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9926 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse. Vi har mistet det
9927 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9928 ekstremisme. En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9929 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur
—sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9930 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9931 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9932 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891806"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891885"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891893"></a><p>
9934 En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
9935 av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
9936 idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
9937 det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem. Så ukritisk
9938 aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
9939 spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
9940 folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk. Blindhet blir vår sunne
9941 fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
9942 kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9944 Så langt sover sunn fornuft. Det er intet opprør. Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9945 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot. Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9946 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9947 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene. De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9948 bekjempe
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomhet
</span>”</span> og knuser kreativitetskultur. De
9949 forsvarer idéen om
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kreativt eierskap
</span>”</span>, mens de endrer ekte
9950 skapere til moderne leilendinger. De blir fornærmet av idéen om at
9951 rettigheter skulle være balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne
9952 innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal. Hykleriet
9953 rår. Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
9954 til. Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
9955 gir en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">perfekt storm
</span>”</span> for fri kultur.
9956 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891968"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
9957 I august
2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual
9958 Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2891993" href=
"#ftn.id2891993" class=
"footnote">200</a>]
</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
9959 bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">åpne og samarbeidende
9960 prosjekter for å skape goder for felleskapet
</span>”</span>. Disse prosjektene som
9961 hadde lyktes i å produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg
9962 eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære immaterielle rettigheter. Eksempler
9963 inkluderer internettet og verdensveven, begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag
9964 av protokoller i allemannseie. Det hadde med en begynnende trend for å
9965 støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og inkluderte Public Library of
9966 Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i etterordet. Det inkluderte et
9967 prosjekt for a utvikle enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få
9968 stor betydning i biomedisinsk forskning. (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av
9969 et konsortium av Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper,
9970 inkludert Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers
9971 Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis,
9972 Pfizer, og Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald
9973 Reagen frigjorde tidlig på
1980-tallet. Og det inkluderte
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">åpen
9974 kildekode og fri programvare
</span>”</span>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892086"></a>
9975 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892095"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892101"></a>
9976 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892109"></a><p>
9977 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9978 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9979 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9980 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9981 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9983 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9984 ideell.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2892134" href=
"#ftn.id2892134" class=
"footnote">201</a>]
</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9985 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak
9986 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9987 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9988 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9991 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
9992 om WIPO. I februar
2003 leverte jeg et hovedinnlegg på en forberedende
9993 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). På en
9994 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om. Jeg
9995 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
9996 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet. Ordstyreren
9997 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
9998 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
9999 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO. I innlegget jeg hadde
10000 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
10001 hele. Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
10002 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg. Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
10003 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">informasjonssamfunn
</span>”</span> uten at en også snakket om andelen av
10004 informasjon og kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten. Mitt innlegg
10005 gjorde ikke min overivrige moderator veldig glad. Og hun hadde uten tvil
10006 rett i at omfanget til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn
10007 under WIPO. Men etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om
10008 hvor mye immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde
10009 selve idéen om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
10011 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
10012 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde. Og dermed
10013 møtet om
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
10014 fellesgoder
</span>”</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
10016 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
10017 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10018 programvare
</span>”</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
10019 emnet. Fra deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen
10020 kildekode og fri programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples
10021 operativsystem. Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med
10022 Microsofts programvare. Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å
10023 utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
10024 stedet for
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">proprietær programvare
</span>”</span>, til sine egne interne
10027 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her. Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
10028 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
10029 programvare. Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
10030 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende. IBM har i stadig større
10031 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
10032 biten av
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri programvare
</span>”</span>—og IBM er helt klart en
10033 kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri programvare
</span>”</span>
10034 ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører. Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
10035 å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2892276" href=
"#ftn.id2892276" class=
"footnote">202</a>]
</sup> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892334"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892341"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892349"></a>
10036 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892355"></a>
10039 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10040 programvare
</span>”</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Åpen
10041 kildekode og fri programvare
</span>”</span> er ikke programvare uten
10042 opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft,
10043 insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne av fri programvare ganske sterkt at
10044 vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir respektert av de som tar i bruk fri
10045 programvare. Vilkårene i den lisensen er uten tvil forskjellig fra
10046 vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens. For eksempel krever fri
10047 programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige lisensen (GPL), at
10048 kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle som endrer og
10049 videredistribuerer programvaren. Men dette kravet er kun effektivt hvis
10050 opphavsrett råder over programvare. Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over
10051 programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar
10052 i bruk programvaren. Den er dermed like avhengig av opphavsrettsloven som
10055 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10056 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10057 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet. Og
10058 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd. I
10059 følge Jonathan Krim i
<em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>, lyktes
10060 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10061 slikt møte.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2892429" href=
"#ftn.id2892429" class=
"footnote">203</a>]
</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10062 møtet avlyst.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892447"></a>
10064 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10065 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10066 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10067 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10068 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10070 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
10071 møtet. Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
10072 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
10073 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er
10074 å fremme immaterielle rettigheter.
</span>”</span>. Hun skal i følge sitatet ha
10075 sagt,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
10076 frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
10077 WIPO.
</span>”</span>
10079 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10081 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige. Som jeg beskrev, er det
10082 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
10083 immaterielle retten kalt
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">opphavsrett
</span>”</span>. Uten den vil
10084 begrensningene definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si
10085 at de
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">går imot
</span>”</span> formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter
10086 å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse
—den type feil som er
10087 tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
10088 statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
10090 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
10091 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fremme
</span>”</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt? Som jeg fikk
10092 kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
10093 bare hvordan best beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den
10094 beste balansen rundt immaterielle rettigheter. Som enhver økonom og advokat
10095 vet, er det vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den
10096 balansen. Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt. Man
10097 ønsker å spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på
10098 medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag? Svekker
10099 allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter? Ville det vært bedre om internettets
10100 protokoller hadde vært patentert?
10102 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
10103 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
10104 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper. De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
10105 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>de
</em></span> som eier
10106 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">frafalle
</span>”</span> eller
10107 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">frasi
</span>”</span> seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår
10108 tradisjon. Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $
20 milliarder til gode formål,
10109 så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet. Det er heller
10110 tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
10111 retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>sin
</em></span>
10112 eiendom.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892587"></a>
10115 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">som har som sitt
10116 formål å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter
</span>”</span>, så sier hun at
10117 WIPO har en interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier
10118 immaterielle rettigheter. At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å
10119 stoppe individer fra å
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fraskrive
</span>”</span> eller
10120 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">frafalle
</span>”</span> seg sine immaterielle rettigheter. At interessen
10121 til WIPO ikke bare er maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men også at de
10122 skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
10124 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
10125 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon. Det kalles
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">føydalisme
</span>”</span>. Under
10126 føydalismen var eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall
10127 individer og aktører. Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å
10128 sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene
10129 og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet. Føydalismen var
10130 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon. Det sloss mot enhver frihet
10131 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
10132 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892645"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892652"></a><p>
10133 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10134 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2892664" href=
"#ftn.id2892664" class=
"footnote">204</a>]
</sup>
10135 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn. Så mye er sikkert. Vårt eneste
10136 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10137 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>fritt
</em></span> eller
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>føydalt
</em></span>. Trenden er
10140 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette. En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10141 kommentarfeltet. Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10142 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening. Men det var spesielt en
10143 kommentar som gjorde meg trist. En anonym kommentator skrev,
10144 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
10146 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
10147 (
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
10148 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
10149 immaterielle rettigheter
</span>”</span>), ikke som den er. Hvis vi snakket om
10150 verden slik den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt. Men i
10151 verden slik Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe
10152 galt. En må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår
10154 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10155 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10156 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10157 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10158 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10159 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10160 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10161 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10162 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10164 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen. I
10165 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
10166 skulle
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">målet
</span>”</span> til myndighetene være
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">å fremme den
10167 riktige balanse
</span>”</span> for immaterielle rettigheter. Det var åpenbart
10168 tåpelig for ham. Og det avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige
10169 utopisme.
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Typisk for en akademiker
</span>”</span>, kunne forfatteren like
10170 gjerne ha fortsatt.
10172 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme. Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10173 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10174 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10175 eget lands historie).
10177 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
10178 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">oppnå balanse
</span>”</span>, da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det
10179 betyr at dette faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst. Hvis det bør være åpenbart
10180 for alle at myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske
10181 enkelt et verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at idéen om å forvente bedre
10182 av myndighetene er absurd, at idéen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant
10183 og ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i
10187 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10188 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10189 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10190 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10191 mesteparten av vår historie
—fri kultur.
10192 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892822"></a><p>
10193 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. Det finnes
10194 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
10195 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
10196 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10197 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10198 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10199 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10200 endringen i FCC-reglene. Så mange som
700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10201 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892843"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892849"></a>
10203 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10204 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10205 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt. Det var
10206 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10207 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10209 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet. Å
10210 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10211 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10212 aktører. Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10213 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10215 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10216 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10217 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10218 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10219 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10220 rettigheter
—eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form
—som
10221 gjør størrelsen ille.
10223 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10224 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10225 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10226 historie med å slåss mot
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">stort
</span>”</span>, klokt eller ikke. At vi kan
10227 være motivert til å slåss mot
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">store
</span>”</span> igjen ikke noe nytt.
10229 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10230 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10231 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">intellektuell eiendom
</span>”</span>. Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10232 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon. Men fordi
10233 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles
10234 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">eiendom
</span>”</span> ikke er lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10236 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10238 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2892956"></a><p>
10239 Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
10240 at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2892969" href=
"#ftn.id2892969" class=
"footnote">205</a>]
</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">samplet
</span>”</span>
10241 noen andres musikk.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2893033" href=
"#ftn.id2893033" class=
"footnote">206</a>]
</sup> Historien om
10242 hvordan Bob Dylan har
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">stjålet
</span>”</span> fra en japansk forfatter har
10243 nettopp gått verden over.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2893056" href=
"#ftn.id2893056" class=
"footnote">207</a>]
</sup> En på
10244 innsiden i Hollywood
—som insisterer på at han må forbli
10245 anonym
—rapporterer
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.
10246 De har fantastisk [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan
10247 de ikke på grunn av at de først må klarere rettighetene. De har hauger med
10248 ungdommer som kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først
10249 kreve hauger med advokater for å klarere det først
</span>”</span>.
10250 Kongressrepresentanter snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta
10251 ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven. Universiteter truer med å utvise
10252 ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
10253 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893100"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893107"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893113"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893119"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893126"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893132"></a><p>
10255 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10256 bygge opp et
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">kreativt arkiv
</span>”</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
10257 ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2893150" href=
"#ftn.id2893150" class=
"footnote">208</a>]
</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
10258 seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
10259 Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
10260 landet.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2893175" href=
"#ftn.id2893175" class=
"footnote">209</a>]
</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk
10261 historie. Sannheten er mer blandet. En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
10262 Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
10263 Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
10264 taper og uten at potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust. Det vil
10265 kreve omtanke, og viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omforme RCAene av i dag
10269 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10270 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10274 </p><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2891402" href=
"#id2891402" class=
"para">195</a>]
</sup>
10276 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Final Report: Integrating
10277 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy
</span>”</span> (London,
2002),
10278 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
10279 #
55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10280 9. juli
2002, mottar kun
320 000 av de
6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10281 utviklingsland dem de trenger
—og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10282 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2891494" href=
"#id2891494" class=
"para">196</a>]
</sup>
10284 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
<em class=
"citetitle">Who
10285 Owns the Knowledge Economy?
</em> (New York: The New Press,
2003),
10286 37.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891503"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891511"></a>
10287 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2887960" href=
"#id2887960" class=
"para">197</a>]
</sup>
10290 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI),
<em class=
"citetitle">Patent
10291 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10292 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization
</em>
10293 (Washington, D.C.,
2000),
14, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
56</a>. For a firsthand
10294 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10295 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10296 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep.,
1st sess., Ser. No.
106-
126 (
22
10297 July
1999),
150–57 (statement of James Love).
10298 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2891563" href=
"#id2891563" class=
"para">198</a>]
</sup>
10301 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI),
<em class=
"citetitle">Patent
10302 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10303 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10304 Organization
</em> (Washington, D.C.,
2000),
15.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2891657" href=
"#id2891657" class=
"para">199</a>]
</sup>
10308 See Sabin Russell,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10309 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">San Francisco
10310 Chronicle
</em>,
24 May
1999, A1, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
57</a> (
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">compulsory
10311 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10312 property protection
</span>”</span>); Robert Weissman,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">AIDS and Developing
10313 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,
</span>”</span>
10314 <em class=
"citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus
</em> 4:
23 (August
1999), available
10315 at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
58</a> (describing
10316 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10317 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10318 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,
</span>”</span> <em class=
"citetitle">Widener Law
10319 Symposium Journal
</em> (Spring
2001):
175.
10321 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2891993" href=
"#id2891993" class=
"para">200</a>]
</sup>
10323 Jonathan Krim,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source
</span>”</span>,
10324 <em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>, august
2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
10325 <a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
59</a>; William New,
10326 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir
</span>”</span>,
10327 <em class=
"citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily
</em>,
19. august
2003,
10328 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
10329 #
60</a>; William New,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
10330 at WIPO
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily
</em>,
10331 19. august
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
61</a>.
10332 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2892134" href=
"#id2892134" class=
"para">201</a>]
</sup>
10334 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10335 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2892276" href=
"#id2892276" class=
"para">202</a>]
</sup>
10338 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10339 sofistikert. De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10340 programvare som er
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">åpen kildekode
</span>”</span> eller programvare som er
10341 allemannseie. Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">fri
10342 programvare
</span>”</span> lisensiert med en
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">copyleft
</span>”</span>-lisens, som
10343 betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal adoptere same vilkår for
10344 ethvert avledet verk. Se Bradford L. Smith,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Future of Software:
10345 Enabling the Marketplace to Decide
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Government Policy
10346 Toward Open Source Software
</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings
10347 Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
10348 Public Policy Research,
2002),
69, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
62</a>. Se også Craig Mundie,
10349 Microsoft senior vice president,
<em class=
"citetitle">The Commercial Software
10350 Model
</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
10351 Business (
3. mai
2001), tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
63</a>.
10352 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2892429" href=
"#id2892429" class=
"para">203</a>]
</sup>
10355 Krim,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source
</span>”</span>, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
64</a>.
10356 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2892664" href=
"#id2892664" class=
"para">204</a>]
</sup>
10358 Se Drahos with Braithwaite,
<em class=
"citetitle">Information Feudalism
</em>,
10359 210–20.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2891557"></a>
10360 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2892969" href=
"#id2892969" class=
"para">205</a>]
</sup>
10363 John Borland,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">RIAA Sues
261 File Swappers
</span>”</span>, CNET News.com,
10364 september
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
65</a>; Paul R. La Monica,
10365 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers
</span>”</span>, CNN/Money,
8 september
2003,
10366 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
10367 #
66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis Furman sammen med Robert Gearty,
10368 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C.
12-Yr-Old Among
261 Cited as Sharers
</span>”</span>,
10369 <em class=
"citetitle">New York Daily News
</em>,
9. september
2003,
3; Frank
10370 Ahrens,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
10371 Calif.,
12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants
</span>”</span>,
10372 <em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>,
10. september
2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10373 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Wired
10374 News
</em>,
10. september
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
67</a>.
10375 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2893033" href=
"#id2893033" class=
"para">206</a>]
</sup>
10378 Jon Wiederhorn,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Eminem Gets Sued
… by a Little Old
10379 Lady
</span>”</span>, mtv.com,
17. september
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
68</a>.
10380 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2893056" href=
"#id2893056" class=
"para">207</a>]
</sup>
10384 Kenji Hall, Associated Press,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10385 Dylan Songs
</span>”</span>, Kansascity.com,
9. juli
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
69</a>.
10387 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2893150" href=
"#id2893150" class=
"para">208</a>]
</sup>
10389 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public
</span>”</span>, pressemelding
10390 fra BBC,
24. august
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
70</a>.
10391 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2893175" href=
"#id2893175" class=
"para">209</a>]
</sup>
10394 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Creative Commons and Brazil
</span>”</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
10395 6. august
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
71</a>.
10396 </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>
10400 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10401 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder. Balansen i denne boken
10402 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10404 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10405 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne. Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10406 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10407 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10409 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene. Det må rekrutteres et
10410 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10411 musikere, filmskapere, forskere
—som alle må fortelle denne historien
10412 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10415 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10416 at det kan ha effekt i Washington. Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10417 mener betyr noe. Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10418 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe. Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10419 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10421 </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>
10422 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10423 been framed at the extremes
—as a grand either/or: either property or
10424 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10425 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10427 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10428 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10429 believe in maximal copyright
—<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">All Rights Reserved
</span>”</span>—
10430 and those who reject copyright
—<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">No Rights Reserved.
</span>”</span> The
10431 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">All Rights Reserved
</span>”</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10432 permission before you
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">use
</span>”</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10433 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">No Rights Reserved
</span>”</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10434 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10437 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10438 tilted in the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">no rights reserved
</span>”</span> direction. Content could be
10439 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10440 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10441 original design of the Internet was
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">no rights reserved.
</span>”</span>
10442 Content was
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">taken
</span>”</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10443 effectively unprotected.
10445 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10446 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10447 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10448 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10449 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10450 default
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">no rights reserved,
</span>”</span> the future architecture will make
10451 the effective default
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">all rights reserved.
</span>”</span> The architecture
10452 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10453 environment where all use of content requires permission. The
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">cut
10454 and paste
</span>”</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10455 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">get permission to cut and paste
</span>”</span> world that is a creator's
10458 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle
—neither
10459 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">all rights reserved
</span>”</span> nor
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">no rights reserved
</span>”</span> but
10460 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">some rights reserved
</span>”</span>— and thus a way to respect
10461 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10462 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10463 for granted before.
10464 </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>
10465 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10466 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10467 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10468 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10469 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10470 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10471 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">privacy
</span>”</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10473 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10475 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
10476 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10477 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10478 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10479 privacy would not be assured. But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10480 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10481 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10482 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10483 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10484 (there is no law protecting
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">privacy
</span>”</span> in public places), and in
10485 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10486 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10487 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893445"></a><p>
10488 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10489 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10490 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10491 because at the side of the page, there's a list of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">recently
10492 viewed
</span>”</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10493 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10494 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">privacy
</span>”</span>
10495 protected by the friction disappears, too.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893469"></a>
10497 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10498 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10499 should have the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">right
</span>”</span> to browse in a library without the
10500 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10501 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10502 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10503 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10506 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10507 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">privacy
</span>”</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10508 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10509 for laws to do what friction did.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2893502" href=
"#ftn.id2893502" class=
"footnote">210</a>]
</sup> And
10510 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10511 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10512 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10513 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10516 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10517 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10518 commercially, the software
—both the source code and the
10519 binaries
— was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10520 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10521 about controlling their software.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893543"></a>
10522 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893555"></a><p>
10523 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10524 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10525 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10526 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10527 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10529 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10530 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10531 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10532 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10533 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10534 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10535 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10536 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10539 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10540 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10541 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10542 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10543 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10544 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10545 market than it was for you.
10548 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10549 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code. The world of
10550 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10551 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10552 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10554 Derfor, i
1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10555 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10556 overleve. Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
10557 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Linux
</span>”</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
10558 produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893627"></a>
10559 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893633"></a>
10561 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10562 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10563 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10564 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10565 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10566 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10567 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10568 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10570 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10571 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10572 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10573 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10574 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10575 passively guaranteed.
10577 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10578 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10579 journals are produced.
10580 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10582 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10583 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10584 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10585 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10586 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10587 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10588 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10589 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10590 service. Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10591 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10592 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10593 opinion through their respective services.
10595 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10596 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10597 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge. The law has
10598 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10599 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10600 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10603 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10604 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10605 data except by paying for a subscription?
10607 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10608 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10609 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10610 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10611 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10612 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10613 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10614 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10615 (architecture)
—namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10618 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10619 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10620 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10621 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10622 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10624 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10625 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10626 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10627 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10628 that work to the Public Library of Science. That work is then subject to
10629 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10630 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10631 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10632 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893756"></a>
10634 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10635 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets. There's no
10636 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10637 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10638 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good
—especially when
10639 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10640 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893768"></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>
10641 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10642 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10644 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10645 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10646 aim is to build a layer of
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>reasonable
</em></span> copyright on top
10647 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10648 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10649 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10650 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10654 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Simple
</em></span>—which means without a middleman, or
10655 without a lawyer. By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10656 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10657 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10658 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10659 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10660 together
—a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10661 machine-readable tags
—constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10662 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10663 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10664 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10665 the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">All
</span>”</span> or
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">No
</span>”</span> extremes. Content is marked with
10666 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10667 freedoms are given.
10669 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10670 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10671 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10672 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use. She can choose a
10673 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10674 uses (
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">share and share alike
</span>”</span>). Or any use so long as no
10675 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10676 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10679 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10680 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10681 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10682 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10683 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10684 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10685 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10686 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10688 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And of
10689 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10690 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10691 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10692 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10693 movement of consumers and producers of content (
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">content
10694 conducers,
</span>”</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the
10695 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10696 domain to other creativity.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893906"></a>
10698 The aim is not to fight the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">All Rights Reserved
</span>”</span> sorts. The
10699 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10700 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10701 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10702 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10703 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10704 background of digital technologies. New rules
—with different freedoms,
10705 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them
—are
10706 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10709 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10710 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10711 fiction author. His first novel,
<em class=
"citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10712 Kingdom
</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10713 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10715 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10716 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (
1) those who will buy
10717 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (
2) those who may never
10718 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10719 Internet. Some part of (
1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10720 it. Call them bad-(
1)s. Some part of (
2) will download Cory's book, like
10721 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (
2)-goods. If there are more
10722 (
2)-goods than bad-(
1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10723 will probably
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>increase
</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10725 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10726 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10727 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10729 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10730 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10731 book about the free software movement titled
<em class=
"citetitle">Free for
10732 All
</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10733 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10734 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10735 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10736 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893982"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893990"></a>
10737 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893997"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894004"></a><p>
10738 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10739 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10740 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10741 the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sampling license
</span>”</span> do so because anything else would be
10742 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10743 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10744 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10745 others. This is consistent with their own art
—they, too, sample from
10746 others. Because the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>legal
</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10747 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10748 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10749 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">allow
</span>”</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10750 are so high
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2894036" href=
"#ftn.id2894036" class=
"footnote">211</a>]
</sup>), these artists release
10751 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10752 their form of creativity might grow.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894056"></a>
10754 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10755 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10756 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10757 are effectively saying you believe in the
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">All Rights Reserved
</span>”</span>
10758 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10759 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10760 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10761 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Some Rights
10762 Reserved,
</span>”</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10765 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over
1 million
10766 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10767 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10768 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10769 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10770 build content based upon content set free.
10772 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10773 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10774 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10775 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10776 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10779 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10780 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10781 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10782 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10783 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10784 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10785 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894116"></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>
10786 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10787 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10788 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms. But
10789 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10792 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10793 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10794 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10796 </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>
10797 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10798 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed. If
10799 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10800 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10804 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10805 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10807 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10808 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10809 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10810 and
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">formalities
</span>”</span> are banished.
10814 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
10815 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10816 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10817 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10818 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10820 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10821 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10822 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10823 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10824 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace
— there is no
10825 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10826 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10827 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>lack
</em></span>
10828 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10830 The law should therefore change this requirement
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2894223" href=
"#ftn.id2894223" class=
"footnote">212</a>]
</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10831 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10832 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10834 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10835 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10836 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10837 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10838 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10839 approving standards developed by others.
10840 </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>
10841 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10842 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10843 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10844 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10845 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee. And as
10846 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10847 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10848 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10849 first reaction is panic
—nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10850 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10852 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10853 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10854 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed. Just because
10855 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10856 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10857 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10858 that the government sets.
10860 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet. There
10861 are at least
32 million Web sites registered around the world. Domain name
10862 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10863 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10864 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10865 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10866 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10869 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10870 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10871 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10872 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10873 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10874 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10875 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10876 of this formality
—while producing a database of registrations that
10877 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10878 </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>
10879 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10880 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10881 failing to comply with a regulatory rule
—akin to imposing the death
10882 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights. Here again,
10883 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10884 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10885 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10887 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10888 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10889 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10891 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10892 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10893 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10894 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10895 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10896 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10897 failure to mark
—not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10898 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10901 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10902 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10903 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10904 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10905 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10906 permission.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2894347" href=
"#ftn.id2894347" class=
"footnote">213</a>]
</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10907 work would therefore be
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">use unless someone complains.
</span>”</span> If
10908 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10909 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10910 uses. This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10913 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10914 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10915 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10916 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10919 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10920 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10921 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10922 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10923 and it would base that choice
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>solely
</em></span> upon the
10924 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10925 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10926 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10927 its other important functions.
10929 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10930 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10931 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10932 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10933 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10936 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10937 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10940 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10941 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed. It
10942 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10943 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10944 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10945 the appropriate time.
10946 </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>
10947 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10948 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10949 for individuelle forfattere.
10951 In
<em class=
"citetitle">The Future of Ideas
</em>, I proposed a
10952 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10953 of renewal every five years. That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10954 after we lost
<em class=
"citetitle">Eldred
</em>
10955 v.
<em class=
"citetitle">Ashcroft
</em>, the proposals became even more
10956 radical.
<em class=
"citetitle">The Economist
</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10957 fourteen-year copyright term.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2894475" href=
"#ftn.id2894475" class=
"footnote">214</a>]
</sup> Others
10958 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10960 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10961 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10962 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10963 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"1"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10966 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Keep it short:
</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10967 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10968 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10969 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10970 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10971 when it no longer benefits an author.
10972 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10976 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:
</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
10977 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart. Advokater
10978 liker uklarheten som
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig bruk
</span>”</span> og forskjellen mellom
10979 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">idéer
</span>”</span> og
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">uttrykk
</span>”</span> har. Denne type lovverk gir
10980 dem en masse arbeid. Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé:
10981 vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at det er lite
10982 behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort. En
10983 klar og aktiv
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">advokat-fri sone
</span>”</span> gjør komplesiteten av
10984 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">rimelig bruk
</span>”</span> og
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">idé/uttrykk
</span>”</span> mindre nødvendig å
10987 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
10989 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:
</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10990 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10991 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10992 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10993 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10994 for a veteran to apply for a pension.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2894593" href=
"#ftn.id2894593" class=
"footnote">215</a>]
</sup>
10995 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
10996 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
10997 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894614"></a>
10998 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11001 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:
</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
11002 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
11003 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in
1923 for the
11004 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
11005 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
11006 authors to create in
1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
11007 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
11008 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in
1923. Of course, we can
11009 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
11010 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
11011 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in
1923. What's
11012 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.
</p></li></ol></div><p>
11013 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig
</em></span>
11014 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
11015 Frem til
1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun
32.2 år. Vårt mål bør være
11018 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene
11019 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">radikale
</span>”</span>. (Tross alt, så kaller jeg dem
11020 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ekstremister
</span>”</span>.) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre
11021 enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">radikalt
</span>”</span> kan det
11022 være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
11024 </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><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894697"></a><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894704"></a><p>
11025 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11026 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11027 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11028 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge. It made no sense
11029 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11032 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">exclusive
11033 right
</span>”</span> to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">their writings.
</span>”</span> Congress has given authors
11034 an exclusive right to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">their writings
</span>”</span> plus any derivative
11035 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11036 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11037 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11038 movie is not
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">my writing.
</span>”</span>
11040 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in
1870, when it expanded the
11041 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11042 dramatizations of a work.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2894755" href=
"#ftn.id2894755" class=
"footnote">216</a>]
</sup> The courts
11043 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11044 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11045 Benjamin Kaplan.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894771"></a>
11046 </p><div class=
"blockquote"><blockquote class=
"blockquote"><p>
11047 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11048 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11049 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11050 abracadabra of idea and expression.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2894787" href=
"#ftn.id2894787" class=
"footnote">217</a>]
</sup>
11051 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11052 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11053 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11054 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11055 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant. Consider
11056 each limitation in turn.
11058 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Term:
</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11059 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11060 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11061 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11062 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11063 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11064 after the creative work is done.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894818"></a>
11066 <span class=
"emphasis"><em>Scope:
</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11067 be narrowed. Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11068 important. Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11069 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11070 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">reuse
</span>”</span> of creative material was within the control of
11071 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11072 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11073 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11074 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11075 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11076 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2894851"></a><p>
11077 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11078 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11079 derivative rights
—turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11080 musical score
—it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11081 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11083 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11084 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected. This is the
11085 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2894874" href=
"#ftn.id2894874" class=
"footnote">218</a>]
</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11086 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11088 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11089 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11090 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11091 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11092 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11095 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11096 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11097 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11098 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11099 would earn artists more income.
11100 </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>
11101 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11102 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11103 most pressing
—music. There is no other policy issue that better
11104 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11107 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11108 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11109 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app
—possibly in
11110 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11111 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11112 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11114 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11115 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11116 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11117 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11118 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11120 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11121 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11122 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
11123 different kinds of sharing:
11124 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"A"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11127 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11128 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11131 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11133 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11138 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11139 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11140 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11141 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11144 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11145 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11146 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11147 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11148 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11149 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11150 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11151 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11152 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11155 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
11156 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11157 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11158 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11160 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11161 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11163 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11164 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11165 content. It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11166 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11167 slow
—we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11168 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11169 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11170 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11171 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11174 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11175 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11176 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11177 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11178 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11179 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11180 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11181 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are
—except maybe the
11182 desert or the Rockies
—you can instantaneously be connected to the
11183 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11184 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11186 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11187 you access to content on the fly
—such as Internet radio, content that
11188 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11189 point: When it is
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>extremely
</em></span> easy to connect to services
11190 that give access to content, it will be
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>easier
</em></span> to
11191 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11192 download and store content
<span class=
"emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11193 playing content
</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11194 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11195 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11196 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11197 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11198 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11199 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11200 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free
</span>”</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11201 Web.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2895132" href=
"#ftn.id2895132" class=
"footnote">219</a>]
</sup>
11205 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11206 present: It is emphatically temporary. The
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">problem
</span>”</span> with file
11207 sharing
—to the extent there is a real problem
—is a problem that
11208 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11209 Internet. And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11210 to be
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">solving
</span>”</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11211 be gone tomorrow. The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11212 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11213 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11214 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11215 twenty-first-century technologies.
11217 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11218 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">problems
</span>”</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11219 content
—uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11220 wants shared. The
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">problem
</span>”</span> with this content is to make sure
11221 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11222 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11223 demands, no doubt. But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11224 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11225 eliminate kidnapping.
11227 Type C content raises a different
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">problem.
</span>”</span> This is content
11228 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11229 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11230 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11231 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11232 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11235 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11236 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11237 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11238 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11239 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11240 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11241 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">sharing
</span>”</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11244 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11245 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11246 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11247 be free, under this rule, to
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">share
</span>”</span> that content, even though
11248 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11249 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11250 should be as free as trading books.
11255 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11256 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11257 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11258 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11259 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11260 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11261 artists would benefit from this trade.
11263 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11264 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11265 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11266 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11267 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11268 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11269 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11272 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11273 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11274 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11275 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11276 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11279 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11280 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11283 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11284 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet) has harmed a
11285 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11286 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11287 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11288 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11289 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11294 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11295 asbest. Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11296 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11297 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11298 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11300 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11301 Harvard law professor William Fisher.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2895318" href=
"#ftn.id2895318" class=
"footnote">220</a>]
</sup>
11302 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11303 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11304 (
1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11305 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11306 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (
2) systems to
11307 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11308 those numbers, then (
3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11309 be paid for by (
4) an appropriate tax.
11311 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11312 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11313 <em class=
"citetitle">Promises to Keep
</em>. The modification that I would make
11314 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11315 copyright system. I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11316 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11317 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11318 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11319 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11320 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11321 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11322 old system of controlling access.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895538"></a>
11323 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895546"></a><p>
11325 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11326 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11327 supports the widest range of
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">semiotic democracy
</span>”</span> possible. But
11328 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11329 described were accomplished
—in particular, the limits on derivative
11330 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11331 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11332 do with the content itself.
11333 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895571"></a><p>
11334 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11335 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">harm
</span>”</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11336 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11337 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11338 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11339 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11340 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free
</span>”</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11341 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of
99 cents a
11342 song. (At
99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11343 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11344 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just
79 cents a song. And no
11345 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11347 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895608"></a><p>
11348 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11349 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free
</span>”</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11350 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11351 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11352 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">competing with free.
</span>”</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11353 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11354 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11355 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious
—with
11356 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">first class
</span>”</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11357 movie
—as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11358 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">free.
</span>”</span>
11360 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11361 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11362 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling. Det ville
11363 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører
—som ville ha
11364 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11365 strenge straffer fra loven.
11367 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11372 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11373 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11374 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11375 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11377 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11378 </p><div class=
"orderedlist"><ol class=
"orderedlist" type=
"1"><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11381 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11382 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11385 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11386 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11387 </p></li><li class=
"listitem"><p>
11390 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11391 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11392 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11393 Men hva om
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">piratvirksomheten
</span>”</span> ikke forsvinner? Hva om det
11394 finnes et konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad,
11395 men et signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">ta
</span>”</span>
11396 innhold uten å betale? Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11398 Ja, det bør den. Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11399 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11400 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11401 abstrakt betydning. Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11402 markedet. Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er
95 prosent sikker og
11403 gir et marked av størrelse
<em class=
"citetitle">x
</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11404 teknologi som er
50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11405 større enn
<em class=
"citetitle">x
</em>? Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11406 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11407 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11408 ødelegge internettet. Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11409 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11412 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11413 type-A-delere. Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11414 ødelegge internettet. Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11415 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11416 som internettet er.
11417 </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>
11418 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11419 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11420 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11421 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11423 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11424 advokater har spilt i denne debatten. Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11425 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten. Og i
11426 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11427 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11428 synet ødelegge loven.
11430 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene. Jeg er angrepet som en
11431 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">radikal
</span>”</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
11432 argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
11433 betydningsfulle personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde
11434 for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
11435 vernetid var galskap. Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
11436 foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11437 åpenbar.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2895846" href=
"#ftn.id2895846" class=
"footnote">221</a>]
</sup>
11440 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11441 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11442 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11444 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter. Men
11445 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11446 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11447 lav.
<sup>[
<a name=
"id2895884" href=
"#ftn.id2895884" class=
"footnote">222</a>]
</sup> De ser et system som har
11448 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11449 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11453 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11454 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser. Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11455 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11456 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11457 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11458 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11460 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis. En advokats tid
11461 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $
400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11462 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11463 rettskilder. Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11464 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11465 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid. Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11466 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11468 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11469 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11470 endre hvordan loven praktiseres
— eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11471 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11472 1-prosenten av klientene. Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11473 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11475 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11476 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade. Og det er nettopp det loven
11477 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11479 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11480 teknologi
—filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11481 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11482 teknologi
—en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11483 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11484 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11485 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11488 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen
—men det bør regulere
11489 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11490 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11491 spørsmålet:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">vil det bidra positivt?
</span>”</span>. Når de blir utfordret
11492 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Hvorfor
11493 ikke?
</span>”</span>
11495 Vi burde spørre:
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Hvorfor?
</span>”</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11496 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt. Før du
11497 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11498 </p></div></div><div class=
"footnotes"><br><hr width=
"100" align=
"left"><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2893502" href=
"#id2893502" class=
"para">210</a>]
</sup>
11502 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11503 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),
</span>”</span>
11504 <em class=
"citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review
</em> 1 (
2001):
11505 par.
6–18, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
72</a> (describing examples in
11506 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11507 <em class=
"citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11508 Age
</em> (New York: Random House,
2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11509 technology and privacy).
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2894036" href=
"#id2894036" class=
"para">211</a>]
</sup>
11512 <em class=
"citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11513 Culture Wars
</em> (
2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11514 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
72</a>.
11515 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2894223" href=
"#id2894223" class=
"para">212</a>]
</sup>
11518 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11519 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11520 by other countries as well.
</p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2894347" href=
"#id2894347" class=
"para">213</a>]
</sup>
11523 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11524 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11525 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11526 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2894475" href=
"#id2894475" class=
"para">214</a>]
</sup>
11530 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">A Radical Rethink
</span>”</span>,
<em class=
"citetitle">Economist
</em>,
366:
8308
11531 (
25. januar
2003):
15, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
74</a>.
11532 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2894593" href=
"#id2894593" class=
"para">215</a>]
</sup>
11535 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11536 and/or Pension, VA Form
21-
526 (OMB Approved No.
2900-
0001), tilgjengelig
11537 fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
75</a>.
11538 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2894755" href=
"#id2894755" class=
"para">216</a>]
</sup>
11541 Benjamin Kaplan,
<em class=
"citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright
</em> (New
11542 York: Columbia University Press,
1967),
32.
11543 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2894787" href=
"#id2894787" class=
"para">217</a>]
</sup>
11546 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2894874" href=
"#id2894874" class=
"para">218</a>]
</sup>
11548 Paul Goldstein,
<em class=
"citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11549 Celestial Jukebox
</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2003),
11550 187–216.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2893516"></a>
11551 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2895132" href=
"#id2895132" class=
"para">219</a>]
</sup>
11554 For eksempel, se,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Music Media Watch
</span>”</span>, The J@pan
11555 Inc. Newsletter,
3 April
2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
76</a>.
11556 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2895318" href=
"#id2895318" class=
"para">220</a>]
</sup>
11558 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher,
<em class=
"citetitle">Digital
11559 Music: Problems and Possibilities
</em> (sist revidert:
10. oktober
11560 2000), tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
11561 #
77</a>; William Fisher,
<em class=
"citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law,
11562 and the Future of Entertainment
</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford
11563 University Press,
2004), kap.
6, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11564 foreslått en relatert idé som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11565 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11566 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Impose a
11567 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing
</span>”</span>, tilgjengelig
11568 fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
79</a>. For andre
11569 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?
</span>”</span>
11570 <em class=
"citetitle">Washington Post
</em>,
8. january
2002, A17; Philip
11571 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11572 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
26. februar.
2002,
11573 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
11574 #
80</a>; Serguei Osokine,
<em class=
"citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11575 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,
11576 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly
</span>”</span>,
11577 <em class=
"citetitle">USA Today
</em>,
13. mai
2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11578 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Getting Copyright Right
</span>”</span>, IEEE Spectrum Online,
1. juli
2002,
11579 tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link
11580 #
83</a>; Declan McCullagh,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign
</span>”</span>,
11581 CNET News.com,
27. august
2002, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
84</a>. Forslaget fra Fisher
11582 er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman når det gjelder DAT. I
11583 motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
11584 kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
11585 enn mindre populære. Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
11586 forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
85</a>.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895474"></a> <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895481"></a>
11587 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895488"></a>
11588 <a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895496"></a>
11589 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2895846" href=
"#id2895846" class=
"para">221</a>]
</sup>
11592 Lawrence Lessig,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Copyright's First Amendment
</span>”</span> (Melville
11593 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture),
<em class=
"citetitle">UCLA law Review
</em> 48
11594 (
2001):
1057,
1069–70.
11595 </p></div><div class=
"footnote"><p><sup>[
<a id=
"ftn.id2895884" href=
"#id2895884" class=
"para">222</a>]
</sup>
11597 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11598 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11599 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon
—to ganger. I starten
11600 predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade. Han
11601 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11602 på nytt. Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz,
<em class=
"citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11603 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace
</em> (New
11604 York: Amacom,
2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11605 med Stan J. Liebowitz,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11606 Industry?
</span>”</span> artikkelutkast, juni
2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class=
"ulink" href=
"http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target=
"_top">link #
86</a>. Den nøye analysen til
11607 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11608 fildelingsteknologi. Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11609 til det juridiske system. Se, for eksempel,
11610 <em class=
"citetitle">Rethinking
</em>,
174–76.
<a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2895861"></a>
11611 </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>
11612 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven. Og som alle
11613 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11614 ustabile. Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11615 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11616 boken. For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11617 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet. Hvis
11618 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11619 lenken. Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11620 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11621 </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>
11622 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11623 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11624 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11625 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11626 </p><a class=
"indexterm" name=
"id2896126"></a><p>
11627 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11628 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11629 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11630 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11631 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11632 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11633 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11634 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11635 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11636 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11639 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11640 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11641 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11642 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11643 Yonezawa. Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11644 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11645 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11648 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11649 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11650 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt. Blant de som har svart med
11651 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11652 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11653 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på. De
11654 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11655 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11656 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11657 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11658 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D. Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11659 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11660 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11661 <span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Wink,
</span>”</span> Roger Wood,
<span class=
"quote">“<span class=
"quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,
</span>”</span> og Richard
11662 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11663 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11666 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11667 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11668 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11669 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil. Selv om mitt arbeid er
11670 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11673 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11674 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11675 hatt rett. Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11676 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11677 </p></div><div class=
"index" title=
"Indeks"><div class=
"titlepage"><div><div><h2 class=
"title"><a name=
"id2896257"></a>Indeks
</h2></div></div></div><div class=
"index"><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>A
</h3><dl><dt>ABC,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to:
“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>advertising,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to:
“Kun etter-apere
”</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I
</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens
</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a></dt><dt>All in the Family,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a></dt><dt>Amazon,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk
</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (
1990),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
“Eiendom
”</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#cabletv">Kabel-TV
</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>archive.org,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere
</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internett-arkivet)
</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
“Eiendom
”</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#together">Sammen
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>artister
</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#radio">Radio
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#radio">Radio
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—igjen
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—igjen
</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2868341">“Piratvirksomhet
”</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—igjen
</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>Barnes
& Noble,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>BBC,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Beatles,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk
</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (
1908),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L.,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (
1908),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II
</a></dt><dt>Betamax,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II
</a></dt><dt>biomedical research,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II
</a></dt><dt>BMG,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>BMW,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Boies, David,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</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>Brasil, fri kultur i,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</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">Piratvirksomhet II
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B.,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>CNN,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to:
“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>copyleft licenses,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera
</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to:
“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">Piratvirksomhet I
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2868341">“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>eiendomsrettigheter
</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens
</a></dt><dt>EMI,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>F
</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II
</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—igjen
</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2868341">“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">Piratvirksomhet I
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>H
</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#radio">Radio
</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Henry V,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#cabletv">Kabel-TV
</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H.,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#cabletv">Kabel-TV
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>I
</h3><dl><dt>IBM,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
</a></dt><dt>Intel,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I
</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>J
</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
“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">Piratvirksomhet II
</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>kunst, undergrunns,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#constrain">Constraining Creators
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>L
</h3><dl><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>law schools,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens
</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#together">Sammen
</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (
1662),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater
</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to:
“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><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>M
</h3><dl><dt>Madonna,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#radio">Radio
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#radio">Radio
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
“Eiendom
”</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2868341">“Piratvirksomhet
”</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#id2868341">“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>markedskonsentrasjon,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
“Eiendom
”</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</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">Piratvirksomhet I
</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere
</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>N
</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>NBC,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon
</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—igjen
</a></dt><dt>Netscape,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I
</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere
</a></dt><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
“Eiendom
”</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>O
</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#mere-copyists">Kapittel to:
“Kun etter-apere
”</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B.,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger
</a></dt><dt>originalism,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere
</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">Piratvirksomhet II
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#preface">Forord
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#preface">Forord
</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—igjen
</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>Q
</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>R
</h3><dl><dt>rap music,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Real Networks,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken
—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=
"#id2868341">“Piratvirksomhet
”</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#innovators">Constraining Innovators
</a></dt><dt>robothund,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-acknowledgments">Takk til
</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))
</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde
</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk
</a></dt></dl></div><div class=
"indexdiv"><h3>S
</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#preface">Forord
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred
</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson),
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
</a></dt><dt>Sony
</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt
</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
“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>tegnefilmer,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne
</a>,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne
</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-conclusion">Konklusjon
</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#property-i">Kapittel ti:
“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>veteranpensjoner,
<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">Piratvirksomhet 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><dt>Wright-brødrene,
<a class=
"indexterm" href=
"#c-introduction">Introduksjon
</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=
"#id2868341">“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