archive/freeculture.nb.html

   1 <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific American's 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
   2 og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id2553809"></a><p>
   3      <span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
   4    </p><p>
   5 Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensiert med en
   6 Creative Commons-lisens.  Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
   7 utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt.  For mer
   8 informasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
   9    </p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
  10 Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor i juss
  11 og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School,
  12 er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i
  13 Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
  14 Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code:
  15 And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i
  16 Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public
  17 Knowledge.  Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the
  18 Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's
  19 <span class="quote">«<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
  25 nedenfor:
  26 </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&amp;N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  27 Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
  28 </p><p>
  29 The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
  30 </p><p>
  31 Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
  32 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontpublisher"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  33 The Penguin Press, New York
  34 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontbookinfo"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  35 Fri Kultur
  36 </p><p>
  37 Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
  38 og kontrollere kreativiteten
  39 </p><p>
  40 Lawrence Lessig
  41 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2545022"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  42 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  43 hvem saken fortsetter.
  44 </p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<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&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2591900">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2545244"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
  45 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  46 New York, New York
  47 </p><p>
  48 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  49 </p><p>
  50 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<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
  53 permission.
  54 </p><p>
  55 Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
  56 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  57 </p><p>
  58 Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
  59 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
  60 </p><p>
  61 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  62 </p><p>
  63 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  64 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  65 </p><p>
  66 p. cm.
  67 </p><p>
  68 Includes index.
  69 </p><p>
  70 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  71 </p><p>
  72 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  73 States.
  74 </p><p>
  75 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  76 States. I. Title.
  77 </p><p>
  78 KF2979.L47
  79 </p><p>
  80 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  81 </p><p>
  82 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  83 </p><p>
  84 Printed in the United States of America
  85 </p><p>
  86 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  87 </p><p>
  88 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  89 </p><p>
  90 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  91 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  92 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  93 </p><p>
  94 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  95 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  96 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  97 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  98 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
  99 </p><p>
 100 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
 101 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
 102 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
 103 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
 104 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
 105 </p></div><div class="preface" title="Forord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
 106 <span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
 107 første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
 108 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 109 datarelaterte tekster, dette:
 110 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 111 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 112 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 113 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 114 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 115 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 116 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 117 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken &#8212; at
 118 programvaren, eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">koden</span>»</span>, fungerte som en slags lov &#8212;
 119 og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
 120 gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
 121 komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
 122 problemer som finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
 123 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">påvirke</span>»</span> oss mer.
 124 </p><p>
 125
 126 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 &#8212; jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
 127 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
 128 nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
 129 selv etter at modemet er slått av.  Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
 130 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk som
 131 er ikke pålogget.</span>»</span>  Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
 132 internettets effekt.
 133 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2538610"></a><p>
 134 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 135 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 136 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 137 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 138 </p><p>
 139 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på.  Som jeg vil forklare i
 140 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
 141 kultur</span>»</span>&#8212;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="id2538701" href="#ftn.id2538701" 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>&#8212;en kultur der skapere
 154 kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
 155 fortiden.
 156 </p><p>
 157 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den.  Ikke
 158 <span class="quote">«<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="id2544414"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2561641"></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="id2542918"></a>
 174 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 175 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 176 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 177 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 178 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 179 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2540734" href="#ftn.id2540734" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 180 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 181 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 182 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 183 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 184 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 185 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 186 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 187 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 188 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
 189 og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
 190 og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
 191 nytt, spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 192 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 193 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 194 dette verket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kun</span>»</span> er et avledet verk.
 195 </p><p>
 196
 197 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 198 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 199 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 200 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 201 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 202 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 203 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 204 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 205 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 206 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 207 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 208 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 209 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 210 </p><p>
 211 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 212 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 213 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 214 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 215 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 216 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 217 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 218 denne boken er skrevet.
 219 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.preface01" href="#preface01" class="para">1</a>] </sup>
 220 David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<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.id2538701" href="#id2538701" 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.id2540734" href="#id2540734" 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="id2547499"></a>
 227 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>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="id2557703"></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.
 234 </p><p>
 235 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 236 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 237 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 238 bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2542288" href="#ftn.id2542288" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
 239 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 240 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 241 manns eiendom?
 242 </p><p>
 243 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 244 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 245 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 246 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 247 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 248 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 249 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 250 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2557955"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2538703"></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
 259 dette.
 260 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2549471"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2533241"></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="id2550440" href="#ftn.id2550440" 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>
 280 </p><p>
 281
 282 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 283 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 284 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 285 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 286 linje: <span class="quote">«<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="id2560897"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2532338"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2544234"></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&#8212;makten
 305 til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span>&#8212;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="id2559600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2555099"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2558673"></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="id2546080"></a>
 318 <a class="indexterm" name="id2532616"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2537832"></a>
 319 </p><p>
 320 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 321 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;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.
 327 </p><p>
 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>
 336 </p><p>
 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. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 341 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 342 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 343 utført. &#8230; 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="id2545537" href="#ftn.id2545537" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 346 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 347
 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.
 353
 354 </p><p>
 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="id2554754"></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 &#8212;
 363 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2554137" href="#ftn.id2554137" 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="id2555460"></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 &#8230; en komplett endring i
 374 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 375 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 376 makt.<sup>[<a name="id2542446" href="#ftn.id2542446" 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&#8212;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="id2549441" href="#ftn.id2549441" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 393 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2535576"></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&amp;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&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 401 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 402 </p><p>
 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&#8212;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="id2550354"></a><p>
 413
 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.
 426 </p><p>
 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="id2558494" href="#ftn.id2558494" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
 433 problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
 434 </p><p>
 435 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 436 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;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.
 444 </p><p>
 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
 451 har introdusert.
 452 </p><p>
 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="id2550428"></a>
 462 <a class="indexterm" name="id2555806"></a>
 463 </p><p>
 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&#8212;historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
 471 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke
 472 styrt av lovverket.
 473 </p><p>
 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="id2559736" href="#ftn.id2559736" 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.
 481 </p><p>
 482 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 483 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2543253" href="#ftn.id2543253" 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&#8212;mellom bruken av
 490 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 491 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 492 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 493 </p><p>
 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.
 505 </p><p>
 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&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 521 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 522 </p><p>
 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.
 529 </p><p>
 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&#8212;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&#8212;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="id2505097" href="#ftn.id2505097" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;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.
 541 </p><p>
 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.
 548 </p><p>
 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.
 554 </p><p>
 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="id2506712" href="#ftn.id2506712" 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.
 563 </p><p>
 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&#8212;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
 572 vår tradisjon.
 573 </p><p>
 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.
 580 </p><p>
 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="id2506801"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2506807"></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
 602 manns eiendom.
 603 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2506860"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2506867"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2506874"></a><p>
 604
 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.
 611 </p><p>
 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.
 619 </p><p>
 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
 623 feil?
 624 </p><p>
 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
 627 intuisjon?
 628 </p><p>
 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?
 635 </p><p>
 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="id2563798"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2563804"></a><p>
 641
 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
 649 dyptgripende.
 650
 651 </p><p>
 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.
 655 </p><p>
 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&#8212;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.
 662 </p><p>
 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&#8212;og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
 671 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
 672 </p><p>
 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&#8212;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.id2542288" href="#id2542288" 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.id2550440" href="#id2550440" 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&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2558223"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2545313"></a>
 691 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2545537" href="#id2545537" 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.id2554137" href="#id2554137" 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.id2542446" href="#id2542446" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 698 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2549441" href="#id2549441" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 699 Lessing, 256.
 700 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2558494" href="#id2558494" 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.id2559736" href="#id2559736" 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&#8211;200.
 713 <a class="indexterm" name="id2525927"></a>
 714 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2543253" href="#id2543253" 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="id2538236"></a>
 717 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2505097" href="#id2505097" 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.id2506712" href="#id2506712" 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="id2506725"></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
 730 noteark,
 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="id2563969" href="#ftn.id2563969" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 735 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2563983"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 736
 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.
 744
 745 </p><p>
 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>
 753 </p><p>
 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&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 760 </p><p>
 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.
 766 </p><p>
 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
 773 piratvirksomhet.
 774 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2564105"></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="id2564122" href="#ftn.id2564122" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;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="id2564145" href="#ftn.id2564145" 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>&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 784 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2564189"></a><p>
 785
 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
 791 i vårt lovverk.
 792 </p><p>
 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
 797 syne.
 798 </p><p>
 799 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 800 å markere&#8212;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.
 803 </p><p>
 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&#8212;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="id2564246"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2564252"></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&#8212;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="id2564290" href="#ftn.id2564290" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
 827 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
 828 kreative klassen.
 829 </p><p>
 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.id2563969" href="#id2563969" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 834
 835
 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.id2564122" href="#id2564122" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 839
 840
 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.id2564145" href="#id2564145" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 845
 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="id2564170"></a>
 852 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2564290" href="#id2564290" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 853
 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="id2564333"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2564341"></a>
 861 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>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.
 867 </p><p>
 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>
 875
 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.
 880
 881 </p><p>
 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.
 886 </p><p>
 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="id2564471" href="#ftn.id2564471" 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="id2564498"></a>
 896 </p><p>
 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&#8212;unntatt fra
 899 Disneys hender&#8212;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.
 903 </p><p>
 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>.
 908 </p><p>
 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&#8212;fantastisk
 914 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 915 </p><p>
 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="id2564569" href="#ftn.id2564569" 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.
 925 </p><p>
 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="id2564641" href="#ftn.id2564641" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 929 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;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.
 937 </p><p>
 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.
 945 </p><p>
 946
 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)&#8212;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="id2564772"></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>&#8212;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&#8212;for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
 981 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2564798" href="#ftn.id2564798" 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.
 987 </p><p>
 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&#8212;uansett om de hadde
 994 forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
 995 ikke&#8212;til å bruke og bygge videre på.
 996 </p><p>
 997
 998 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;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.
1007 </p><p>
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
1011 svært universell.
1012 </p><p>
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.
1021 </p><p>
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.
1031 </p><p>
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.
1035 </p><p>
1036
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&#8212;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.
1049 </p><p>
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
1059 for loven.
1060 </p><p>
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. &#8230; Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1079 hverandre. &#8230; Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne&#8212;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="id2565095" href="#ftn.id2565095" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1082 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2565121"></a><p>
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="id2565153"></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="id2565179" href="#ftn.id2565179" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1098 </p><p>
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?
1108 </p><p>
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>.
1114 </p><p>
1115
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.
1125 </p><p>
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.
1129 </p><p>
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="id2565292" href="#ftn.id2565292" 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.
1136 </p><p>
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&#8212;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.
1149 </p><p>
1150
1151 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1152 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;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
1155 bra.
1156 </p><p>
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&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;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.
1163 </p><p>
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.
1168 </p><p>
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.
1180 </p><p>
1181
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&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1190 alle samfunn.
1191
1192 </p><p>
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?
1203 </p><p>
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.id2564471" href="#id2564471" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1208
1209
1210 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1211 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1212 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2564569" href="#id2564569" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1213
1214
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
1224 forfatteren.
1225 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2564641" href="#id2564641" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1226
1227
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.id2564798" href="#id2564798" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1231
1232
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
1241 #6</a>.
1242 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2565095" href="#id2565095" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1243
1244
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.id2565179" href="#id2565179" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1248
1249
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.id2565292" href="#id2565292" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1259
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&#8212;opphavsretter, patenter,
1266 varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter&#8212;men egenskapene til disse
1267 rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2565313"></a>
1268 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>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="id2565572"></a>
1276 </p><p>
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="id2565607"></a>
1286 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1287
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.
1296 </p><p>
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="id2565657" href="#ftn.id2565657" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
1301 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2565670"></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. &#8230; 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="id2553487" href="#ftn.id2553487" 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="id2565736" href="#ftn.id2565736" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1321 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2565745" href="#ftn.id2565745" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1322 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2565754"></a><p>
1323
1324
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. &#8230; 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="id2565687" href="#ftn.id2565687" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1334 </p><p>
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
1344 kunne ha gjort før.
1345 </p><p>
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="id2565838" href="#ftn.id2565838" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1353 </p><p>
1354
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&#8212;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="id2565473"></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="id2565908" href="#ftn.id2565908" 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.
1370 </p><p>
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="id2565962" href="#ftn.id2565962" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1379 </p><p>
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.
1392 </p><p>
1393
1394
1395
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&#8212;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="id2566090"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2566097"></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="id2566128" href="#ftn.id2566128" 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>.
1428 </p><p>
1429
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 &#8230; 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="id2566182"></a>
1436 </p><p>
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="id2566209"></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="id2566224" href="#ftn.id2566224" 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.
1450 </p><p>
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&#8212;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&#8212;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.
1460 </p><p>
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="id2566264"></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, &#8230; rytme, skritt og
1473 tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2566324" href="#ftn.id2566324" 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="id2566367" href="#ftn.id2566367" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1483 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2566394"></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.
1490 </p><p>
1491 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1492 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;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
1500 skrive.
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
1504 århundre.
1505 </p><p>
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="id2566480" href="#ftn.id2566480" 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="id2566502" href="#ftn.id2566502" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1515 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2566509"></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&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1526 </p><p>
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&#8212;å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
1533 </p><p>
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&#8212;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
1549 uttrykk.
1550 </p><p>
1551
1552
1553
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&#8212;og i større grad ikke den
1560 kraftigste delen&#8212;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 &#8230; 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.&#8230;
1579 </p><p>
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.
1585 </p><p>
1586
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.
1599 </p><p>
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="id2566773"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2566778"></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.
1619 </p><p>
1620
1621 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet&#8212;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.
1627 </p><p>
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&#8212;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.
1634 </p><p>
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&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1641 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1642 </p><p>
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.
1654 </p><p>
1655
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.
1663 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2566913"></a><p>
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&#8212;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="id2566959" href="#ftn.id2566959" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1678 </p><p>
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="id2566981" href="#ftn.id2566981" 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>.
1685 </p><p>
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="id2567019" href="#ftn.id2567019" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1692 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1693 </p><p>
1694
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.
1701 </p><p>
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
1708 det.
1709 </p><p>
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="id2567077"></a>
1714 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2567083"></a><p>
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="id2567118" href="#ftn.id2567118" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2567129"></a>
1725 </p><p>
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.
1731 </p><p>
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>
1740
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="id2567210"></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&#8212;slik CNN innrømte at de
1753 gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
1754 ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2566937" href="#ftn.id2566937" 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&#8212;<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="id2567274" href="#ftn.id2567274" 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>&#8212; med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
1773 </p><p>
1774
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&#8212;noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
1780 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2567310" href="#ftn.id2567310" 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>.
1786 </p><p>
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="id2567441"></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 &#8230; å skape
1803 kunnskapsøkologier for å skape &#8230; innovasjon</span>»</span>.
1804 </p><p>
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.
1810 </p><p>
1811
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&#8212;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.
1823 </p><p>
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.
1829 </p><p>
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 &#8230; 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>.
1836 </p><p>
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. &#8230; 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.
1843 </p><p>
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 &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1850 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1851 &#8230;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="id2567626"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2567633"></a><p>
1854
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.
1858 </p><p>
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.
1865 </p><p>
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 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="id2567684" href="#ftn.id2567684" 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
1871 loven.
1872 </p><p>
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>.
1876 </p><p>
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. &#8230; 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="id2567743"></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
1886 teknologien.
1887 </p><p>
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 ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1890 nedstemthet.
1891 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2565657" href="#id2565657" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1892
1893
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.id2553487" href="#id2553487" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1897
1898 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1899 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2565709"></a>
1900 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2565736" href="#id2565736" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1901
1902
1903 Jenkins, 177.
1904 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2565745" href="#id2565745" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1905
1906
1907 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1908 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2565687" href="#id2565687" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1909
1910
1911 Coe, 58.
1912 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2565838" href="#id2565838" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1913
1914
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.id2565908" href="#id2565908" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1921
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="id2565919"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2565928"></a>
1924 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2565962" href="#id2565962" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1925
1926
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&#8211;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.id2566128" href="#id2566128" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1934
1935
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.id2566224" href="#id2566224" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1940
1941
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
1945 1997, B6.
1946 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2566324" href="#id2566324" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1947
1948 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1949 <a class="indexterm" name="id2566331"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2566339"></a>
1950 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2566367" href="#id2566367" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1951
1952
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.id2566480" href="#id2566480" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1957
1958 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2566486"></a>
1959 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2566502" href="#id2566502" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1960
1961
1962 ibid.
1963 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2566959" href="#id2566959" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1964
1965
1966 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1967 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1968 2000), kap. 16.
1969 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2566981" href="#id2566981" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1970
1971
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.id2567019" href="#id2567019" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1975
1976
1977 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1978 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1979 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2567118" href="#id2567118" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1980
1981
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.id2566937" href="#id2566937" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1985
1986
1987 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1988 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2567274" href="#id2567274" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1989
1990
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
1996 #10</a>.
1997 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2567310" href="#id2567310" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
1998
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="id2567369"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2567377"></a>
2008 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2567684" href="#id2567684" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
2009
2010
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 tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2567793"></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.
2021 </p><p>
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
2028 nettverksalderen.
2029 </p><p>
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.
2035 </p><p>
2036
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.
2046 </p><p>
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.
2054 </p><p>
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.
2064 </p><p>
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.
2070 </p><p>
2071
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&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2076 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2077 datamaskiner.
2078 </p><p>
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&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2082 klart&#8212;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.
2091 </p><p>
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
2098 forbauset.
2099 </p><p>
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. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2102 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; 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>&#8212;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.
2110 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2568040"></a><p>
2111
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
2120 $15 000 000.
2121 </p><p>
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>&#8212;seks ganger det
2129 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2130 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2568096" href="#ftn.id2568096" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2131 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2568112"></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="id2568133"></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.
2146 </p><p>
2147
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
2155 konkurs.
2156 </p><p>
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="id2568175"></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="id2568179" href="#ftn.id2568179" 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="id2568236" href="#ftn.id2568236" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2168 </p><p>
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
2172 aktivist:
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. &#8230; [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. &#8230; Han er ingen
2182 treklemmer. &#8230; 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.id2568096" href="#id2568096" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2186
2187
2188
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.id2568179" href="#id2568179" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2193
2194
2195 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2196 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;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.id2568236" href="#id2568236" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2199
2200
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 fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>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&#8212;hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
2207 rettighet</span>»</span> er sant&#8212;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&#8212;film, plater, radio og kabel-TV&#8212;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&#8212;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>
2214
2215 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2568348" href="#ftn.id2568348" 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&#8212;patenter. Edison
2221 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2222 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2223 </p><p>
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
2232 undergrunnsmarked.
2233 </p><p>
2234 Med et land som så en kolosal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
2235 nickelodeons, reagerte patentselskapet på bevegelsen av uavhengige med å
2236 stifte et hardhendt datterselskap ved navn General Film Company for å
2237 blokkere innføringen av ulisensierte uavhengige.  Med tvangstaktikker som
2238 har blitt legendariske, konfiserte General Film ulisensiert utstyr, stoppet
2239 varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
2240 monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
2241 unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
2242 kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id2568429" href="#ftn.id2568429" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2568469"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2568476"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2568482"></a>
2243 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2244 Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige</span>»</span>, var selskaper som Fox.
2245 Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
2246 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
2247 tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
2248 ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2568504" href="#ftn.id2568504" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
2249 til å flykte til østkysten.  Californa var fjernt nok fra Edisons
2250 innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
2251 frykte loven.  Og lederne blant Hollywods filmskapere, Fox mest
2252 fremtredende, gjorde akkurat dette.
2253 </p><p>
2254
2255 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2256 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2257 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> monopol (kun sytten
2258 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2259 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2260 kreative rettigheter.
2261 </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>
2262 Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2263 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2264 musikk.
2265 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2568585"></a><p>
2266 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2267 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2268 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2269 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2270 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2271 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2272 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2273 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2274 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2568613"></a><p>
2275 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span> ved hjelp av
2276 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2277 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2278 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2279 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2280 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> hvis jeg
2281 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2282 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2283 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2284 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av opphavsrettsloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2285 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2286 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2287 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2288 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2289 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2290 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2568641"></a><p>
2291 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2292 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2293 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2568677"></a>
2294 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2295 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2296 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2297 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2298 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2299 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2300 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2568704" href="#ftn.id2568704" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2301 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2568729"></a><p>
2302 Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
2303 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, tallentet og geniet til amerikanske
2304 komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id2568746" href="#ftn.id2568746" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
2305 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkpubliseringsindistrien</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i
2306 denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2568762" href="#ftn.id2568762" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
2307 Philip Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de
2308 tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2568779" href="#ftn.id2568779" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2309 </p><p>
2310 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2311 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2312 argued that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
2313 automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
2314 before their introduction.</span>»</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
2315 of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id2568800" href="#ftn.id2568800" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
2316 innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to consider first the
2317 interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
2318 are.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>»</span> the general counsel of
2319 the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
2320 there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
2321 defined by statute.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2568824" href="#ftn.id2568824" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2322 <a class="indexterm" name="id2568836"></a>
2323 </p><p>
2324
2325 Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
2326 komponisten og innspillingsartisten.  Kongressen endret loven slik at
2327 komponisten fikk betalt for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekaniske reproduksjonen</span>»</span> av
2328 deres musikk.  Men i stedet for å ganske enkelt gi komponisten full kontroll
2329 over rettigheten til å lage mekaniske reproduksjoner, ga kongressen
2330 innspillingsartister rett en til å spille inn musikk, til en pris satt av
2331 kongressen, så snart komponisten har tillatt at den ble spilt inn en gang.
2332 Det er denne delen av opphavsrettsloven som gjør cover-låter mulig.  Så
2333 snart en komponist tillater en innspilling av hans sang, har andre mulighet
2334 til å spille inn samme sang, så lenge de betaler den originale komponisten
2335 et gebyr fastsatt av loven.
2336 </p><p>
2337 Amerikansk lov kaller dette vanligvis en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tvangslisens</span>»</span>, men
2338 jeg vil referere til dette som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemt lisens</span>»</span>.  En
2339 lovbestemt lisens er en lisens hvis nøkkelvilkår er bestemt i lovverket.
2340 Etter kongressens endring av opphavsrettsloven i 1909, sto plateselskapene
2341 fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
2342 komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
2343 </p><p>
2344 Dette er et unntak i opphavsrettsloven.  Når John Grisham skriver en roman
2345 så kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren
2346 tillatelse til det.  Girsham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst
2347 betaling for den tillatelsen.  Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed
2348 bestemt av Grisham og opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
2349 bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
2350 <a class="indexterm" name="id2568906"></a>
2351 </p><p>
2352 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2353 effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
2354 through a kind of piracy&#8212;by giving recording artists a weaker right
2355 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2356 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2357 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2358 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2359 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2360 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2361 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2362 follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id2568388" href="#ftn.id2568388" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2568947"></a>
2363 </p><p>
2364 Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
2365 historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
2366 innspillinger.  Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
2367 on the Judiciary:
2368 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2369 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2370 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2371 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2372 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2373 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2374 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2375 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2376 recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2377 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2378 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2379 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2380 choice.<sup>[<a name="id2568984" href="#ftn.id2568984" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2381 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2382 Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
2383 verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
2384 </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>
2385 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2386 </p><p>
2387 Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
2388 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id2569044" href="#ftn.id2569044" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
2389 opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
2390 hans verk.  Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
2391 fremføringe.
2392 </p><p>
2393
2394 Men når en radiostasjon spiller en plage, så fremfører det ikke bare et
2395 eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>komponistens</em></span> verk. Radiostasjonen
2396 fremfører også et eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>innspillingsartistens</em></span>
2397 verk.  Det er en ting å få <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> sunget på radio av
2398 det lokale barnekoret.  Det er noe ganske annet å få det sunget av Rolling
2399 Stones eller Lyle Lovett.  Innspillingsartisten legger til verdi på
2400 komposisjonen fremført på radiostasjonen.  Og hvis loven var fullstendig
2401 konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
2402 innspillingsartisten for hans verk, på samme måten som den betaler
2403 komponisten av musikken for hans verk.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569131"></a>
2404
2405
2406 </p><p>
2407 Men det gjør den ikke.  I følge loven som styrer radiofremføringer, trenger
2408 ikke radiostasjonen å betale noe til innspillingsartisten. Radiostasjonen
2409 trenger kun å betale komponisten.  Radiostasjonen får dermed noe uten å
2410 betale.  Den får fremføre innspillingsartistens verk gratis, selv om den må
2411 betale komponisten noe for privilegiet det er å spille sangen.
2412 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2413 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2414 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2415 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2416 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2417 </p><p>
2418 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2419 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2420 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2421 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2422 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2423 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2424 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2425 betale henne noen ting.
2426 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569204"></a><p>
2427 Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
2428 på dette.  I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
2429 fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg.  Kanskje.  Men selv om det er slik,
2430 så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget.  Ved å
2431 gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
2432 uten å betale.
2433 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569228"></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>
2434
2435 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2436 </p><p>
2437
2438 When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
2439 television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
2440 they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
2441 selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
2442 sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
2443 egregiously than anything Napster ever did&#8212; Napster never charged for
2444 the content it enabled others to give away.
2445 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569254"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2569270"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2569276"></a><p>
2446 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.  Rosel
2447 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unfair
2448 and potentially destructive competition.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2569290" href="#ftn.id2569290" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public interest</span>»</span> in spreading
2449 the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
2450 National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
2451 testimony, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
2452 property?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2569317" href="#ftn.id2569317" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
2453 broadcaster put it,
2454 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2455 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2456 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2457 for.<sup>[<a name="id2569334" href="#ftn.id2569334" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2458 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2459 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2460 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2461 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2462 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2463 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2464 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2569362" href="#ftn.id2569362" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2465 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2569374"></a><p>
2466 Disse var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>»</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2467 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2468 skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2569390" href="#ftn.id2569390" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2469 </p><p>
2470 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2471 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2472 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2473 Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
2474 protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
2475 already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
2476 extend that monopoly. &#8230; The question here is how much compensation
2477 they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
2478 compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2568269" href="#ftn.id2568269" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569442"></a>
2479 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2480 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2481 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2482 </p><p>
2483 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
2484 whether cable companies had to pay for the content they
2485 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirated.</span>»</span> In the end, Congress resolved this question in the
2486 same way that it resolved the question about record players and player
2487 pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they
2488 broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
2489 owner.  The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise
2490 veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
2491 built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> of the value created
2492 by broadcasters' content.
2493 </p><p>
2494 These separate stories sing a common theme. If <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> means
2495 using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
2496 that creator&#8212;as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2569430" href="#ftn.id2569430" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> &#8212; then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
2497 affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
2498 of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. &#8230; The list is long and
2499 could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
2500 last. Every generation&#8212;until now.
2501 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568348" href="#id2568348" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2502
2503 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2504 ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
2505 and Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2506 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2568364"></a>
2507 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568429" href="#id2568429" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2508
2509 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2510 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
2511 expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2512 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>»</span> available at
2513 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
2514 discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
2515 imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison
2516 to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
2517 Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
2518 Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
2519 No. 159.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2568458"></a>
2520 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568504" href="#id2568504" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2521
2522
2523 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2524 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2525 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568704" href="#id2568704" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2526
2527 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
2528 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
2529 sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2530 chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2531 Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2532 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2568717"></a>
2533 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568746" href="#id2568746" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2534
2535
2536 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2537 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2538 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568762" href="#id2568762" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2539
2540
2541 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2542 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568779" href="#id2568779" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2544
2545
2546 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2547 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2548 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568800" href="#id2568800" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2549
2550
2551
2552 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2553 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2554 Company of New York).
2555 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568824" href="#id2568824" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2556
2557
2558 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
2559 innspill fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
2560 Company Association).
2561 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568388" href="#id2568388" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2562
2563
2564
2565 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
2566 H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
2567 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2568 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
2569 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2570 Reprints, 1976).
2571 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568984" href="#id2568984" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2572
2573
2574 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2575 the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
2576 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569044" href="#id2569044" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2577
2578 See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
2579 the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
2580 Broadcast</span>»</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
2581 play a record on a radio station.  Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
2582 that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
2583 station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2584 Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2585 Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2586 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2587 Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2588 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569076"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569084"></a>
2589 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569290" href="#id2569290" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2590
2591 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
2592 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2593 on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)  (statement of Rosel
2594 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569261"></a>
2595 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569317" href="#id2569317" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2596
2597
2598 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2599 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2600 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569334" href="#id2569334" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2601
2602
2603 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2604 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2605 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569362" href="#id2569362" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2606
2607
2608 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.  Krim,
2609 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2610 Artists Television, Inc.).
2611 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569390" href="#id2569390" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2612
2613 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2614 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569368"></a>
2615 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2568269" href="#id2568269" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2616
2617 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2618 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569393"></a>
2619 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569430" href="#id2569430" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2620
2621
2622 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2623 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2624 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
2625 piracy&#8212;the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2626 compensation&#8212;has grown with the Internet.</span>»</span>
2627 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2628 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2629 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2630 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2631 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2632 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2633 </p><p>
2634
2635 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
2636 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
2637 taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
2638 we paint this taking <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> however, we should understand
2639 its nature a bit more.  For the harm of this taking is significantly more
2640 ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
2641 ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
2642
2643 </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="id2569580"></a><p>
2644 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2645 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2646 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2647 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2648 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2569422" href="#ftn.id2569422" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2649 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2650 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2651 </p><p>
2652 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2653 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2654 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2655 </p><p>
2656 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2657 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2658 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2659 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2660 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2661 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2662 treated as right.
2663 </p><p>
2664 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2665 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2666 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2667 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2668 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2669 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2670 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2671 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2672 legal wrong as well.
2673 </p><p>
2674 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2675 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2676
2677 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2678 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2679 </p><p>
2680 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2681 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2682 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2683 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2569672" href="#ftn.id2569672" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2684 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2685 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2686 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2687 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569715"></a><p>
2688 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2689 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2690 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2691 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2692 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2569730" href="#ftn.id2569730" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2693 </p><p>
2694 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2695 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2696 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2697 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
2698 Barnes &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2699 should it be any different with on-line music?</span>»</span> The difference is, of
2700 course, that when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less
2701 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2702 there is not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the
2703 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2704 </p><p>
2705
2706 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2707 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2708 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2709 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2710 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2711 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2712 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2713 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take</span>»</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2714 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2715 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2716 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2717 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2718 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
2719 means.
2720 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569817"></a><p>
2721 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2722 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2723 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2724 Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2725 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2726 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2727 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2728 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2729 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2730 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft.  Without
2731 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569842"></a>
2732 <a class="indexterm" name="id2569848"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569854"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569866"></a>
2733 </p><p>
2734 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2735 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2736 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2737 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2738 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2739 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2740 </p><p>
2741 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2742 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2743 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2744 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2745 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2746 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2747 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2748 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2749 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2750 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569592"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569891"></a>
2751 <a class="indexterm" name="id2569911"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569917"></a>
2752 </p><p>
2753
2754
2755 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2756 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2757 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2758 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2759 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2760 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2761 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2762 </p><p>
2763 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2764 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span>
2765 is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong if that term is
2766 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2767 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2768 content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our tradition nor any
2769 tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> in that sense of the
2770 term.
2771 </p><p>
2772 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2773 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2774 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2775 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2776 </p><p>
2777 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2778 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2779 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2780 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2781 </p><p>
2782 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2783 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2784 </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>
2785
2786 The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2787 that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2570002" href="#ftn.id2570002" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2788 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2789 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2790 </p><p>
2791 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2792 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2793 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2794 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2570026" href="#ftn.id2570026" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2795 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2796 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570056"></a>
2797 </p><p>
2798 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2799 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2800 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id2570070" href="#ftn.id2570070" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2801 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2802 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2803 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2804 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2805 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2806 or your 20,000 best friends.
2807 </p><p>
2808 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2809 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2810 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2811 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2570119" href="#ftn.id2570119" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2812 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2813 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2814 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2570147" href="#ftn.id2570147" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2815 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2816 being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2817 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2818 they hadn't before.
2819 </p><p>
2820 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2821 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2822 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2823 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2824 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2825 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2826 </p><p>
2827
2828
2829 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2830 fire typer.
2831 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2832
2833 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2834 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2835 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2836 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2837 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2838 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2839 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570207"></a>
2840 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2841
2842
2843 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2844 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2845 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2846 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2847 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2848 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2849 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2850 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2851
2852
2853 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2854 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2855 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2856 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2857 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2858 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2859 solid weekend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recalling</span>»</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2860 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2861 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2862 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2863 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2864 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2865 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2871 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2872 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2873 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2874 </p><p>
2875 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2876 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2877 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2570277" href="#ftn.id2570277" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2878 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2879 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2880 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2881 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2882 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2883 </p><p>
2884 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2885 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2886 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2887 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2888 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> that is
2889 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">devastating</span>»</span> the industry.
2890 </p><p>
2891 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2892 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2893 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2894 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2895 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2896 fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2570330" href="#ftn.id2570330" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2897 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2898 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2899 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2900 the answer.
2901 </p><p>
2902 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2903 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2904 turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
2905 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2906 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2907 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2569741" href="#ftn.id2569741" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2908 </p><p>
2909 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2910 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2911 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2912 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2913 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2914 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2915 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2916 other types of sharing are.
2917 </p><p>
2918 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2919 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2920 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">net harm</span>»</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2921 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2922 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2923 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2924 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2925
2926 </p><p>
2927 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2928 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2929 it might be close.
2930 </p><p>
2931 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2932 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2570436" href="#ftn.id2570436" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2933 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2934 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2935 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2936 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2937 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2938 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2570486" href="#ftn.id2570486" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2939 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2940 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2941 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2942 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2570522" href="#ftn.id2570522" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2943 </p><p>
2944
2945
2946
2947 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2948 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2949 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2950 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2951 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2952 percent.
2953 </p><p>
2954 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2955 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2956 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2957 song and stealing a CD?</span>»</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2958 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2959 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2960 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2961 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2962 [his] profit</span>»</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2963 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2964 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2965 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2966 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
2967 </p><p>
2968 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2969 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2970 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2971 </p><p>
2972 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2973 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2974 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2975 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2570572" href="#ftn.id2570572" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2976 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2977 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2978 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2979 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2980 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2981 </p><p>
2982 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2983 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2984 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2570613" href="#ftn.id2570613" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2985 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2986 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2987 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2988 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2989 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2990 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2991 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570663"></a><p>
2992 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2993 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2994 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
2995 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2996 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
2997 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>»</span> I still have it. That
2998 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
2999 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
3000 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
3001 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
3002 the market.
3003 </p><p>
3004 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
3005 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
3006 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
3007 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
3008 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
3009 well?
3010 </p><p>
3011
3012 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
3013 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
3014 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
3015 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
3016 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
3017 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
3018 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
3019 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> book. People
3020 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
3021 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
3022 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
3023 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
3024 great book!)
3025 </p><p>
3026 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3027 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3028 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3029 important in order to protect type A content.
3030 </p><p>
3031 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3032 says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>»</span> we must also ask,
3033 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3034 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3035 unavailable?</span>»</span>
3036 </p><p>
3037 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3038 of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3039 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
3040 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3041 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3042 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3043 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3044 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3045 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3046 balance will be found only with time.
3047 </p><p>
3048 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling?  Er ikke
3049 angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>»</span>
3050 </p><p>
3051 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3052 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3053 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3054 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3055 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3056 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3057 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to
3058 zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2570793" href="#ftn.id2570793" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3059 </p><p>
3060 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3061 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3062 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3063 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3064 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3065 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3066 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3067 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3068 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3069 </p><p>
3070 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3071 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3072 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3073 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3074 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3075 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3076 less.
3077 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570843"></a><p>
3078 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
3079 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3080 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3081 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3082 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3083 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3084 that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being respected (since
3085 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3086 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3087 </p><p>
3088 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3089 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3090 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3091 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3092 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3093 </p><p>
3094
3095
3096
3097 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3098 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3099 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3100 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3101 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3102 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3103 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3104 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3105 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3106 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3107 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3108 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3109 control over the future (cable).
3110 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570907"></a><p>
3111 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3112 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3113 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3114 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3115 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3116 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3117 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">record</span>»</span> button, the device could
3118 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3119 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3120 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3121 infringement.
3122 </p><p>
3123
3124 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3125 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3126 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3127 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3128 only if there were a special <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy me</span>»</span> signal on the line. It
3129 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3130 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3131 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3132 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3133 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3134 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3135 </p><p>
3136 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3137 called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3138 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3139 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3140 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2570966" href="#ftn.id2570966" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3141 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress,
3142 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3143 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3144 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3145 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2570988" href="#ftn.id2570988" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3146 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id2570997" href="#ftn.id2570997" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3147 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
3148 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3149 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3150 copyrightowners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from
3151 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3152 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3153 from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2571027" href="#ftn.id2571027" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3154 </p><p>
3155 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3156 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3157 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3158 refers to it as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>»</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3159 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3160 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3161 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3162 of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse yet, it was a
3163 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3164 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2571049" href="#ftn.id2571049" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571073"></a>
3165 </p><p>
3166
3167 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3168 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3169 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3170 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3171 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3172 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3173 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3174 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3175 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3176 technology.<sup>[<a name="id2571099" href="#ftn.id2571099" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3177 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3178 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3179 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3180 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3181 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3182 pattern is clear:
3183 </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>
3184 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3185 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2571231" href="#ftn.id2571231" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3186 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
3187 ride</span>»</span> on someone else's work.
3188 </p><p>
3189
3190 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3191 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3192 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3193 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3194 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> In every
3195 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3196 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3197 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3198 stake.
3199
3200 </p><p>
3201 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3202 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3203 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3204 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3205 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3206 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3207 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3208 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3209 </p><p>
3210 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3211 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3212 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3213 possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2571341" href="#ftn.id2571341" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3214 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3215 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3216 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3217 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3218 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3219 </p><p>
3220 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3221 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3222 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3223 become a tool for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from artists. But neither should
3224 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3225 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3226 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3227 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3228 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3229 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3230 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3231 </p><p>
3232
3233
3234 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3235 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3236 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3237 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3238 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3239 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3240 P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2571401" href="#ftn.id2571401" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
3241 begins to talk about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a
3242 different argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
3243 incentives,</span>»</span> they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
3244 content,</span>»</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our
3245 <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
3246 `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
3247 police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
3248 all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
3249 good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
3250 </p><p>
3251 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
3252 krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
3253 eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
3254 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569422" href="#id2569422" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3255
3256
3257 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3258 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3259 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3260 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3261 Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3262 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569672" href="#id2569672" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3263
3264 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3265 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3266 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3267 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3268 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3269 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3270 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3271 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3272 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3273 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3274 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3275 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3276 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3277 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2568807"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569704"></a>
3278 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569730" href="#id2569730" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3279
3280 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3281 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3282 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3283 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3284 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3285 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3286 pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569747"></a>
3287 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570002" href="#id2570002" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3288
3289
3290 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3291 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3292 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570026" href="#id2570026" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3293
3294 See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
3295 Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
3296 Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen
3297 examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
3298 frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
3299 for their own products.  This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
3300 reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
3301 Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
3302 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569739"></a>
3303 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570070" href="#id2570070" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3304
3305
3306 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3307 Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3308 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3309 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster
3310 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3311 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3312 Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3313 Naughton, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London)
3314 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3315 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570119" href="#id2570119" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3316
3317
3318
3319 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3320 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3321 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3322 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3323 computers.
3324 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570147" href="#id2570147" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3325
3326
3327 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
3328 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
3329 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570277" href="#id2570277" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3330
3331 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3332 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570045"></a>
3333 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570330" href="#id2570330" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3334
3335
3336 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3337 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3338 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3339 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3340 cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
3341 music.</span>»</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3342 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
3343 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3344 format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3345 <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3346 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3347 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569741" href="#id2569741" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3348
3349
3350 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3351 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570436" href="#id2570436" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3352
3353
3354 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3355 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3356 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3357 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3358 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3359 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3360 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3361 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3362 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3363 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3364 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3365 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>»</span>
3366 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570486" href="#id2570486" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3367 Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>»</span>, BusinessWeek online,
3368 13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570502"></a>
3369 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570522" href="#id2570522" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3370
3371
3372 ibid.
3373 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570572" href="#id2570572" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3374
3375
3376 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3377 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3378 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3379 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3380 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3381 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570613" href="#id2570613" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3382
3383
3384 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3385 existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
3386 an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
3387 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
3388 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3389 #19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
3390 National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
3391 Results,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3392 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570793" href="#id2570793" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3393
3394
3395 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3396 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3397 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3398 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3399 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3400 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3401 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570966" href="#id2570966" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3402
3403
3404 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3405 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3406 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3407 of America, Inc.).
3408 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570988" href="#id2570988" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3409
3410
3411 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3412 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570997" href="#id2570997" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3413
3414
3415 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3416 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3417 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571027" href="#id2571027" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3418
3419
3420 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3421 Valenti).
3422 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571049" href="#id2571049" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3423
3424
3425 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3426 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3427 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571099" href="#id2571099" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3428
3429
3430 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3431 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3432 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571231" href="#id2571231" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3433
3434 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3435 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3436 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3437 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3438 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3439 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3440 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3441 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3442 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
3443 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3444 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570815"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571270"></a>
3445 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571341" href="#id2571341" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3446
3447
3448 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3449 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3450 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571401" href="#id2571401" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3451
3452
3453 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3454 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22
3455 September 2003, C3.
3456 </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
3458
3459
3460 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3461 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3462 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder
3463 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3464 kan få.
3465 </p><p>
3466 Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
3467 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
3468 er en merkelig type eiendom.  Selve ideen om eienrettigheter til en ide
3469 eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig.  Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
3470 tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage.  Jeg tar en ting,
3471 piknik-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det.  Men hva tar jeg
3472 når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>ideen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
3473 piknik-bordet i bakhagen&#8212;ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
3474 kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
3475 </p><p>
3476 Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og ideer er ting, selv om det
3477 er en viktig forskjell.  Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
3478 tilfelle&#8212;faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
3479 rekke med unntak&#8212;er ideer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
3480 fra deg når jeg kopierer måten du kler deg&#8212;selv om det ville se sært
3481 ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt sært hvis du er en kvinne.
3482 Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
3483 hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
3484 information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
3485 från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2571551" href="#ftn.id2571551" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3486 </p><p>
3487 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3488 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3489 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min ide eller uttrykk uten
3490 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
3491 </p><p>
3492 Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form&#8212;detaljene,
3493 med andre ord&#8212;betyr noe.  For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
3494 praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
3495 plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id2571593" href="#ftn.id2571593" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3496 </p><p>
3497 Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
3498 foregående del.  Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
3499 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span> i sammenheng.  Hvor kom
3500 ideen fra?  Hva er dens begresninger?  Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
3501 Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
3502 utsagnet&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>&#8212; bli
3503 litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
3504 fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
3505 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571551" href="#id2571551" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3506
3507
3508 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3509 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3510 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3511 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571593" href="#id2571593" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3512
3513
3514 Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
3515 eiendomsretter immaterielle.  En eiendomsrett er ganske enkelt den retten
3516 som et idivid har mot verden til å gjøre eller ikke gjøre visse ting som er
3517 eller ikke er knyttet til et fysisk objekt.  Retten i seg selv er
3518 immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er
3519 materielt.  Se Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
3520 Back Together,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003):
3521 373, 429 n. 241.
3522 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2571657"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2571663"></a><p>
3523 William Shakespeare skrev <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i
3524 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store
3525 skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
3526 til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
3527 kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
3528 vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
3529 som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men
3530 Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer.</span>»</span>
3531 </p><p>
3532
3533 I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
3534 skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
3535 utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2571707" href="#ftn.id2571707" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
3536 var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
3537 Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2571743" href="#ftn.id2571743" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
3538 boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
3539 en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
3540 forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
3541 kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
3542 konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3543 </p><p>
3544 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
3545 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
3546 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3547 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
3548 beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
3549 forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
3550 en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2571790" href="#ftn.id2571790" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
3551 grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt
3552 i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
3553 1774?
3554 </p><p>
3555 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3556 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3557 engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, var det ingen annen
3558 lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
3559 lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
3560 over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
3561 ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
3562 at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2571843"></a>
3563 </p><p>
3564 At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3565 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3566 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3567 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3568 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3569 dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common law</span>»</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
3570 lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
3571 bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
3572 det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
3573 beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3574 </p><p>
3575
3576 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>»</span>,
3577 som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
3578 Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
3579 hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
3580 Conger</span>»</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
3581 for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
3582 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>.
3583 </p><p>
3584 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eieren</span>»</span> av
3585 en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
3586 bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
3587 retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
3588 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
3589 hadde tenkt.
3590 </p><p>
3591 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3592 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3593 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3594 </p><p>
3595 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3596 krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3597 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3598 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3599 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3600 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3601 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3602 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3603 finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares verk?
3604 </p><p>
3605 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3606 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
3607 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3608 </p><p>
3609
3610 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3611 begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
3612 det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
3613 født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
3614 reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>»</span> en rett til å bruke
3615 en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
3616 dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
3617 verk kunne <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
3618 samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
3619 rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
3620 fremføre, og så videre.
3621 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572024"></a><p>
3622 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3623 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3624 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3625 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3626 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3627 lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
3628 til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3629 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572050"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2572057"></a><p>
3630 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3631 en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>»</span>,
3632 spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
3633 utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
3634 monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
3635 VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
3636 spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
3637 makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>»</span> vedtatt
3638 for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var
3639 parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
3640 </p><p>
3641 Dermed ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>»</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
3642 en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
3643 om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>»</span> prøv
3644 hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
3645 skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
3646 så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
3647 skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3648 </p><p>
3649 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3650 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3651 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3652 England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span> ble av en voksende mengde
3653 sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
3654 undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
3655 monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
3656 som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>;
3657 de var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde  et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
3658 nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2572155" href="#ftn.id2572155" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3659 </p><p>
3660 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3661 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3662 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3663 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3664 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3665 </p><p>
3666 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3667 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3668 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3669 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3670 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3671 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3672 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3673 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3674 </p><p>
3675 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3676 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3677 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, og
3678 fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
3679 1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
3680 år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3681 </p><p>
3682 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3683 idag,
3684 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3685 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3686 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3687 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3688 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3689 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3690 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2572239" href="#ftn.id2572239" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3691 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3692 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3693 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3694 ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3695 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3696 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3697 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute
3698 of Anne</span>»</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
3699 betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3700 utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
3701 de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
3702 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
3703 var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
3704 </p><p>
3705 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3706 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3707 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne &#8230; like
3708 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2570376" href="#ftn.id2570376" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3709 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3710 forfatterens verk ga.
3711 </p><p>
3712 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3713 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2572346" href="#ftn.id2572346" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3714 </p><p>
3715 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>. Han startet
3716 in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
3717 standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3718 Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2572373" href="#ftn.id2572373" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
3719 og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
3720 dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
3721 som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
3722 skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2572403" href="#ftn.id2572403" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572411"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572417"></a>
3723 </p><p>
3724 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3725 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
3726 mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3727 eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id2572438" href="#ftn.id2572438" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
3728 mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
3729 sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3730 Anne</span>»</span>, var falt i det fri.
3731 </p><p>
3732 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> som
3733 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3734 i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
3735 <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3736 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572477"></a><p>
3737 Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3738 Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
3739 gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
3740 uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
3741 sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
3742 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id2572506" href="#ftn.id2572506" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3743 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3744 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3745 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3746 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> gav
3747 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3748 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3749 mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
3750 Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
3751 sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3752 </p><p>
3753
3754 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3755 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3756 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3757 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3758 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3759 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3760 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3761 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3762 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3763 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572588"></a><p>
3764 Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
3765 uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3766 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572606"></a><p>
3767 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3768 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3769 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2572620" href="#ftn.id2572620" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3770 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3771 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3772 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3773 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3774 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3775 </p><p>
3776 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3777 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3778 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3779 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3780 Anne</span>»</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> var blitt vedtatt,
3781 skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
3782 mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, falle i det
3783 fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3784 </p><p>
3785 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3786 huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av
3787 enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3788 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslordene</span>»</span> hadde stemt,
3789 stemte resten av Overhuset.
3790 </p><p>
3791
3792 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3793 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3794 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3795 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3796 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3797 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3798 </p><p>
3799 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>»</span>. Før rettssaken
3800 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
3801 ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
3802 en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble
3803 Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
3804 lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
3805 historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
3806 frie.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2572733"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572739"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572745"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572752"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572758"></a>
3807 </p><p>
3808 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3809 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3810 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3811 <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
3812 noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
3813 prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
3814 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
3815 *illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2572792" href="#ftn.id2572792" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3816 </p><p>
3817 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3818 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3819 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3820 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3821 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3822 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3823 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3824 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3825 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2572314" href="#ftn.id2572314" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3826 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3827
3828
3829 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>»</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
3830 si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
3831 ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
3832 utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
3833 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
3834 for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
3835 ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
3836 falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i
3837 betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
3838 liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
3839 utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
3840 formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
3841 valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og
3842 beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der
3843 hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
3844 og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
3845 ønsker.
3846 </p><p>
3847 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3848 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3849 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3850 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571707" href="#id2571707" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3851
3852
3853 Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære
3854 storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
3855 versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
3856 Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
3857 hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
3858 Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
3859 Bookseller</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
3860 424-31.
3861 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571743" href="#id2571743" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3862
3863
3864 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3865 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3866 151&#8211;52.
3867 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571790" href="#id2571790" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3868
3869 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3870 en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
3871 and Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2571802"></a>
3872 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572155" href="#id2572155" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3873
3874
3875
3876 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3877 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3878 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572239" href="#id2572239" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3879
3880
3881 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3882 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3883 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3884 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3885 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3886 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3887 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3888 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570376" href="#id2570376" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3889
3890 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>»</span>,
3891 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
3892 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3893 <a class="indexterm" name="id2571753"></a>
3894 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572346" href="#id2572346" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3895
3896
3897 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3898 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3899 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572373" href="#id2572373" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3900
3901 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3902 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2572380"></a>
3903 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572403" href="#id2572403" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3904
3905
3906 Ibid., 93.
3907 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572438" href="#id2572438" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3908
3909
3910 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3911 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3912 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572506" href="#id2572506" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3913
3914
3915 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3916 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3917 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3918 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572620" href="#id2572620" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3919
3920
3921 Ibid., 1156.
3922 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572792" href="#id2572792" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3923
3924
3925 Rose, 97.
3926 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572314" href="#id2572314" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3927
3928
3929 ibid.
3930 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3931 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3932 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3933 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3934 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3935 Gud.)
3936 </p><p>
3937 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3938 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3939 </p><p>
3940 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3941 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3942 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3943 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3944 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2572946"></a>
3945 </p><p>
3946
3947 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3948 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3949 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3950 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3951 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3952 </p><p>
3953 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3954 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3955 med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3956 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3957 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> eller
3958 det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3959 </p><p>
3960 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3961 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3962 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3963 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3964 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3965 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2573010"></a>
3966 </p><p>
3967 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3968 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3969 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3970 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3971 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2573030"></a>
3972 </p><p>
3973 Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi &#8230;
3974 at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk &#8212; ihvertfall at noen [hos
3975 Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>»</span> Som det andre krevde
3976 Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
3977 sekundene med &#8230; fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
3978 som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
3979 </p><p>
3980 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3981 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3982 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her &#8230; Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
3983 dette.</span>»</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
3984 etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
3985 </p><p>
3986
3987 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
3988 meg</span>»</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>»</span>, sa
3989 hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The
3990 Simpson</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
3991 om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
3992 å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>»</span> En
3993 av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
3994 heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
3995 </p><p>
3996 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3997 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3998 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3999 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
4000 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2573127"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2573133"></a>
4001 </p><p>
4002 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
4003 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
4004 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
4005 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
4006 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
4007 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
4008 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
4009 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
4010 </p><p>
4011 For eksempel <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>»</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
4012 Simpson</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
4013 kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
4014 selger billetter til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mine
4015 <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>»</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
4016 fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
4017 det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
4018 loven.
4019 </p><p>
4020 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
4021 første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2573199" href="#ftn.id2573199" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
4022 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
4023 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>&#8212; og
4024 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
4025 </p><p>
4026
4027
4028 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4029 use</span>»</span>. Og her er hans svar:
4030 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4031 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
4032 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
4033 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
4034 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4035 bruk</span>»</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
4036 dette er grunnen:
4037 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4038
4039
4040 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
4041 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>»</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
4042 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
4043 scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>, og å påstå
4044 at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
4045 </p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2573308"></a><p>
4046
4047 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4048 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4049 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4050 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4051 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4052 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4053 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4054 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4055 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4056 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4057
4058
4059
4060 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School &#8230;
4061 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
4062 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>»</span>,
4063 uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
4064 ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
4065
4066 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4067
4068
4069 Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
4070 av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4071 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4072 I teorien betyr <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> at du ikke trenger
4073 tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
4074 tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> helt
4075 annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
4076 konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
4077 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4078 ikke fulgt opp.
4079 </p><p>
4080 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4081 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4082 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4083 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4084 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573199" href="#id2573199" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4085
4086
4087 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4088 use</span>»</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
4089 A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
4090 Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>»</span> (utkast arkivert hos
4091 forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
4092 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2573434"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><p>
4093 In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an
4094 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
4095 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
4096 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
4097 anticipation of the power of networks.
4098 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsretrospective"></a><p>
4099 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4100 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
4101 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
4102 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4103 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4104 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4105 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4106 </p><p>
4107 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4108 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4109 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4110 include them on the CD.
4111 </p><p>
4112
4113
4114 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4115 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4116 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4117 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4118 permission for that content.
4119 </p><p>
4120 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Our
4121 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4122 films,</span>»</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No
4123 one had ever really done this before,</span>»</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No one
4124 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4125 career.</span>»</span>
4126 </p><p>
4127 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4128 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>»</span>
4129 </p><p>
4130 Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4131 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4132 we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go for
4133 it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2573545" href="#ftn.id2573545" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4134 </p><p>
4135 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4136 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4137 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4138 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4139 Starwave was to do.
4140 </p><p>
4141 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4142 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4143 recounted just what they did:
4144 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4145 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4146 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4147 going to use the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my day</span>»</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4148 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4149 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4150 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4151 </p><p>
4152
4153
4154 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4155 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4156 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4157 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4158 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4159 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4160 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4161 just started calling people.
4162 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2573618"></a><p>
4163 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4164 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4165 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
4166 you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>»</span> And
4167 they would say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4168 $1,200.</span>»</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4169 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4170 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4171 </p><p>
4172 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">and even then we
4173 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>»</span>
4174 </p><p>
4175 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4176 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4177 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4178 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4179 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4180 and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4181 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4182 actors.</span>»</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4183 constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4184 directors, &#8230; this many musicians,</span>»</span> and we just went at it very
4185 systematically and cleared the rights.
4186 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4187
4188
4189
4190 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4191 and it sold very well.
4192 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573699"></a><p>
4193 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4194 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4195 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
4196 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4197 all.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2573715" href="#ftn.id2573715" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4198 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4199 </p><p>
4200 For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">very few &#8230; have the time and
4201 resources, and the will to do this,</span>»</span> and thus, very few such works
4202 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4203 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4204 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4205 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4206 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4207 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4208 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4209 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4210 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4211 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4212 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4213 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4214 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4215 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4216 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4217 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4218 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4219
4220 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4221 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4222 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4223 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4224 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4225 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4226 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4227 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4228 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4229 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4230 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4231 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh,
4232 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4233 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4234 money,</span>»</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4235 together.
4236 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4237 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4238 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4239 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4240 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4241 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
4242 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573812"></a><p>
4243 These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat
4244 for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of
4245 these rights, and the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost
4246 to negotiate them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and
4247 imagine the pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from
4248 Los Angeles to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made
4249 sense; but as circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least,
4250 a well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights
4251 and ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
4252 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573847"></a><p>
4253
4254 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4255 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4256 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4257 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4258 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4259 Fairbank, had produced.
4260 </p><p>
4261 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4262 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4263 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4264 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4265 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573882"></a><p>
4266 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4267 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4268 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4269 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4270 tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
4271 brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
4272 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573908"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2573914"></a><p>
4273 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4274 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4275 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4276 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4277 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4278 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4279 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4280 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4281 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4282 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4283 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4284 couldn't easily do them legally.
4285 </p><p>
4286 We live in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> culture enabled by
4287 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4288 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a
4289 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4290 can have it planted in your presentation.
4291 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573943"></a><p>
4292
4293 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4294 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4295 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4296 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4297 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4298 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4299 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4300 and music.
4301 </p><p>
4302 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4303 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal,</span>»</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4304 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4305 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4306 rules, it doesn't get released.
4307 </p><p>
4308 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4309 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4310 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4311 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,
4312 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4313 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4314 example, that says <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4315 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
4316 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4317 owner.</span>»</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4318 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4319 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4320 </p><p>
4321 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4322 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4323 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4324 would anyone have to oppose it?
4325 </p><p>
4326
4327 In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4328 the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
4329 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4330 together to form a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>»</span> Under the
4331 agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
4332 picture hits and classics, write new storylines and&#8212;with the use of
4333 stateof-the-art digital technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into
4334 the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>»</span>
4335 </p><p>
4336 The announcement called this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>»</span> As Myers
4337 explained, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4338 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4339 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4340 take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg is
4341 quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4342 new audiences, it is Mike.</span>»</span>
4343 </p><p>
4344 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4345 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4346 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4347 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4348 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4349 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4350 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4351 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4352 </p><p>
4353 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4354 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4355 use.</span>»</span> Much of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> should be considered
4356 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4357 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4358 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4359 content are astronomically high.  These costs mirror the costs with fair
4360 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4361 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4362 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4363 lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4364 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573545" href="#id2573545" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4365
4366 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4367 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4368 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
4369 creativity, as this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2573557"></a>
4370 <a class="indexterm" name="id2573571"></a>
4371 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573715" href="#id2573715" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4372
4373
4374 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4375 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4376 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4377 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><p>
4378 In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>&#8212;computer codes designed
4379 to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
4380 content&#8212;began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
4381 Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
4382 basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
4383 the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
4384 months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
4385 </p><p>
4386 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4387 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4388 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4389 technology called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>»</span> you could enter a Web
4390 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4391 pages changed.
4392 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
4393 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4394 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4395 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4396 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4397 </p><p>
4398
4399
4400 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4401 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4402 printed on the date published on the paper.
4403 </p><p>
4404 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4405 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4406 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4407 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4408 updated, without any reliable memory.
4409 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2574186"></a><p>
4410 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4411 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4412 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4413 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4414 forget.<sup>[<a name="id2574210" href="#ftn.id2574210" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4415 </p><p>
4416 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4417 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4418 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
4419 water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4420 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4421 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4422 and remember&#8212;not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4423 something close to the truth.
4424 </p><p>
4425 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4426 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4427 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4428 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4429 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4430 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4431 knowedge.
4432 </p><p>
4433
4434 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4435 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4436 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4437 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4438 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4439 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4440 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4441 </p><p>
4442 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4443 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4444 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4445 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4446 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4447 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4448 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4449 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4450 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2574264"></a><p>
4451 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4452 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4453 of material</span>»</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4454 of Congress.</span>»</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4455 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4456 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4457 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4458 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4459 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4460 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4461 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4462 very low fee. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4463 unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4464 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4465 student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
4466 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2574334"></a><p>
4467
4468 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4469 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4470 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4471 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4472 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4473 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4474 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4475 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4476 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4477 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4478 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4479 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4480 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4481 media on twentieth-century America?
4482 </p><p>
4483 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4484 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4485 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4486 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4487 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4488 </p><p>
4489 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4490 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4491 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4492 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4493 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>»</span> Thus, when
4494 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4495 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4496 film company.<sup>[<a name="id2574382" href="#ftn.id2574382" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4497 </p><p>
4498 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4499 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4500 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft.</span>»</span> But as technology enabled
4501 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4502 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4503 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>»</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4504 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4505 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4506 to anyone who would look.
4507 </p><p>
4508
4509 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4510 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4511 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4512 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4513 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4514 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4515 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4516 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2574447"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2574454"></a><p>
4517 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4518 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
4519 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4520 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4521 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4522 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4523 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4524 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4525 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4526 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4527 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4528 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4529 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>»</span> film that instructed children how to save
4530 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4531 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.
4532 </p><p>
4533 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4534 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4535 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4536 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4537 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4538 </p><p>
4539 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4540 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4541 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4542 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4543 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4544 </p><p>
4545
4546 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4547 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> In its first
4548 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4549 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4550 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4551 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4552 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4553 </p><p>
4554 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4555 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4556 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4557 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4558 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4559 even if that information is no longer sold.
4560 </p><p>
4561 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4562 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2574544" href="#ftn.id2574544" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4563 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4564 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4565 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4566 the spread and stability of culture.
4567 </p><p>
4568 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4569 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4570 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4571 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4572 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4573 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4574 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4575 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4576 </p><p>
4577
4578 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4579 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4580 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4581 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4582 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4583 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4584 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4585 </p><p>
4586 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4587 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4588 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4589 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4590 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4591 moving images and sound.
4592 </p><p>
4593 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4594 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4595 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4596 describes,
4597 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2574625"></a><p>
4598 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4599 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4600 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4601 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4602 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4603 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4604 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4605 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4606 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4607 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4608 press.
4609 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4610
4611 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4612 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4613 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4614 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4615 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4616 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4617 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4618 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4619 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4620 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4621 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4622 </p><p>
4623 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4624 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4625 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">archives,</span>»</span> as warm as the idea of a
4626 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">library</span>»</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is
4627 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span>
4628 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4629 exercise.
4630 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2574700"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574210" href="#id2574210" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4631
4632
4633 The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
4634 changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003, press release
4635 stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> That was later
4636 changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have
4637 Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4638 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574382" href="#id2574382" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4639
4640
4641 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4642 the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4643 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4644 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4645 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4646 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574544" href="#id2574544" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4647
4648
4649 Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
4650 Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>»</span>
4651 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake
4652 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print
4653 in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
4654 Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
4655 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4656 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
4657 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4658 America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4659 administration&#8212;literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4660 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4661 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4662 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4663 Washington.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2574679"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574740"></a>
4664 </p><p>
4665 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4666 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4667 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4668 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4669 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4670 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4671 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4672 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4673 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2574759"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574766"></a>
4674 <a class="indexterm" name="id2574772"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574778"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574784"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574791"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574797"></a>
4675 </p><p>
4676
4677
4678 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4679 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4680 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4681 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4682 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4683 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4684 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4685 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4686 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4687 </p><p>
4688 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4689 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4690 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4691 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4692 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4693 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4694 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span>
4695 </p><p>
4696 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4697 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4698 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4699 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4700 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4701 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4702 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4703 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4704 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4705 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2574856" href="#ftn.id2574856" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4706 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4707
4708 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4709 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4710 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">central theme</span>»</span> to which <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4711 women</span>»</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4712 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4713 owners in the nation.</span>»</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4714 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4715 </p><p>
4716 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4717 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4718 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4719 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4720 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4721 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4722 scope of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> His views have
4723 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4724 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4725 tradition, at least in Washington.
4726 </p><p>
4727 While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
4728 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4729 understand,<sup>[<a name="id2574924" href="#ftn.id2574924" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4730 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been
4731 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4732 property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4733 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4734 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4735 </p><p>
4736 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4737 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4738 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4739 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4740 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4741 </p><p>
4742
4743 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4744 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4745 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4746 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4747 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4748 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4749 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4750 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4751 creativity having less than perfect control.
4752 </p><p>
4753 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4754 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4755 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4756 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4757 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4758 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4759 threaten the old.  To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4760 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4761 Constitution itself.
4762 </p><p>
4763 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> Indeed, so
4764 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4765 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4766 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4767 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>»</span> to pay
4768 you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4769 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4770 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4771 government pays for the privilege.
4772 </p><p>
4773
4774 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4775 calls <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4776 power to create <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> the Constitution
4777 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited time,</span>»</span>
4778 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4779 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4780 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4781 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">takes</span>»</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4782 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just
4783 compensation</span>»</span> for this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking.</span>»</span> Instead, the same
4784 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4785 your <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> right without any compensation at all.
4786 </p><p>
4787 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4788 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4789 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4790 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4791 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4792 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4793 </p><p>
4794 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4795 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4796 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4797 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4798 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4799 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4800 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4801 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4802 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4803 </p><p>
4804 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4805 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4806 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4807 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4808 creative property there must be a public domain?
4809 </p><p>
4810 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4811 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
4812 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4813 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4814 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4815 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4816 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4817 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4818 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4819 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4820 </p><p>
4821
4822
4823
4824 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4825 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4826 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4827 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4828 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4829 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4830 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4831 </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
4832 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>
4833 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4834 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4835 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4836 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4837 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4838 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4839 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4840 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4841 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4842 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4843 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4844 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2574812"></a>
4845 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575204"></a><p>
4846 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4847 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4848 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4849 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4850 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4851 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4852 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4853 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4854 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575225"></a><p>
4855 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4856 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4857 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4858 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4859 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4860 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4861 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4862 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575233"></a><p>
4863 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4864 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4865 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4866 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4867 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4868 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4869 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4870 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4871 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4872 by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture.</span>»</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4873 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4874 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4875 enforces this constraint.
4876 </p><p>
4877
4878
4879
4880 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4881 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4882 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4883 </p><p>
4884 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4885 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4886 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4887 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4888 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4889 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4890 particular interact.
4891 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575317"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575324"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575330"></a><p>
4892 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a
4893 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4894 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4895 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4896 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4897 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4898 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4899 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4900 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4901 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4902 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4903 </p><p>
4904
4905 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4906 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4907 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2575364" href="#ftn.id2575364" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4908 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4909 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4910 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4911 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4912 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4913 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4914 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4915 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4916 driving.
4917 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575388"></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="id2575424"></a><p>
4918 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4919 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4920 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4921 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4922 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2575439" href="#ftn.id2575439" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4923 </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>
4924 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4925 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4926 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4927 sense.
4928 </p><p>
4929 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4930 </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="id2575558"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575564"></a><p>
4931
4932
4933 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4934 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4935 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4936 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4937 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4938 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4939 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4940 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4941 this form of infringement.
4942 </p><p>
4943 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4944 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4945 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4946 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4947 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4948 of anarchy after the Internet.
4949 </p><p>
4950
4951 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4952 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4953 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4954 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4955 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4956 results.
4957 </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>
4958 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4959 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
4960 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4961 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4962 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4963 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4964 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4965 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4966 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4967 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575641"></a><p>
4968
4969 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4970 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4971 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4972 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4973 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4974 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4975 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4976 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4977 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4978 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4979 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4980 U.S. steel industry.
4981 </p><p>
4982 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4983 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4984 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4985 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4986 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4987 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
4988 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575685"></a><p>
4989 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4990 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4991 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4992 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4993 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
4994 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4995 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2575701" href="#ftn.id2575701" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
4996 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4997 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4998 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
4999 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
5000 weakened the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stickiness</span>»</span> of television advertising (if a
5001 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
5002 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
5003 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
5004 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
5005 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
5006 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575750"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575756"></a><p>
5007 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
5008 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
5009 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
5010 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
5011 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
5012 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
5013 patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
5014 competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2575776" href="#ftn.id2575776" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
5015 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
5016 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
5017 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
5018 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
5019 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
5020 </p><p>
5021 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5022 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5023 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5024 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5025 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5026 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5027 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5028 </p><p>
5029 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5030 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5031 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5032 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5033 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5034 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5035 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5036 Constitution: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5037 freedom of speech.</span>»</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5038 would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5039 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5040 </p><p>
5041
5042 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5043 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5044 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">justified.</span>»</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5045 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5046 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5047 of the changes the content industry wants.
5048 </p><p>
5049 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5050 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
5051 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5052 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5053 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5054 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5055 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575875"></a>
5056 </p><p>
5057 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5058 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5059 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5060 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575893"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575899"></a><p>
5061 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5062 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5063 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5064 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
5065 </p><p>
5066 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5067 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5068 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5069 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5070 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5071 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5072 solve.
5073 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575931"></a><p>
5074
5075 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5076 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
5077 culture.<sup>[<a name="id2575947" href="#ftn.id2575947" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5078 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5079 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5080 that music should be given away <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that
5081 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5082 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5083 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5084 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5085 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5086 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5087 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5088 </p><p>
5089 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5090 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5091 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5092 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5093 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5094 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5095 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5096 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5097 for creativity.
5098 </p><p>
5099 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5100 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5101 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575997"></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>
5102 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5103 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
5104 property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5105 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5106 </p><p>
5107 The power to establish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights is granted to
5108 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5109 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5110 </p><p>
5111
5112 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5113 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5114 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5115 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>»</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5116 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property
5117 rights.</span>»</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5118 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5119 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5120 purpose of rewarding authors.
5121 </p><p>
5122 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5123 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5124 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5125 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5126 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5127 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5128 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to
5129 Authors</span>»</span> only.
5130 </p><p>
5131 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5132 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5133 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5134 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5135 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5136 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5137 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5138 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5139 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5140 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5141 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5142 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5143 </p><p>
5144 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5145 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5146 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5147 to put our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5148 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5149 </p><p>
5150
5151 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5152 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5153 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5154 </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>
5155 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5156 </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>
5157
5158 La meg forklare hvordan.
5159
5160 </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>
5161 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5162 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5163 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5164 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5165 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2576178" href="#ftn.id2576178" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5166 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5167 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5168 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5169 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5170 to reprint and distribute works.
5171 </p><p>
5172 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5173 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5174 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5175 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5176 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5177 expired as well.
5178 </p><p>
5179 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5180 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5181 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5182 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5183 work passed into the public domain.
5184 </p><p>
5185 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5186 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5187 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5188 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5189 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5190 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2576246" href="#ftn.id2576246" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5191 </p><p>
5192
5193 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5194 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5195 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5196 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5197 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5198 </p><p>
5199 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5200 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5201 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5202 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2576314" href="#ftn.id2576314" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5203 </p><p>
5204 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5205 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5206 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2576349" href="#ftn.id2576349" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5207 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5208 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5209 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5210 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5211 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5212 </p><p>
5213 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5214 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5215 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5216 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5217 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5218 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5219 </p><p>
5220 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5221 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5222 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5223 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5224 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5225 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5226 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5227 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5228 </p><p>
5229
5230 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5231 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5232 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5233 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5234 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5235 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5236 copyright term.
5237 </p><p>
5238 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5239 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5240 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5241 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5242 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5243 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5244 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5245 </p><p>
5246 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5247 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5248 term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5249 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5250 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5251 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5252 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5253 </p><p>
5254 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5255 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5256 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5257 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5258 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5259 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5260 </p><p>
5261 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5262 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5263 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5264 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5265 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5266 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2576450" href="#ftn.id2576450" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5267 </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>
5268 The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5269 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5270 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5271 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5272 </p><p>
5273 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
5274 charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5275 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5276 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> copyrighted works. That
5277 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5278 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5279 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5280 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> It would not,
5281 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5282 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5283 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5284 </p><p>
5285 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5286 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5287 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5288 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5289 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5290 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5291 over any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5292 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5293 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative work</span>»</span> that
5294 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5295 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5296 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5297 </p><p>
5298
5299 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5300 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5301 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5302 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5303 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5304 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5305 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5306 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5307 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5308 government before a copyright could be secured.
5309 </p><p>
5310 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5311 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5312 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5313 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5314 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5315 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5316 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5317 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5318 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5319 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5320 author.
5321 </p><p>
5322 All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American
5323 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5324 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5325 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5326 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5327 available for others to copy.
5328 </p><p>
5329 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5330 </p><p>
5331 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5332 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5333 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5334 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5335 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5336 United States.<sup>[<a name="id2576604" href="#ftn.id2576604" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5337 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5338 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5339 </p><p>
5340
5341
5342 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5343 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5344 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5345 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5346 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5347 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5348 </p><p>
5349 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5350 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5351 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5352 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5353 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5354 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5355 </p><p>
5356 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5357 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5358 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5359 </p><p>
5360 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5361 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5362 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative
5363 rights.</span>»</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5364 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5365 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5366 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5367 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5368 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5369 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5370 </p><p>
5371 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5372 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5373 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5374 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5375 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5376 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5377 the verbatim original work.
5378 </p><p>
5379
5380 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5381 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5382 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5383 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5384 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5385 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5386 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5387 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2576691" href="#ftn.id2576691" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5388 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5389 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5390 </p><p>
5391 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5392 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5393 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5394 book.<sup>[<a name="id2576739" href="#ftn.id2576739" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5395 creative work are treated the same.
5396 </p><p>
5397 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5398 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5399 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5400 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>»</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5401 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5402 </p><p>
5403 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5404 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5405 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5406 originally granted.
5407 </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>
5408 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5409 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5410 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5411 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2576805" href="#ftn.id2576805" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5412 </p><p>
5413
5414
5415 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5416 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5417 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span>
5418 deserves the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">same rights</span>»</span> as all other property, it is the
5419 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5420 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5421 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5422 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5423 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5424 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5425 </p><p>
5426 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5427 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5428 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5429 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2576884" href="#ftn.id2576884" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5430 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5431 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5432 law.
5433 </p><p>
5434 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5435 circle.
5436 </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>
5437
5438
5439 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5440 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5441 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5442 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5443 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5444 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5445 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5446 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5447 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5448 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5449 </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>
5450 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5451 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5452 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5453 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5454 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5455 diagram on next page).
5456 </p><p>
5457 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5458 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
5459 bruk</span>»</span>.
5460 </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
5461 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>
5462 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5463 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5464 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5465 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5466 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5467 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5468 over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5469 Amendment) reasons.
5470 </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
5471 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>
5472
5473
5474 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5475 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5476 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
5477 owner's views.
5478 </p><p>
5479 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5480 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2576815" href="#ftn.id2576815" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5481 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5482 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5483 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5484 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5485 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5486 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5487 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5488 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5489 burden of this shift.
5490 </p><p>
5491
5492 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5493 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5494 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5495 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5496 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5497 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5498 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5499 those uses produced a copy.
5500 </p><p>
5501 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5502 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5503 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5504 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5505 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5506 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5507 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5508 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5509 the copyright owner's wish.
5510 </p><p>
5511 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5512 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5513 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5514 clear:
5515 </p><p>
5516 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5517 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5518 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5519 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5520 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5521 Internet.
5522 </p><p>
5523 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5524 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5525 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5526 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5527 machine. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span>
5528 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5529 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5530 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5531 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5532 </p><p>
5533
5534 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5535 on category 3 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>) that fair use never before had to
5536 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5537 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5538 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5539 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5540 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5541 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5542 because reading was not regulated.
5543 </p><p>
5544 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5545 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5546 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5547 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5548 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5549 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5550 fair use are not enough.
5551 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5552 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5553 business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies
5554 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5555 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5556 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5557 </p><p>
5558 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5559 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5560 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span> technique by
5561 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span>
5562 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5563 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5564 before you bought it.
5565 </p><p>
5566
5567 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5568 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5569 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5570 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5571 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5572 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5573 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5574 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5575 was within their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5576 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5577 rights were in fact their rights.
5578 </p><p>
5579 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5580 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
5581 infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5582 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5583 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5584 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5585 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5586 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5587 </p><p>
5588 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5589 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5590 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5591 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5592 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5593 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5594 Disney's permission.
5595 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2577281"></a><p>
5596 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5597 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5598 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5599 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5600 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>»</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5601 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5602 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5603 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5604 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5605 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5606 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5607 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2577317"></a><p>
5608
5609
5610 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5611 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5612 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5613 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5614 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5615 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5616 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5617 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5618 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5619 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5620 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5621 are quite slight.
5622 </p><p>
5623 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5624 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5625 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5626 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5627 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5628 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5629 </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>
5630 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5631 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5632 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5633 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5634 </p><p>
5635 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5636 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5637 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5638 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5639 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5640 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2577409"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5641 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5642 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5643 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5644 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5645 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2577457" href="#ftn.id2577457" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5646 </p><p>
5647 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt.  De advarte
5648 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
5649 det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2577484" href="#ftn.id2577484" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
5650 ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
5651 å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
5652 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
5653 </p><p>
5654 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5655 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5656 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5657 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5658 </p><p>
5659 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5660 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5661 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5662 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5663 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5664 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5665 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5666 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2577542"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2577550"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5667 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5668 </p><p>
5669 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5670 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5671 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5672 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5673 </p><p>
5674 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5675 </p><p>
5676
5677 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5678 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5679 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5680 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5681 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5682 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5683 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5684 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5685 </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>
5686 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5687 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5688 </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>
5689
5690
5691 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5692 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5693 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5694 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5695 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5696 computer.
5697 </p><p>
5698 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5699 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id2577675"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2577681"></a>
5700 </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>
5701 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5702 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5703 </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>
5704 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5705 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5706 </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>
5707 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5708 boken!
5709 </p><p>
5710 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5711 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5712 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5713 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5714 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5715 power.<sup>[<a name="id2577765" href="#ftn.id2577765" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5716 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5717 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5718 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5719 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5720 </p><p>
5721 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5722 which the e-book <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5723 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> that most
5724 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission</span>»</span> to stay out
5725 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5726 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5727 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5728 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5729 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5730 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5731 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5732 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5733 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5734 simply won't read aloud.
5735 </p><p>
5736
5737 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5738 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5739 to type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from
5740 the sentence.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2577838"></a>
5741 </p><p>
5742 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5743 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5744 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5745 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5746 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5747 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5748 technology have no similar built-in check.
5749 </p><p>
5750 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5751 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5752 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5753 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5754 as well?
5755 </p><p>
5756 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5757 Reader.
5758 </p><p>
5759 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5760 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5761 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5762 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5763 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5764 <a class="indexterm" name="id2577888"></a>
5765 </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>
5766 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5767 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5768 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read
5769 aloud</span>»</span>!
5770 </p><p>
5771 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5772 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5773 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5774 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5775 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5776 absurd.
5777 </p><p>
5778 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5779 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5780 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5781 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5782 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5783 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5784 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5785 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5786 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5787 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5788 </p><p>
5789 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5790 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5791 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5792 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5793 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5794 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2577963"></a><p>
5795 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5796 of mine that makes the same point.
5797 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5798 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>»</span> The Aibo
5799 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5800 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5801 </p><p>
5802 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5803 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5804 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5805
5806 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5807 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5808 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5809 </p><p>
5810 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5811 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5812 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5813 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5814 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5815 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5816 </p><p>
5817 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5818 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5819 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5820 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5821 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5822 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5823 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5824 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5825 run, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drive,</span>»</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5826 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5827 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5828 </p><p>
5829 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5830 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5831 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5832 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5833 ethically.
5834 </p><p>
5835 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5836 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5837 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5838 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5839 built.
5840 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2578102"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2578110"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2578118"></a><p>
5841
5842 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5843 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5844 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5845 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5846 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5847 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5848 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5849 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5850 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5851 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5852 </p><p>
5853 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5854 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5855 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5856 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5857 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5858 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5859 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5860 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5861 knew very well.
5862 </p><p>
5863 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2578163" href="#ftn.id2578163" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5864 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5865 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5866 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5867 </p><p>
5868 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5869 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5870 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5871 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">this music cannot
5872 be copied,</span>»</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5873 was to be part of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trusted system</span>»</span> of control that would get
5874 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5875 </p><p>
5876 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5877 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5878 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5879 problems to the consortium.
5880 </p><p>
5881
5882
5883 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5884 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5885 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5886 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5887 </p><p>
5888 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5889 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5890 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5891 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5892 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5893 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5894 </p><p>
5895 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5896 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5897 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5898 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5899 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5900 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5901 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5902 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5903 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5904 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5905 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5906 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5907 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5908 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2578347"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2578355"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2578363"></a><p>
5909 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5910 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5911 RIAA lawyer that read:
5912 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5913
5914 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5915 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5916 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5917 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
5918 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5919 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5920 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5921 information an offense.
5922 </p><p>
5923 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5924 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5925 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5926 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5927 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5928 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5929 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5930 for copyright owners.
5931 </p><p>
5932 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5933 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5934 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5935 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5936 code of copyright</em></span>.
5937 </p><p>
5938 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5939 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5940 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5941 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5942 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5943 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5944 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2578444"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2578450"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2578456"></a><p>
5945
5946 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5947 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5948 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5949 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5950 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5951 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5952 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5953 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5954 system was circumvented.
5955 </p><p>
5956 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5957 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5958 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5959 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5960 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5961 others to infringe others' copyright.
5962 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2578494"></a><p>
5963 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5964 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5965 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5966 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5967 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5968 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> for example, had testified
5969 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5970 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2578516"></a>
5971 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5972 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5973 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5974 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5975 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5976 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5977 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5978 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5979 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5980 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5981 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You are an important
5982 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe
5983 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5984 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5985 important.<sup>[<a name="id2578556" href="#ftn.id2578556" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5986 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5987
5988
5989 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5990 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5991 responsible.
5992 </p><p>
5993 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5994 <a class="indexterm" name="id2578596"></a>
5995 </p><p>
5996 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5997 </p><p>
5998 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5999 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
6000 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
6001 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
6002 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
6003 use&#8212;a good end.
6004 </p><p>
6005
6006 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
6007 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
6008 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
6009 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
6010 </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>
6011 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
6012 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
6013 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
6014 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
6015 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
6016 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2578655"></a>
6017 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2578662"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2578668"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2578675"></a><p>
6018 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
6019 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
6020 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6021 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6022 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6023 erasing.
6024 </p><p>
6025 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6026 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6027 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6028 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6029 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6030 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6031 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6032 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6033 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6034 </p><p>
6035 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6036 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6037 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6038 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6039 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6040 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6041 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6042 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6043 violate the rules.
6044 </p><p>
6045
6046
6047 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6048 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6049 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6050 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6051 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2578739" href="#ftn.id2578739" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6052 </p><p>
6053 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6054 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6055 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6056 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6057 wished without fear of legal control.
6058 </p><p>
6059 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6060 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6061 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6062 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6063 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6064 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6065 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6066 is quick.
6067 </p><p>
6068 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6069 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6070 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6071 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6072 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6073 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6074 </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>
6075
6076 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6077 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6078 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6079 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6080 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6081 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6082 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6083 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6084 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6085 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6086 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6087 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6088 to copyright's control.
6089 </p><p>
6090 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6091 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6092 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6093 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6094 about all the other changes I have described.
6095 </p><p>
6096 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6097 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6098 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6099 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6100 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6101 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6102 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6103 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6104 </p><p>
6105 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6106 </p><p>
6107 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6108 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6109 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6110 sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2578853" href="#ftn.id2578853" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6111 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6112 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2578865" href="#ftn.id2578865" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6113 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6114 nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2578883" href="#ftn.id2578883" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578896"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578902"></a>
6115 <a class="indexterm" name="id2578908"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578914"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578921"></a>
6116 </p><p>
6117
6118 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6119 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6120 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6121 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6122 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6123 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6124 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6125 revenues.
6126 </p><p>
6127 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6128 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6129 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6130 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6131 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6132 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6133 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6134 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6135 market.
6136 </p><p>
6137 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6138 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6139 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2578952"></a>
6140 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6141 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6142 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6143 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6144 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6145 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6146 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6147 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6148 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6149 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2578977" href="#ftn.id2578977" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6150 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6151 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6152 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6153 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6154 thousand words could do:
6155 </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>
6156
6157
6158 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6159 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6160 distribuere innhold?
6161 </p><p>
6162 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6163 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6164 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6165 begynt å endre mening.
6166 </p><p>
6167 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6168 er viktig.
6169 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579059"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2579066"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2579072"></a><p>
6170 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6171 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6172 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6173 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6174 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6175 ikke mer.
6176 </p><p>
6177 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6178 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6179 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6180 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2579104" href="#ftn.id2579104" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6181 </p><p>
6182
6183
6184
6185 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6186 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6187 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6188 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6189 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6190 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independent</span>»</span> of the networks.
6191 </p><p>
6192 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6193 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6194 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6195 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6196 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6197 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6198 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6199 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6200 one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2579167" href="#ftn.id2579167" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6201 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the
6202 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6203 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6204 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6205 studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2579195" href="#ftn.id2579195" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6206 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579202"></a><p>
6207 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6208 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6209 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6210 increasingly owned by the network.
6211 </p><p>
6212 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6213 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6214 <a class="indexterm" name="id2579226"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2579232"></a>
6215 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6216 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6217 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6218 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6219 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6220 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6221 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2579251" href="#ftn.id2579251" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6222 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6223 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6224 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6225 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6226 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6227 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6228 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6229 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6230 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6231 the environment for a democracy.
6232 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579278"></a><p>
6233 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6234 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6235 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6236 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6237 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6238 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6239 trends.<sup>[<a name="id2579309" href="#ftn.id2579309" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6240 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6241 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2579340"></a>
6242 </p><p>
6243 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6244 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6245 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6246 </p><p>
6247 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6248 the concern.
6249 </p><p>
6250 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6251 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6252 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6253 </p><p>
6254
6255 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6256 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6257 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6258 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6259 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6260 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6261 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6262 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6263 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6264 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6265 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6266 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6267 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6268 </p><p>
6269 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6270 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6271 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6272 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6273 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6274 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign
6275 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6276 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6277 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6278 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6279 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6280 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6281 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6282 campaign.
6283 </p><p>
6284 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6285 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6286 </p><p>
6287 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6288 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6289 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6290 war. Can you do it?
6291 </p><p>
6292
6293 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6294 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6295 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6296 heard then?
6297 </p><p>
6298 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6299 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6300 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6301 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6302 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6303 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6304 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6305 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2579478" href="#ftn.id2579478" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6306 </p><p>
6307 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6308 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6309 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6310 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6311 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6312 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6313 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6314 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6315 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579374"></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>
6316 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6317 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span> In
6318 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6319 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6320 </p><p>
6321
6322 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> has
6323 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6324 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6325 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6326 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6327 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6328 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6329 expanded <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6330 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6331 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6332 </p><p>
6333 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6334 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6335 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6336 today.
6337 </p><p>
6338 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6339 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6340 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6341 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6342 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6343 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6344 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6345 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6346 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6347 </p><p>
6348 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6349 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6350 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6351 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6352 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6353 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6354 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6355 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6356 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6357 </p><p>
6358
6359 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6360 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6361 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6362 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6363 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6364 our culture than now</em></span>.
6365 </p><p>
6366 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6367 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6368 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6369 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6370 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6371 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6372 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6373 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6374 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6375 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6376 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6377 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6378 known.<sup>[<a name="id2579722" href="#ftn.id2579722" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6379 </p><p>
6380 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6381 </p><p>
6382 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6383 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6384 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6385 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6386 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6387 </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>
6388
6389 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6390 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6391 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6392 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6393 free.
6394 </p><p>
6395 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6396 </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>
6397 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6398 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6399 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6400 essentially free.
6401 </p><p>
6402 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6403 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6404 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6405 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6406 look like this:
6407 </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>
6408 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6409 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6410 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6411 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6412 like this:
6413 </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>
6414
6415 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6416 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6417 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6418 commercial publishers.
6419 </p><p>
6420 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6421 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6422 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6423 actually does any good.
6424 </p><p>
6425 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6426 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6427 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6428 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6429 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6430 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6431 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6432 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6433 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6434 </p><p>
6435 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6436 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
6437 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6438 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6439 rights<sup>[<a name="id2580078" href="#ftn.id2580078" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6440 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6441 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6442 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6443 tradition, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6444 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6445 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6446 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6447 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2580118"></a><p>
6448
6449 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6450 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
6451 birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6452 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6453 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> is animated by
6454 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6455 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6456 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6457 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6458 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6459 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6460 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6461 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6462 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6463 </p><p>
6464 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6465 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6466 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6467 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6468 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6469 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6470 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6471 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6472 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6473 with a lawyer.
6474 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574856" href="#id2574856" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6475
6476
6477 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6478 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6479 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6480 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6481 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6482 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574924" href="#id2574924" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6483
6484
6485 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6486 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6487 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property right</span>»</span> to my car gives me the right
6488 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6489 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
6490 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6491 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6492 26&#8211;27.
6493 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575364" href="#id2575364" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6494
6495
6496 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6497 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6498 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6499 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6500 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6501 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6502 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6503 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6504 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575439" href="#id2575439" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6505
6506 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They
6507 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6508 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6509 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6510 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6511 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6512 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6513 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6514 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6515 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6516 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6517 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6518 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6519 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6520 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6521 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6522 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6523 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>»</span> in
6524 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6525 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6526 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6527 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6528 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6529 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6530 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6531 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6532 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575493"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575502"></a>
6533 <a class="indexterm" name="id2575509"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575516"></a>
6534 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575701" href="#id2575701" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6535
6536
6537 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6538 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
6539 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6540 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6541 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6542 #24</a>.
6543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575776" href="#id2575776" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6544
6545
6546 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6547 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6548 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575947" href="#id2575947" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6549
6550
6551 Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6552 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6553 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6554 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576178" href="#id2576178" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6555
6556 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6557 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6558 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6559 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6560 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
6561 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2576197"></a>
6562 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576246" href="#id2576246" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6563
6564
6565 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6566 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6567 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6568 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6569 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6570 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6571 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6572 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6573 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6574 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6575 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6576 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6577 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6578 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576314" href="#id2576314" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6579
6580
6581 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6582 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6583 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6584 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6585 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6586 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6587 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
6588 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6589 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576349" href="#id2576349" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6590
6591
6592 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576450" href="#id2576450" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6593
6594
6595 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6596 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6597 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6598 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
6599 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576604" href="#id2576604" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6600
6601
6602 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6603 Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6604 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6605 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6606 1987).
6607
6608 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576691" href="#id2576691" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6609
6610 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
6611 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="id2576720"></a>
6612 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576739" href="#id2576739" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6613
6614 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6615 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6616 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and derivative
6617 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6618 Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6619 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2576757"></a>
6620 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576805" href="#id2576805" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6621
6622
6623 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6624 regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6625 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6626 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6627 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span>;
6628 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6629 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span>
6630 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6631 is a copy, there is a right.
6632 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576884" href="#id2576884" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6633
6634
6635 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6636 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6637 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6638 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6639 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576815" href="#id2576815" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6640
6641
6642 I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6643 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6644 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6645 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6646 number of copies remain.
6647 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577457" href="#id2577457" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6648
6649
6650 Se David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
6651 and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172&#8211;73.
6652 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577484" href="#id2577484" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6653
6654 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6655 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2577471"></a>
6656 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577765" href="#id2577765" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6657
6658
6659 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6660 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6661 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6662 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6663 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6664 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6665 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578163" href="#id2578163" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6666
6667 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6668 Science,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6669 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6670 New Tricks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6671 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>»</span>
6672 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6673 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6674 Concerns,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6675 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6676 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6677 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6678 Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2578219"></a>
6679 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578556" href="#id2578556" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6680
6681 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6682 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6683 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6684 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6685 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2577492"></a>
6686 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578739" href="#id2578739" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6687
6688
6689 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
6690 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
6691 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6692 (1997): 651.
6693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578853" href="#id2578853" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6694
6695
6696 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6697 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6698 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578865" href="#id2578865" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6699
6700
6701 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6702 Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6703 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578883" href="#id2578883" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6704
6705
6706 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span>
6707 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6708 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578977" href="#id2578977" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6709
6710 James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6711 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2578996"></a>
6712 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579104" href="#id2579104" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6713
6714
6715 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6716 Center Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span>
6717 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6718 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6719 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6720 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579167" href="#id2579167" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6721
6722
6723 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6724 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6725 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6726 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6727 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6728 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6729 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579195" href="#id2579195" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6730
6731
6732 ibid.
6733 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579251" href="#id2579251" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6734
6735
6736 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
6737 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
6738 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6739 #31</a>.
6740 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579309" href="#id2579309" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6741
6742
6743 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6744 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6745 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6746 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6747 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6748 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6749 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6750 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6751 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6752 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6753 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579478" href="#id2579478" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6754
6755 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6756 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6757 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against [their]
6758 policy.</span>»</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6759 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6760 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6761 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6762 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6763 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6764 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6765 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6766 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6767 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6768 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6769 Radio,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6770 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6771 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6772 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6773 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6774 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6775 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6776 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6777 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
6778 the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2579542"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2579550"></a>
6779 <a class="indexterm" name="id2579556"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2579562"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2579569"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2579575"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2579581"></a>
6780 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579722" href="#id2579722" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6781
6782 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire
6783 kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
6784 Vaidhyanathan, 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2579513"></a>
6785 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580078" href="#id2580078" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6786
6787 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6788 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6789 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6790 Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6791 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6792 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2580093"></a>
6793 </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 elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>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>
6794 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6795 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6796 the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2580239" href="#ftn.id2580239" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
6797 extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
6798 climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
6799 excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
6800 as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells
6801 himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live
6802 with the villagers to explore life as a king.
6803 </p><p>
6804 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6805 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6806 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind.</span>»</span> They don't have the word
6807 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6808 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6809 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6810 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6811 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6812 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>»</span>
6813 </p><p>
6814
6815
6816 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6817 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6818 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6819 of creation,</span>»</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6820 what he sees <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6821 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6822 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She
6823 did not believe,</span>»</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">she could only half
6824 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>»</span>
6825 </p><p>
6826 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mysteriously
6827 delighted</span>»</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You see,
6828 my dear,</span>»</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6829 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>»</span> They take Nunez to the
6830 village doctor.
6831 </p><p>
6832 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">His brain
6833 is affected,</span>»</span> he reports.
6834 </p><p>
6835 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>»</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Those queer things
6836 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6837 affect his brain.</span>»</span>
6838 </p><p>
6839 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6840 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6841 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6842 eyes].</span>»</span>
6843 </p><p>
6844
6845 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6846 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6847 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6848 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)  It
6849 sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
6850 fusion produces a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature
6851 with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
6852 from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6853 mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6854 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>»</span>
6855 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2580394"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2580401"></a><p>
6856 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6857 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6858 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6859 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6860 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> should
6861 reflect this reality.
6862 </p><p>
6863 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6864 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6865 enough, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>»</span> the more I think we're dealing
6866 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What is
6867 p2p file sharing?</span>»</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6868 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6869 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6870 years without any question at all.</span>»</span> That's true, at least in
6871 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6872 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6873 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6874 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6875 </p><p>
6876 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6877 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6878 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6879 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6880 friends</span>»</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6881 friend is what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>»</span> we have not
6882 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6883 friends.</span>»</span>
6884 </p><p>
6885 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6886 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6887 it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6888 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6889 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6890 <a class="indexterm" name="id2580485"></a>
6891 </p><p>
6892
6893
6894
6895 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6896 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6897 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6898 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6899 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6900 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6901 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6902 </p><p>
6903 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6904 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6905 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6906 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6907 rules should govern it?
6908 </p><p>
6909 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6910 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6911 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6912 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6913 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6914 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6915 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2580526" href="#ftn.id2580526" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6916
6917 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2580624"></a><p>
6918 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6919 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6920 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6921 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6922 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6923 </p><p>
6924 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6925 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6926 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6927 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6928 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6929 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6930 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6931 of the two extremes.
6932 </p><p>
6933
6934
6935
6936 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6937 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6938 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6939 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6940 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6941 will be lost.
6942 </p><p>
6943 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
6944 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6945 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6946 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6947 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6948 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6949 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6950 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6951 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6952 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6953 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6954 and we want to protect those rights.
6955 </p><p>
6956 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6957 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6958 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6959 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6960 industry model.
6961 </p><p>
6962 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6963 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6964 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6965 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6966 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6967 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6968 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6969 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2580718" href="#ftn.id2580718" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6970 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6971 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6972 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
6973 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2580743"></a>
6974 </p><p>
6975 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6976 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6977 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6978 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580239" href="#id2580239" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6979
6980
6981 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
6982 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6983 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6984 Press, 1996).
6985 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580526" href="#id2580526" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
6986
6987 For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
6988 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
6989 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
6990 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6991 #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
6992 (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized on-line
6993 copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high as five years
6994 imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on
6995 Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003,
6996 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6997 #34</a>. Civil penalties are currently set at $150,000 per copied
6998 song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
6999 that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than 600
7000 songs through a family computer, see <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
7001 v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In re. Verizon Internet
7002 Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could
7003 face liability ranging as high as $90 million. Such astronomical figures
7004 furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
7005 sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to $17,500 for four students
7006 accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
7007 pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
7008 proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to
7009 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
7010 RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
7011 universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
7012 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,</span>»</span>
7013 <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="id2580607"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580616"></a>
7014 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580718" href="#id2580718" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
7015
7016
7017 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
7018 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
7019 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
7020 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
7021 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7022 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
7023 To fight <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the
7024 content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
7025 contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
7026 war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
7027 of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
7028 </p><p>
7029 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7030 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now
7031 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7032 justified?
7033 </p><p>
7034 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7035 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7036 the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest
7037 in our history.
7038 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2580805"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2580811"></a><p>
7039 Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7040 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7041 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7042 rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
7043 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2580830"></a><p>
7044
7045
7046 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7047 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7048 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7049 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7050 today's monopolists of culture.
7051 </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>
7052 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7053 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7054 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7055 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7056 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7057 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7058 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7059 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7060 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7061 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7062 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7063 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7064 </p><p>
7065 This digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> is in part an extension of
7066 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7067 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7068 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7069 digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> promises a world of
7070 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7071 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7072 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7073 contribute to the culture all around.
7074 </p><p>
7075
7076 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7077 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7078 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7079 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7080 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7081 </p><p>
7082 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7083 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7084 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7085 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7086 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7087 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7088 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7089 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7090 presumptively illegal.
7091 </p><p>
7092 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7093 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7094 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7095 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7096 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7097 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7098 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7099 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7100 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7101 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2580944" href="#ftn.id2580944" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7102 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7103 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7104 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2580982" href="#ftn.id2580982" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7105 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7106 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7107 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2581026"></a>
7108 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581033"></a><p>
7109 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7110 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7111 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7112 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7113 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7114 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7115 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7116 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7117 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7118 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7119 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7120 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal
7121 art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2581051" href="#ftn.id2581051" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7122 what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7123 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7124 </p><p>
7125 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7126 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7127 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7128 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7129 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7130 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7131 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7132 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7133 </p><p>
7134 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7135 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7136 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7137 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7138 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7139 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7140 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7141 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7142 them is not similarly free.
7143 </p><p>
7144 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7145 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7146 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7147 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7148 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7149 </p><p>
7150
7151
7152
7153 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7154 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7155 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7156 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7157 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7158 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7159 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7160 on the rule of law.
7161 </p><p>
7162 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7163 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">breathing room</span>»</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7164 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7165 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7166 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7167 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7168 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7169 relationship to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law</span>»</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7170 </p><p>
7171 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7172 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7173 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7174 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7175 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7176 that pass under the name <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> silence speech and
7177 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7178 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7179 </p><p>
7180 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7181 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7182
7183 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7184 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7185 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7186 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7187 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7188 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even
7189 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7190 which they control it.
7191 </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>
7192 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7193 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7194 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7195 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7196 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7197 you.
7198 </p><p>
7199 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7200 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7201 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7202 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7203 substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span> every place I've spoken of
7204 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7205 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7206 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581255"></a><p>
7207 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7208 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7209 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7210 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7211 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7212 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7213 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7214 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7215 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7216 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7217 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581264"></a><p>
7218
7219 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7220 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7221 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7222 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7223 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7224 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7225 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7226 calls a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the
7227 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7228 </p><p>
7229 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7230 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7231 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7232 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581319"></a><p>
7233 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7234 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7235 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7236 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7237 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7238 the creators.
7239 </p><p>
7240 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7241 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7242 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7243 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7244 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581342"></a>
7245 </p><p>
7246 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7247 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7248 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7249 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7250 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7251 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7252 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7253 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7254 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7255 </p><p>
7256
7257 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7258 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7259 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7260 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7261 the users liked.
7262 </p><p>
7263 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7264 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7265 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7266 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7267 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7268 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7269 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7270 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7271 something they had already bought.
7272 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7273 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7274 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7275 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7276 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7277 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7278 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7279 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7280 </p><p>
7281 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7282 </p><p>
7283 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7284 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7285 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7286 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7287 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7288 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7289 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7290 </p><p>
7291
7292 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7293 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7294 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7295 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7296 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7297 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7298 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7299 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581447"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2581455"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2581461"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2581467"></a><p>
7300 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7301 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7302 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7303 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2581481" href="#ftn.id2581481" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7304 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7305 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7306 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7307 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7308 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7309 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7310 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7311 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7312 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7313 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2581528"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2581534"></a>
7314 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2581543"></a><p>
7315 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7316 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7317 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7318 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7319 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7320 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id2581211" href="#ftn.id2581211" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7321 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7322 Dette er verden til mafiaen&#8212;fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
7323 livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
7324 loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
7325 åpenbart og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å
7326 starte et selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av
7327 søksmål.
7328 </p><p>
7329
7330
7331
7332 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7333 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal.</span>»</span> The law
7334 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7335 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7336 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7337 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7338 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7339 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7340 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7341 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7342 and much less creativity.
7343 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581630"></a><p>
7344 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7345 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7346 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7347 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7348 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7349 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7350 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7351 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7352 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7353 </p><p>
7354
7355 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7356 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7357 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7358 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7359 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7360 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7361 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7362 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7363 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7364 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7365 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7366 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7367 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7368 justifying to justify that result.  The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7369 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7370 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7371 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7372 content.
7373 </p><p>
7374 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7375 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7376 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7377 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bug.</span>»</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7378 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7379 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7380 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then, this
7381 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7382 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581699"></a><p>
7383 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7384 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7385 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7386 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2581712" href="#ftn.id2581712" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7387 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on
7388 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7389 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7390 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7391 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7392 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2581742" href="#ftn.id2581742" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7393 </p><p>
7394
7395 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7396 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7397 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7398 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7399 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7400 </p><p>
7401 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7402 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7403 impose.<sup>[<a name="id2581765" href="#ftn.id2581765" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7404 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7405 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581778"></a>
7406 </p><p>
7407 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7408 innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7409 market crowd.
7410 </p><p>
7411 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7412 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7413 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7414 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7415 </p><p>
7416 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7417 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7418 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2581813" href="#ftn.id2581813" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7419 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7420 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7421 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7422 case of the VCR) has been another.
7423 </p><p>
7424 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7425 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7426 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7427 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7428 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7429 </p><p>
7430 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2581849" href="#ftn.id2581849" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7431 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7432 here.<sup>[<a name="id2581884" href="#ftn.id2581884" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7433 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7434 radio.
7435 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581945"></a><p>
7436
7437
7438 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7439 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
7440 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7441 version of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7442 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7443 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7444 owners of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> would get some money, whereas
7445 Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581984"></a>
7446 </p><p>
7447 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7448 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7449 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7450 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7451 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7452 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7453 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7454 compensation to the recording artists.
7455 </p><p>
7456 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7457 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7458 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7459 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tune in</span>»</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7460 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7461 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7462 </p><p>
7463 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7464 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7465 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7466 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7467 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7468 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7469 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7470 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7471 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7472 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7473 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2582035"></a><p>
7474
7475
7476
7477 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7478 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7479 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7480 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7481 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7482 struggle to enable FM radio,
7483 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7484 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7485 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7486 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7487 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7488 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7489 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7490 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7491 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7492 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7493 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7494 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7495 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2581559" href="#ftn.id2581559" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7496 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7497 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7498 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7499 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2582089" href="#ftn.id2582089" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7500 </p><p>
7501 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7502 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7503 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7504 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7505 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7506 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments2"></a><p>
7507
7508 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7509 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7510 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7511 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7512 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7513 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7514 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> on the
7515 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7516 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7517 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7518 </p><p>
7519 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7520 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7521 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7522 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7523 year.<sup>[<a name="id2582152" href="#ftn.id2582152" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7524 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7525 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2582208"></a><p>
7526 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7527 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7528 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7529 transaction</em></span>:
7530 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7531 navn på tjenesten,
7532 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7533 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7534 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7535 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7536 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7537 dato for sending;
7538 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7539 tidspunkt for sending;
7540 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7541 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7542 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7543 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7544 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7545 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7546 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7547 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7548 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7549 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7550 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7551 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7552 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7553 the track;
7554 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7555 spillende plateartist;
7556 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7557 tittel på album i butikker;
7558 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7559 plateselskap;
7560 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7561 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7562 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7563 katalognummer;
7564 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7565 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7566 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7567 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7568 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7569 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7570 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7571 kanal eller program;
7572 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7573 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7574 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7575 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7576 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7577 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7578 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7579 unik bruker-identifikator;
7580 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7581 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7582 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7583 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7584 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7585 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7586 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7587 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7588 not.
7589 </p><p>
7590 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7591 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7592 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7593 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2582383"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
7594 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7595 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7596 Real Networks, told me,
7597 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7598
7599 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7600 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7601 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7602 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7603 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How do you come
7604 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7605 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7606 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7607 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>»</span>
7608 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2582418"></a><p>
7609 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7610 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7611 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7612 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis added.)
7613 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2582457"></a><p>
7614 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7615 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7616 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7617 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7618 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7619 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7620 </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>
7621 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7622 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7623 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7624 </p><p>
7625 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7626 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7627 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7628 </p><p>
7629
7630 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7631 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7632 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7633 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2582517" href="#ftn.id2582517" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7634 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7635 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7636 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7637 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7638 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7639 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7640 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7641 </p><p>
7642 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7643 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7644 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7645 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7646 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7647 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7648 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7649 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7650 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7651 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7652 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2582143" href="#ftn.id2582143" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7653 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7654 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7655 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7656 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7657 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7658 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7659 </p><p>
7660 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7661 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7662 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7663 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7664 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7665 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7666 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7667 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2582598" href="#ftn.id2582598" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7668 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7669 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2582615" href="#ftn.id2582615" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7670 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7671 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7672 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2582632" href="#ftn.id2582632" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
7673 society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7674 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7675 regularly violate at least some law.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2582653"></a>
7676 </p><p>
7677 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7678 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7679 about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
7680 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7681 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7682 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7683 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7684 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7685 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7686 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7687 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7688 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7689 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7690 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7691 <a class="indexterm" name="id2582672"></a>
7692 </p><p>
7693 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7694 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7695 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7696 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7697 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7698 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7699 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7700 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7701 </p><p>
7702
7703
7704
7705 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7706 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7707 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7708 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7709 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7710 </p><p>
7711 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7712 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7713 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7714 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7715 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7716 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7717 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7718 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7719 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7720 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7721 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing.</span>»</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7722 Americans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">citizens,</span>»</span> not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">felons.</span>»</span>
7723 </p><p>
7724 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7725 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7726 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7727 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7728 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7729 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7730 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7731 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7732 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7733 </p><p>
7734 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7735 </p><p>
7736
7737 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7738 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7739 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7740 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7741 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of the
7742 recordings is free.
7743 </p><p>
7744 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7745 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7746 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> to copy, or
7747 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip,</span>»</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7748 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was
7749 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7750 Burn</span>»</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7751 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2582811"></a><p>
7752 This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7753 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7754 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7755 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7756 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7757 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7758 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7759 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7760 right.
7761 </p><p>
7762 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7763 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7764 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7765 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7766 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7767 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7768 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7769 </p><p>
7770
7771 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7772 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7773 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7774 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7775 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7776 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7777 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7778 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7779 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
7780 </p><p>
7781 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7782 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7783 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7784 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7785 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7786 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7787 easily?
7788 </p><p>
7789 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7790 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7791 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7792 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7793 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7794 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7795 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7796 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7797 </p><p>
7798 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7799 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7800 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7801 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7802 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7803 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7804 horse-drawn buggy.
7805 </p><p>
7806 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7807 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7808 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7809 as criminals and their own survival.
7810 </p><p>
7811 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7812 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7813 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7814 important as our tradition of free culture.  There's one more aspect to this
7815 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7816 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7817 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral
7818 damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7819 of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This is the collateral damage to
7820 civil liberties generally.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2582935"></a>
7821 </p><p>
7822 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
7823 von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2582951"></a>
7824 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7825 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7826 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7827 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7828 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7829 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7830 soon as we think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7831 lawbreaker.</span>»</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7832 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7833 into <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>»</span>
7834 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7835 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7836 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7837 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7838 </p><p>
7839 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7840 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7841 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7842 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7843 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7844 user is revealed.
7845 </p><p>
7846
7847 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7848 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7849 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7850 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7851 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7852 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7853 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2583009" href="#ftn.id2583009" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7854
7855 </p><p>
7856 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7857 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7858 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2583065" href="#ftn.id2583065" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7859 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7860 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7861 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
7862 </p><p>
7863 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7864 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7865 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7866 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7867 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7868 if the college network is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cooperating</span>»</span> with the RIAA's
7869 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7870 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7871 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules
7872 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2583109" href="#ftn.id2583109" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7873 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7874 </p><p>
7875 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7876 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7877 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7878 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7879 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7880 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7881 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7882 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7883 Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2583196"></a>
7884 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7885 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7886 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7887 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7888 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7889 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7890 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7891 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7892 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7893 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7894 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7895 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7896 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7897 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7898 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7899 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7900 million of them.
7901 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7902 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7903 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals</span>»</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7904 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7905 millions being considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain?
7906 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7907 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7908 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580944" href="#id2580944" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7909
7910 Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7911 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7912 for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7913 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
7914 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7915 #37</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2580969"></a>
7916 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580982" href="#id2580982" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7917  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7918 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7919 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7920 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7921 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7922 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7923 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7924 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7925 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581013"></a>
7926 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581051" href="#id2581051" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7927
7928
7929
7930 Se Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free</span>»</span>,
7931 <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
7932 utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7933 #41</a>.
7934 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581481" href="#id2581481" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7935
7936
7937 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span>
7938 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7939 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7940 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>»</span>
7941 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,
7942 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7943 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7944 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581211" href="#id2581211" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7945
7946 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s</span>»</span>,
7947 <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
7948 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581579"></a>
7949 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581712" href="#id2581712" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7950
7951 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span>
7952 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7953 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7954 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581742" href="#id2581742" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7955
7956
7957 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7958 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581765" href="#id2581765" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7959
7960
7961 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span>
7962 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7963 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581813" href="#id2581813" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7964
7965 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7966 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581820"></a>
7967 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581849" href="#id2581849" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7968
7969
7970 The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
7971 Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7972 Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of
7973 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7974 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7975 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7976 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7977 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7978 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7979 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
7980 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
7981 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7982 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7983 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581884" href="#id2581884" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
7984
7985 <a class="indexterm" name="id2581887"></a> For example, in July 2002,
7986 Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention
7987 Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for
7988 damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop
7989 copyright infringement. In August 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin
7990 introduced a bill to mandate that technologies capable of rebroadcasting
7991 digital copies of films broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a
7992 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would disable copying of that
7993 content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced
7994 the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, which mandated
7995 copyright protection technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2,
7996 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
7997 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581922"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2581928"></a>
7998 <a class="indexterm" name="id2581934"></a>
7999 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581559" href="#id2581559" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
8000
8001
8002 Lessing, 239.
8003 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582089" href="#id2582089" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
8004
8005
8006 Ibid., 229.
8007 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582152" href="#id2582152" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
8008
8009 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
8010 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
8011 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
8012 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
8013 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
8014 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
8015 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
8016 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright as
8017 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
8018 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
8019 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
8020 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
8021 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
8022 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
8023 media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2582189"></a>
8024 <a class="indexterm" name="id2582198"></a>
8025 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582517" href="#id2582517" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
8026
8027 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
8028 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
8029 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8030 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8031 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582143" href="#id2582143" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8032
8033
8034 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8035 Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8036 Business.
8037 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582598" href="#id2582598" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8038
8039
8040 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8041 Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8042 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8043 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582615" href="#id2582615" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8044
8045
8046 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8047 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8048 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8049 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582632" href="#id2582632" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8050
8051
8052 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
8053 Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8054 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8055 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583009" href="#id2583009" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8056
8057
8058 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8059 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
8060 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8061 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8062 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8063 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8064 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording
8065 Industry Sues Parents,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8066 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8067 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8068 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
8069 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8070 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583065" href="#id2583065" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8071
8072
8073 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
8074 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
8075 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583109" href="#id2583109" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8076
8077
8078 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8079 Penitent,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8080 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8081 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>»</span>
8082 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8083 Armstrong, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>»</span>
8084 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8085 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8086 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>»</span>
8087 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8088 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>»</span>
8089 <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,
8090 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8091 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8092 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8093 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8094 September 2000, 3D.
8095 </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>
8096 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
8097 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
8098 hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
8099 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8100 </p><p>
8101 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8102 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8103 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8104 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8105 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8106 </p><p>
8107 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil
8108 ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
8109 virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.
8110 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
8111 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til
8112 seg selv vil brenne ut.
8113 </p><p>
8114
8115
8116 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8117 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8118 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8119 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8120 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8121 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8122 </p><p>
8123 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8124 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8125 bensin på denne brannen.
8126 </p><p>
8127 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8128 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8129 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8130 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8131 burde holde øynene på veien.
8132 </p><p>
8133 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8134 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8135 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8136 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8137 å lykkes.
8138 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8139 In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
8140 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
8141 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
8142 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
8143 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
8144 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
8145 </p><p>
8146 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8147 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8148 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8149 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8150 </p><p>
8151
8152 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8153 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8154 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8155 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8156 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8157 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8158 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8159 </p><p>
8160 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8161 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8162 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8163 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8164 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8165 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8166 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8167 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8168 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8169 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8170 works.
8171 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2583448"></a><p>
8172 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8173 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8174 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8175 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8176 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8177 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the Internet
8178 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8179 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8180 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2583471" href="#ftn.id2583471" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8181 </p><p>
8182 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8183 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8184 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8185 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8186 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8187 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8188 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8189 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8190 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8191 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8192 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2583510"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583526"></a><p>
8193
8194
8195 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8196 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8197 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8198 forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2583540" href="#ftn.id2583540" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8199
8200 </p><p>
8201 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8202 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8203 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8204 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8205 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8206 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8207 </p><p>
8208 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8209 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8210 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8211 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8212 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8213 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8214 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8215 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8216 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8217 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8218 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8219 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8220 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8221 example, to regulate <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> or
8222 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">declare War.</span>»</span> But here, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something</span>»</span> is
8223 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8224 Progress</span>»</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8225 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8226 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
8227 </p><p>
8228 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8229 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8230 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8231 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> will have no practical
8232 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8233 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8234 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>»</span> as
8235 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2583652"></a>
8236 </p><p>
8237 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8238 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8239 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8240 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8241 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8242 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8243 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8244 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8245 </p><p>
8246 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8247 government. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Corruption</span>»</span> not in the sense that representatives
8248 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">corruption</span>»</span> in the sense that the system
8249 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8250 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8251 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8252 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8253 </p><p>
8254 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8255 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8256 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8257 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8258 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8259 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8260 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8261 </p><p>
8262 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8263 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8264 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8265 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8266 </p><p>
8267
8268 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Next year,</span>»</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8269 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8270 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8271 of those works.</span>»</span>
8272 </p><p>
8273 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>»</span> she continues,
8274 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8275 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8276 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>»</span>
8277 </p><p>
8278 <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
8279 something about it?</span>»</span>
8280 </p><p>
8281 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We could
8282 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8283 that they support the bill.</span>»</span>
8284 </p><p>
8285 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8286 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much would we get
8287 if this extension were passed?</span>»</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much
8288 is it worth?</span>»</span>
8289 </p><p>
8290 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well,</span>»</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8291 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8292 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8293 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>»</span>
8294 </p><p>
8295 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8296 conclusion:
8297 </p><p>
8298 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8299 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8300 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>»</span>
8301 </p><p>
8302 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8303 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8304 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>»</span>
8305 </p><p>
8306
8307 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8308 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8309 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8310 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8311 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8312 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8313 extended.
8314 </p><p>
8315 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8316 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8317 buy further extensions of copyright.
8318 </p><p>
8319 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8320 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
8321 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8322 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8323 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2583846" href="#ftn.id2583846" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8324 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8325 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2583864" href="#ftn.id2583864" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8326 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2583882" href="#ftn.id2583882" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8327
8328 </p><p>
8329 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8330 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8331 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8332 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8333 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8334 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8335 constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they
8336 could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8337 </p><p>
8338
8339 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8340 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8341 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8342 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8343 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8344 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8345 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8346 </p><p>
8347 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8348 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8349 only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> (aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interstate
8350 commerce</span>»</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8351 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8352 </p><p>
8353 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8354 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8355 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8356 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8357 limit.
8358 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2583960"></a><p>
8359 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8360 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8361 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8362 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8363 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8364 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8365 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8366 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8367 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8368 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8369 </p><p>
8370 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8371 arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2583994" href="#ftn.id2583994" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8372 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8373 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8374 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8375 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2584021" href="#ftn.id2584021" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8376 </p><p>
8377
8378 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8379 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2584041" href="#ftn.id2584041" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8380 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8381 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8382 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping
8383 point</span>»</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8384 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8385 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8386 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8387 </p><p>
8388 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8389 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8390 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8391 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8392 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8393 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8394 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fidelity</span>»</span>
8395 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8396 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8397 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8398 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8399 </p><p>
8400 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8401 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8402 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8403 piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8404 piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8405 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8406 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8407 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8408 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8409 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8410 these entities were using their power&#8212;expressed through the power of
8411 lobbyists' money&#8212;to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8412 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8413 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8414 </p><p>
8415 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8416 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8417 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2584131" href="#ftn.id2584131" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8418 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8419 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8420 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2584157"></a>
8421 </p><p>
8422 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8423 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8424 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8425 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8426 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8427 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8428 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8429 </p><p>
8430 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8431 Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too
8432 valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
8433 from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget
8434 Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and
8435 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
8436 comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
8437 not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8438 </p><p>
8439 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8440 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8441 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8442 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8443 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8444 generally.<sup>[<a name="id2584202" href="#ftn.id2584202" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8445
8446 </p><p>
8447
8448 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8449 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8450 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8451 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8452 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8453 have to do?
8454 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584228"></a><p>
8455 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8456 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8457 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8458 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8459 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8460 under copyright.
8461 </p><p>
8462 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8463 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8464 </p><p>
8465 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8466 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8467 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8468 </p><p>
8469 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8470 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8471 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8472 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8473 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8474 </p><p>
8475 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>»</span> the
8476 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8477 copyright owners?</span>»</span>
8478 </p><p>
8479 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8480 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8481 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8482 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8483 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8484 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8485 </p><p>
8486
8487 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8488 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8489 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8490 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8491 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8492 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8493 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8494 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8495 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8496 </p><p>
8497 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8498 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8499 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8500 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8501 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8502 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8503 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8504 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8505 to be used.
8506 </p><p>
8507 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8508 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8509 creative works is much more dire.
8510 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584349"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584355"></a><p>
8511 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8512 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8513 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8514 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8515 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8516 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8517 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8518 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8519 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8520 films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2584379" href="#ftn.id2584379" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584402"></a>
8521 </p><p>
8522 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8523 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8524 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8525 a whole generation of American film.
8526 </p><p>
8527
8528 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8529 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8530 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8531 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8532 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8533 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8534 </p><p>
8535 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8536 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8537 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8538 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8539 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2584439" href="#ftn.id2584439" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8540
8541 </p><p>
8542 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8543 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8544 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8545 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8546 locate the copyright owner.
8547 </p><p>
8548 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8549 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8550 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8551 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8552 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8553 exceptionally high.
8554 </p><p>
8555 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8556 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>»</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8557 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8558 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8559 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8560 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8561 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8562 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8563 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8564 </p><p>
8565
8566 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8567 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8568 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8569 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8570 expires.
8571 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584525"></a><p>
8572 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8573 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8574 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8575 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8576 </p><p>
8577 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8578 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8579 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8580 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8581 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free
8582 expression.</span>»</span>
8583 </p><p>
8584 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8585 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8586 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8587 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8588 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8589 commercial life ends.
8590 </p><p>
8591 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8592 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8593 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8594 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8595 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8596 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8597 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8598 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8599 </p><p>
8600
8601 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8602 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8603 context do no good.
8604 </p><p>
8605 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8606 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8607 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8608 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8609 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8610 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8611 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8612 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8613 </p><p>
8614 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8615 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8616 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8617 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8618 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8619 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8620 </p><p>
8621 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8622 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8623 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8624 interfered with anything.
8625 </p><p>
8626 But this situation has now changed.
8627 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
8628 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8629 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8630 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8631 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8632 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8633 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8634 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8635 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8636 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8637 </p><p>
8638
8639
8640 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8641 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8642 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8643 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8644 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8645 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8646 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8647 radically different context.
8648 </p><p>
8649 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8650 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8651 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8652 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8653 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8654 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8655 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8656 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8657 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8658 </p><p>
8659 You may well ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8660 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8661 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8662 widely?</span>»</span>
8663 </p><p>
8664 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8665 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8666 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8667 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8668 what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the market</span>»</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8669 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8670 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8671 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8672 work for us.
8673 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584713"></a><p>
8674 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8675 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8676 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8677 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8678 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8679 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8680 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8681 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2584739" href="#ftn.id2584739" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8682
8683 </p><p>
8684 In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8685 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8686 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8687 that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
8688 Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that
8689 extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8690 </p><p>
8691 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8692 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8693 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8694 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8695 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8696 </p><p>
8697 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8698 be for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8699 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8700 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8701 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8702 grant terms that are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8703 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> to give it
8704 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8705 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8706 </p><p>
8707 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8708 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8709 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8710 the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
8711 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584817"></a><p>
8712
8713 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8714 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8715 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8716 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8717 bounds.
8718 </p><p>
8719 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8720 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8721 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8722 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8723 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8724 </p><p>
8725 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8726 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8727 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8728 </p><p>
8729 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8730 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8731 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8732 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8733 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8734 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8735 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8736 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8737 </p><p>
8738 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8739 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8740 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8741 at vi ikke vant.
8742 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584874"></a><p>
8743
8744 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8745 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8746 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8747 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8748 på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8749 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8750 saken.
8751 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584897"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584903"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584909"></a><p>
8752 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8753 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8754 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8755 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8756 få problemet til å virke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">viktig</span>»</span> for Høyesterett. Det måtte
8757 synes som om dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur,
8758 ellers ville de aldri stemt mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de mektigste mediaselskapene i
8759 verden</span>»</span>.
8760 </p><p>
8761 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8762 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8763 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8764 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8765 <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
8766 <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
8767 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8768 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8769 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8770 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8771 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8772 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8773 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8774 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8775 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8776 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8777 put in the Constitution.
8778 </p><p>
8779 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8780 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8781 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8782 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8783 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8784 </p><p>
8785
8786 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8787 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8788 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8789 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8790 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8791 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8792 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8793 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8794 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8795 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8796 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8797 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8798 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8799 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8800 </p><p>
8801 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8802 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8803 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8804 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8805 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8806 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8807 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8808 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>»</span> The answer, as the
8809 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8810 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8811 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8812 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2585030"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585036"></a>
8813 </p><p>
8814 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8815 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8816 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8817 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8818 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8819 </p><p>
8820 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8821 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8822 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8823 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8824 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8825 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8826 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8827 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8828 <a class="indexterm" name="id2585065"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585074"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585080"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585086"></a>
8829 </p><p>
8830 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8831 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8832 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8833 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2585100"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585107"></a>
8834 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585114"></a><p>
8835 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8836 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8837 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8838 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8839 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2585135"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2585141"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2585147"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2585154"></a><p>
8840 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8841 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8842 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8843 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8844 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8845 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8846 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8847 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8848 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8849 </p><p>
8850 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8851 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8852 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8853 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8854 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8855 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8856 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8857 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8858 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8859 <a class="indexterm" name="id2585189"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585198"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585204"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585210"></a>
8860 </p><p>
8861 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8862 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8863 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8864 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8865 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8866 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8867 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8868 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8869 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2585241"></a>
8870 </p><p>
8871 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8872 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
8873 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8874 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8875 holders.
8876 </p><p>
8877 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8878 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8879 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8880 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8881 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8882 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8883 </p><p>
8884 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8885 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8886 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8887 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8888 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2585281" href="#ftn.id2585281" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8889 which defended its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George
8890 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8891 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8892 cast.<sup>[<a name="id2585306" href="#ftn.id2585306" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8893 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8894 help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2585322"></a>
8895 </p><p>
8896 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8897 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8898 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8899 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8900 Congress and say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8901 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8902 else.</span>»</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8903 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8904 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8905 traditionally meant to block.
8906 </p><p>
8907 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8908 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8909 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8910 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8911 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.  Between
8912 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8913 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8914 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2585368"></a><p>
8915 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8916 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
8917 Rest.</span>»</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8918 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8919 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8920 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8921 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8922 that Congress's powers had limits.
8923 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585394"></a><p>
8924
8925 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8926 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8927 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8928 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8929 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8930 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8931 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8932 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8933 </p><p>
8934 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8935 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8936 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8937 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8938 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8939 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8940 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8941 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8942 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585429"></a><p>
8943 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8944 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8945 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8946 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8947 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8948 </p><p>
8949 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8950 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8951 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8952 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8953 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8954 confident he would recognize limits here.
8955 </p><p>
8956 This analysis of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest</span>»</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8957 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8958 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8959 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8960 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8961 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8962 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8963 </p><p>
8964
8965 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8966 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8967 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8968 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8969 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8970 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Our aim would be
8971 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
8972 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8973 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8974 limited.
8975 </p><p>
8976 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8977 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8978 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8979 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8980 practice is unconstitutional.
8981 </p><p>
8982 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8983 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
8984 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8985 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
8986 </p><p>
8987
8988 But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
8989 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
8990 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
8991 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8992 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8993 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8994 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8995 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
8996 couldn't intervene here.  Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8997 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8998 weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
8999 to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically practice
9000 rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
9001 </p><p>
9002 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
9003 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
9004 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
9005 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
9006 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
9007 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
9008 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585555"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2585562"></a><p>
9009 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
9010 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
9011 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
9012 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2585575"></a>
9013 </p><p>
9014 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
9015 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
9016 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
9017 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
9018 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
9019 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585587"></a><p>
9020
9021 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
9022 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
9023 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
9024 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9025 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9026 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9027 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9028 politicians learn to see that it was also good.  The night before the
9029 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
9030 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
9031 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
9032 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
9033 would be assured a seat.
9034 </p><p>
9035 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9036 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9037 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9038 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9039 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9040 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9041 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9042 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9043 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9044 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9045 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9046 </p><p>
9047 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9048 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9049 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9050 powers had any limit.
9051 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585659"></a><p>
9052 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9053 was bothering her.
9054 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9055 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9056 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9057 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9058 act.
9059 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9060 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9061 of what the framers had in mind.</span>»</span> But my response again and again was
9062 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9063 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9064
9065 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9066 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9067 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9068 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9069 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9070 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9071 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9072 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9073 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9074 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9075 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9076 evidence for that.
9077 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9078 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9079 answered,
9080 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9081 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9082 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9083 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9084 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9085 under the copyright laws.
9086 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2585736"></a><p>
9087 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9088 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9089 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9090 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9091 was a swing and a miss.
9092 </p><p>
9093 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9094 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9095 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9096 </p><p>
9097
9098 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9099 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9100
9101
9102 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9103 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9104 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9105 </p><p>
9106 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9107 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9108 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9109 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9110 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2585785"></a><p>
9111 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9112 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9113 General Olson,
9114 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9115 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9116 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9117 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9118 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9119 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9120 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9121 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9122 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9123 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9124 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9125 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9126 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9127 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9128 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9129 Court to my side.
9130 </p><p>
9131
9132 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
9133 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
9134 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
9135 </p><p>
9136 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9137 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9138 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9139 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9140 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9141 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9142 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9143 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9144 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9145 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9146 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9147 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9148 </p><p>
9149 The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
9150 missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
9151 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
9152 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
9153 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
9154 </p><p>
9155 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9156 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9157 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9158 </p><p>
9159 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9160 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9161 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9162 </p><p>
9163 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9164 principle in this case from the principle in
9165 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9166 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9167 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9168 </p><p>
9169
9170
9171
9172 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9173 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9174 Congress's power not limited here.
9175 </p><p>
9176 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9177 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9178 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9179 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9180 </p><p>
9181 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9182 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9183 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9184 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9185 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9186 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9187 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9188 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9189 context it would not.
9190 </p><p>
9191 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9192 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9193 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9194 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9195 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9196 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9197 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9198 will respect, that is the system we have.
9199 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585933"></a><p>
9200 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9201 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9202 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9203 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9204 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9205 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9206 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9207 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9208 charge go unanswered.
9209 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585952"></a><p>
9210
9211
9212 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9213 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9214 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9215 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9216 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9217 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9218 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> and the existing
9219 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9220 unconstitutional.
9221 </p><p>
9222 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9223 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9224 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9225 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9226 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9227 Prince.
9228 </p><p>
9229 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9230 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9231 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9232 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586010"></a><p>
9233 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have
9234 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9235 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9236 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9237 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9238 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9239 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9240 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9241 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9242 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9243 other <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalist</span>»</span> rulings. Where was their
9244 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span> now?
9245 </p><p>
9246
9247 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9248 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9249 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9250 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9251 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9252 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9253 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9254 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9255 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9256 consistent with their own principles.
9257 </p><p>
9258 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9259 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9260 it is.
9261 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586083"></a><p>
9262 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9263 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9264 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9265 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9266 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9267 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9268 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9269 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9270 popularity.
9271 </p><p>
9272
9273 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9274 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9275 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9276 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9277 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9278 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9279 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9280 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9281 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9282 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9283 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9284 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9285 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9286 on which a court should decide the issue.
9287 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586125"></a><p>
9288 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9289 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9290 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2586136"></a>
9291 </p><p>
9292 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9293 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9294 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9295 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9296 </p><p>
9297 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9298 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9299 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9300 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9301 persuaded.
9302 </p><p>
9303 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9304 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9305 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9306 was a mistake. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9307 issue should not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586170"></a>
9308 </p><p>
9309
9310 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9311 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9312 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9313 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9314 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9315 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9316 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.  While the reaction to the Sonny
9317 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9318 decision was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9319 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9320 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9321 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9322 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9323 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9324 law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9325 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9326 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9327 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9328 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9329 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9330 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9331 creative ferment.
9332 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9333 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9334 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9335 case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figur 13.1, &#8220;Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon&#8221;</a>). The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
9336 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586232"></a>
9337 </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="id2586253"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9338 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9339 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand
9340 experiment</span>»</span> we call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I
9341 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9342 Constitution.</span>»</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9343 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9344 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9345 have made them see differently.
9346 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583471" href="#id2583471" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9347
9348
9349 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9350 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9351 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9352 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9353 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9354 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9355 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9356 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9357 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9358 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9359 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9360 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9361 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583540" href="#id2583540" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9362
9363 <a class="indexterm" name="id2583545"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2583554"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9364 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9365 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9366 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9367 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9368 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
9369 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9370 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583846" href="#id2583846" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9371
9372 Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9373 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years</span>»</span>,
9374 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
9375 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583864" href="#id2583864" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9376
9377 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9378 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
9379 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583882" href="#id2583882" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9380
9381
9382 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars</span>»</span>,
9383 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
9384 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9385 #50</a>.
9386 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583994" href="#id2583994" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9387
9388 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9389 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9390 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584021" href="#id2584021" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9391
9392
9393 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9394 U.S. 598 (2000).
9395 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584041" href="#id2584041" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9396
9397
9398 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9399 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9400 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9401 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9402 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9403 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9404 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9405 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span>
9406 notwithstanding.
9407 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584131" href="#id2584131" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9408
9409
9410 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9411 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9412 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9413 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584202" href="#id2584202" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9414
9415 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9416 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9417 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9418 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9419 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584379" href="#id2584379" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9420
9421
9422 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9423 Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9424 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9425 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
9426 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9427 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584439" href="#id2584439" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9428
9429
9430 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9431 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9432 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9433 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9434 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9435 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9436 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584739" href="#id2584739" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9437
9438
9439 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory</span>»</span>,
9440 20 December 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9441 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585281" href="#id2585281" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9442
9443
9444 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9445 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9446 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585306" href="#id2585306" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9447
9448
9449 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9450 Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9451 1998, B7.
9452 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9453 The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9454 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9455 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied&#8212;meaning the case was really
9456 finally over&#8212;fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9457 technologists at Disney World.)  This was a particularly long flight to my
9458 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9459 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9460 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586305"></a><p>
9461 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9462 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9463 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9464 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9465 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9466 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>»</span> And
9467 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9468 turned to an argument of politics.
9469 </p><p>
9470
9471 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9472 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9473 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9474 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9475 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9476 </p><p>
9477 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9478 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9479 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9480 </p><p>
9481 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9482 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>»</span> or the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright
9483 Term Deregulation Act.</span>»</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9484 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9485 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9486 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9487 the content go.
9488 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586370"></a><p>
9489 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9490 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9491 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9492 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9493 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9494 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9495 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9496 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9497 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9498 </p><p>
9499 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9500 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9501 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9502 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9503 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9504 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9505 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9506 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9507 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586404"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586410"></a><p>
9508
9509 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9510 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9511 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2586428" href="#ftn.id2586428" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9512 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span>
9513 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9514 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9515 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9516 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9517 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9518 </p><p>
9519 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9520 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9521 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
9522 Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9523 what's protected and what's not.
9524 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586490"></a><p>
9525 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9526 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9527 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9528 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9529 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9530 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9531 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9532 loss of widows' only income.
9533 </p><p>
9534 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9535 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9536 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9537 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9538 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9539 of registration.
9540 </p><p>
9541 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9542 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9543 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9544 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9545 imposed upon creators.
9546 </p><p>
9547
9548 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9549 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9550 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9551 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9552 a property right over the table <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturally,</span>»</span> and he can assert
9553 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9554 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9555 </p><p>
9556 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9557 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9558 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9559 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9560 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9561 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9562 </p><p>
9563 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9564 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9565 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9566 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9567 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9568 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9569 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9570 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9571 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9572 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9573 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9574 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9575 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9576 </p><p>
9577 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9578 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9579 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9580 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9581 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9582 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9583 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9584 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9585 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9586 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586606"></a>
9587 </p><p>
9588 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9589 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9590 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get.</span>»</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9591 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9592 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">short,</span>»</span> then
9593 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9594 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9595 presumptively uncontrolled.
9596 </p><p>
9597 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9598 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9599 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9600 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9601 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9602 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9603 formalities</em></span>.
9604 </p><p>
9605 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9606 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9607 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9608 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9609 extended copyright term.
9610 </p><p>
9611 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9612 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9613 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9614 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9615 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9616 </p><p>
9617 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9618 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9619 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9620 registrering?
9621 </p><p>
9622
9623 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9624 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9625 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9626 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9627 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9628 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9629 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9630 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9631 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9632 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9633 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9634 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9635 years. What do you think?
9636 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586700"></a><p>
9637 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9638 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9639 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9640 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9641 </p><p>
9642 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9643 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9644 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9645 opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9646 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi er nære</span>»</span>.  Det
9647 oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
9648 her.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586737"></a>
9649 </p><p>
9650 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9651 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9652 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9653 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9654 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9655 about what this debate is really about.
9656 </p><p>
9657
9658 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9659 concept in the proposed bill</span>»</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9660 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>»</span> had
9661 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9662 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9663 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9664 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9665 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9666 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9667 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9668 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9669 impose <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enormous</span>»</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9670 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9671 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9672 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9673 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9674 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9675 </p><p>
9676 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9677 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9678 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9679 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9680 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9681 likely to.
9682 </p><p>
9683 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9684 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.  In the other,
9685 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9686 power of the opposition&#8212;the power of the side that fought to defend
9687 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9688 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9689 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9690 </p><p>
9691 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9692 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9693 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9694 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9695 sunne fornuften?
9696 </p><p>
9697
9698
9699
9700 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9701 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9702 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9703 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9704 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9705 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9706 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9707 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9708 resistance.
9709 </p><p>
9710 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9711 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9712 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9713 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9714 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9715 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>»</span> that fills archives
9716 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9717 ask one simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id2586861"></a>
9718 </p><p>
9719 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9720 </p><p>
9721 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9722 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9723 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9724 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9725 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9726 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9727 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9728 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9729 </p><p>
9730 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9731 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9732 the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9733 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9734 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9735 </p><p>
9736
9737 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9738 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9739 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9740 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9741 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9742 creation.
9743 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586918"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586924"></a><p>
9744 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9745 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9746 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9747 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9748 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9749 </p><p>
9750 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9751 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9752 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9753 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission
9754 society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9755 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9756 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9757 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586428" href="#id2586428" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9758
9759
9760 Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9761 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9762 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9763 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
9764 of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
9765 exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be
9766 subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition against formalities is
9767 presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
9768 Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
9769 registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
9770 law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
9771 repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books published in
9772 the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
9773 Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
9774 name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
9775 Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
9776 Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
9777 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9778 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten
9779 millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9780 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er
9781 17 millioner afrikanere.
9782 </p><p>
9783 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9784 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9785 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9786 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9787 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9788 usynlig.
9789 </p><p>
9790 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9791 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9792 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9793 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9794 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9795 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9796 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2587048" href="#ftn.id2587048" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9797 </p><p>
9798
9799
9800 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9801 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9802 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9803 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9804 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9805 prisene høye.
9806 </p><p>
9807 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9808 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9809 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9810 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9811 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9812 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9813 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9814 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9815 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9816 </p><p>
9817 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9818 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9819 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9820 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9821 markedspris.
9822 </p><p>
9823 I 1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming.  Landet vedtok en lov som
9824 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9825 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren.  For eksempel,
9826 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9827 fra India.  Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
9828 tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
9829 europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id2587140" href="#ftn.id2587140" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9830 </p><p>
9831 Men USA var imot lovendringen.  Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9832 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9833 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika &#8230; til å ikke tillate
9834 tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2583621" href="#ftn.id2583621" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
9835 (USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven&#8212;og for å legge
9836 press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
9837 som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner.  Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9838 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9839 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU.  Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9840 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9841 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter&#8212;farmasøytiske
9842 patenter.  Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9843 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9844 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9845 Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2587209" href="#ftn.id2587209" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9846 </p><p>
9847 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9848 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9849 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9850 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9851 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9852 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9853 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9854 </p><p>
9855 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9856 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9857 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9858 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9859 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9860 30 millioner liv.
9861 </p><p>
9862 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9863 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9864 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9865 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9866 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9867 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9868 selskapene betydelig.
9869 </p><p>
9870 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9871 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9872 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2587303" href="#ftn.id2587303" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup>  Det var på
9873 grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
9874 medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika.  Det var prinsippet om
9875 viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
9876 myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9877 </p><p>
9878 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk.  En gang om tredve år vil våre
9879 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje?  Hvordan
9880 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få 15
9881 til 30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9882 fordel var å opprettholde <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ukrenkeligheten</span>»</span> til en idé?  Hva
9883 slags berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i
9884 så mange døde?  Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange
9885 dør for slik en abstraksjon?
9886 </p><p>
9887 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9888 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9889 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9890 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9891 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9892 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9893 </p><p>
9894 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9895 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9896 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9897 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9898 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9899 overvunnet.
9900 </p><p>
9901
9902 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9903 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9904 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvordan har det seg at du
9905 kan selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille
9906 koster en amerikansker $1 500?</span>»</span> Da det ikke finnes et
9907 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjapt svar</span>»</span> på det spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering
9908 av priser i Amerika.  Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å
9909 sikre at det første steget ikke tas.  De forsterker idéen om at
9910 eierrettigheter skal være ukrenkelige.  De legger seg på en rasjonell
9911 strategi i en irrasjonell omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at
9912 kanskje millioner dør.  Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
9913 hjel av dette ideal&#8212;helligheten til en idé som kalles
9914 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>.
9915 </p><p>
9916 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9917 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9918 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9919 </p><p>
9920 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9921 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9922 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9923 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9924 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9925 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9926 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9927 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9928 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9929 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9930 </p><p>
9931 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9932 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9933 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9934 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9935 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9936 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9937 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2587453"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2587532"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2587540"></a><p>
9938
9939 En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
9940 av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
9941 idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
9942 det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk
9943 aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
9944 spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
9945 folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne
9946 fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
9947 kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9948 </p><p>
9949 Så langt sover sunn fornuft.  Det er intet opprør.  Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9950 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot.  Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9951 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9952 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene.  De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9953 bekjempe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og knuser kreativitetskultur.  De
9954 forsvarer idéen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt eierskap</span>»</span>, mens de endrer ekte
9955 skapere til moderne leilendinger.  De blir fornærmet av idéen om at
9956 rettigheter skulle være balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne
9957 innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal.  Hykleriet
9958 rår.  Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
9959 til.  Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
9960 gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
9961 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2587614"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2587633"></a><p>
9962 I august 2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual
9963 Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id2587646" href="#ftn.id2587646" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
9964 bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende
9965 prosjekter for å skape goder for felleskapet</span>»</span>.  Disse prosjektene som
9966 hadde lyktes i å produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg
9967 eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære immaterielle rettigheter.  Eksempler
9968 inkluderer internettet og verdensveven, begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag
9969 av protokoller i allemannseie.  Det hadde med en begynnende trend for å
9970 støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og inkluderte Public Library of
9971 Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i etterordet.  Det inkluderte et
9972 prosjekt for a utvikle enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få
9973 stor betydning i biomedisinsk forskning.  (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av
9974 et konsortium av Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper,
9975 inkludert Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers
9976 Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis,
9977 Pfizer, og Searle.)  Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald
9978 Reagen frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet.  Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen
9979 kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2587739"></a>
9980 <a class="indexterm" name="id2587747"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2587754"></a>
9981 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2587762"></a><p>
9982 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9983 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9984 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9985 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9986 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9987 </p><p>
9988 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9989 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2587787" href="#ftn.id2587787" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9990 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
9991 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9992 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9993 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9994 </p><p>
9995
9996 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
9997 om WIPO.  I februar 2003 leverte jeg et hovedinnlegg på en forberedende
9998 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  På en
9999 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om.  Jeg
10000 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
10001 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet.  Ordstyreren
10002 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
10003 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
10004 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO.  I innlegget jeg hadde
10005 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
10006 hele.  Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
10007 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg.  Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
10008 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">informasjonssamfunn</span>»</span> uten at en også snakket om andelen av
10009 informasjon og kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten.  Mitt innlegg
10010 gjorde ikke min overivrige moderator veldig glad.  Og hun hadde uten tvil
10011 rett i at omfanget til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn
10012 under WIPO.  Men etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om
10013 hvor mye immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde
10014 selve idéen om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
10015 </p><p>
10016 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
10017 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde.  Og dermed
10018 møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
10019 fellesgoder</span>»</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
10020 </p><p>
10021 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
10022 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10023 programvare</span>»</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
10024 emnet. Fra deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen
10025 kildekode og fri programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples
10026 operativsystem.  Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med
10027 Microsofts programvare.  Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å
10028 utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
10029 stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare</span>»</span>, til sine egne interne
10030 behov.
10031 </p><p>
10032 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her.  Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
10033 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
10034 programvare.  Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
10035 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende.  IBM har i stadig større
10036 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
10037 biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>&#8212;og IBM er helt klart en
10038 kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
10039 ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører.  Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
10040 å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2587929" href="#ftn.id2587929" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2587987"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2587993"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2588002"></a>
10041 <a class="indexterm" name="id2588008"></a>
10042 </p><p>
10043
10044 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10045 programvare</span>»</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
10046 kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span> er ikke programvare uten
10047 opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft,
10048 insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne av fri programvare ganske sterkt at
10049 vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir respektert av de som tar i bruk fri
10050 programvare.  Vilkårene i den lisensen er uten tvil forskjellig fra
10051 vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens.  For eksempel krever fri
10052 programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige lisensen (GPL), at
10053 kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle som endrer og
10054 videredistribuerer programvaren.  Men dette kravet er kun effektivt hvis
10055 opphavsrett råder over programvare.  Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over
10056 programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar
10057 i bruk programvaren.  Den er dermed like avhengig av opphavsrettsloven som
10058 Microsoft.
10059 </p><p>
10060 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10061 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10062 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10063 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10064 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10065 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10066 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2588082" href="#ftn.id2588082" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10067 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2588099"></a>
10068 </p><p>
10069 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10070 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10071 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10072 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10073 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10074 </p><p>
10075 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
10076 møtet.  Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
10077 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
10078 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er
10079 å fremme immaterielle rettigheter.</span>»</span>.  Hun skal i følge sitatet ha
10080 sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
10081 frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
10082 WIPO.</span>»</span>
10083 </p><p>
10084 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10085 </p><p>
10086 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige.  Som jeg beskrev, er det
10087 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
10088 immaterielle retten kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span>.  Uten den vil
10089 begrensningene definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si
10090 at de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">går imot</span>»</span> formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter
10091 å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse&#8212;den type feil som er
10092 tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
10093 statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
10094 </p><p>
10095 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
10096 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt?  Som jeg fikk
10097 kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
10098 bare hvordan best beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den
10099 beste balansen rundt immaterielle rettigheter.  Som enhver økonom og advokat
10100 vet, er det vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den
10101 balansen.  Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt.  Man
10102 ønsker å spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på
10103 medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag?  Svekker
10104 allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter?  Ville det vært bedre om internettets
10105 protokoller hadde vært patentert?
10106 </p><p>
10107 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
10108 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
10109 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper.  De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
10110 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som eier
10111 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> eller
10112 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frasi</span>»</span> seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår
10113 tradisjon.  Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål,
10114 så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet.  Det er heller
10115 tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
10116 retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span>
10117 eiendom.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2588239"></a>
10118 </p><p>
10119
10120 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som har som sitt
10121 formål å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter</span>»</span>, så sier hun at
10122 WIPO har en interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier
10123 immaterielle rettigheter.  At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å
10124 stoppe individer fra å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fraskrive</span>»</span> eller
10125 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> seg sine immaterielle rettigheter.  At interessen
10126 til WIPO ikke bare er  maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men også at de
10127 skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
10128 </p><p>
10129 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
10130 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon.  Det kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">føydalisme</span>»</span>. Under
10131 føydalismen var eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall
10132 individer og aktører.  Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å
10133 sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene
10134 og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet.  Føydalismen var
10135 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon.  Det sloss mot enhver frihet
10136 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
10137 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2588298"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2588304"></a><p>
10138 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10139 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2588317" href="#ftn.id2588317" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10140 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10141 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10142 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10143 mot det føydale.
10144 </p><p>
10145 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10146 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10147 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10148 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10149 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10150
10151 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
10152 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
10153 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
10154 immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>), ikke som den er.  Hvis vi snakket om
10155 verden slik den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt.  Men i
10156 verden slik Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe
10157 galt.  En må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår
10158 verden.
10159 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10160 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10161 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10162 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10163 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10164 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10165 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10166 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10167 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10168 </p><p>
10169 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen.  I
10170 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
10171 skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
10172 riktige balanse</span>»</span> for immaterielle rettigheter.  Det var åpenbart
10173 tåpelig for ham.  Og det avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige
10174 utopisme.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Typisk for en akademiker</span>»</span>, kunne forfatteren like
10175 gjerne ha fortsatt.
10176 </p><p>
10177 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10178 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10179 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10180 eget lands historie).
10181 </p><p>
10182 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
10183 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">oppnå balanse</span>»</span>, da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det
10184 betyr at dette faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst.  Hvis det bør være åpenbart
10185 for alle at myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske
10186 enkelt et verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at idéen om å forvente bedre
10187 av myndighetene er absurd, at idéen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant
10188 og ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i
10189 verden, blitt?
10190 </p><p>
10191
10192 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10193 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10194 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10195 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10196 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10197 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2588475"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2588482"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2588489"></a><p>
10198 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart. Det finnes
10199 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
10200 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
10201 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10202 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10203 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10204 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10205 endringen i FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10206 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.
10207 </p><p>
10208 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10209 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10210 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10211 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10212 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10213 </p><p>
10214 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10215 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10216 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10217 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10218 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10219 </p><p>
10220 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10221 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10222 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10223 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10224 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10225 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10226 gjør størrelsen ille.
10227 </p><p>
10228 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10229 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10230 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10231 historie med å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stort</span>»</span>, klokt eller ikke. At vi kan
10232 være motivert til å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store</span>»</span> igjen ikke noe nytt.
10233 </p><p>
10234 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10235 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10236 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span>.  Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10237 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon.  Men fordi
10238 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles
10239 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke er lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10240 </p><p>
10241 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10242 for våre tragedie.
10243 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2588609"></a><p>
10244 Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
10245 at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2588621" href="#ftn.id2588621" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup>  Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span>
10246 noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2588686" href="#ftn.id2588686" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup>  Historien om
10247 hvordan Bob Dylan har <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har
10248 nettopp gått verden over.<sup>[<a name="id2588709" href="#ftn.id2588709" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup>  En på
10249 innsiden i Hollywood&#8212;som insisterer på at han må forbli
10250 anonym&#8212;rapporterer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.
10251 De har fantastisk [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan
10252 de ikke på grunn av at de først må klarere rettighetene.  De har hauger med
10253 ungdommer som kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først
10254 kreve hauger med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>.
10255 Kongressrepresentanter snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta
10256 ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven.  Universiteter truer med å utvise
10257 ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
10258 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2588754"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2588760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2588767"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2588773"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2588779"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2588786"></a><p>
10259
10260 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10261 bygge opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
10262 ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2588804" href="#ftn.id2588804" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
10263 seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
10264 Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
10265 landet.<sup>[<a name="id2588828" href="#ftn.id2588828" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup>  Jeg har fortalt en mørk
10266 historie.  Sannheten er mer blandet.  En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
10267 Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
10268 Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
10269 taper og uten at potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust.  Det vil
10270 kreve omtanke, og viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omformer RCA-ene av i dag
10271 til Causbyere.
10272 </p><p>
10273
10274 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10275 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10276
10277
10278
10279 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587048" href="#id2587048" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10280
10281 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10282 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
10283 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10284 #55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10285 9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10286 utviklingsland dem de trenger&#8212;og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10287 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587140" href="#id2587140" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10288
10289 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10290 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10291 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2587149"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2587158"></a>
10292 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583621" href="#id2583621" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10293
10294
10295 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10296 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10297 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10298 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10299 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10300 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10301 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10302 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10303 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587209" href="#id2587209" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10304
10305
10306 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10307 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10308 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10309 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587303" href="#id2587303" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10310
10311
10312
10313 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10314 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10315 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
10316 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10317 property protection</span>»</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10318 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>»</span>
10319 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10320 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10321 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10322 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10323 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10324 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10325
10326 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587646" href="#id2587646" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10327
10328 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>,
10329 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
10330 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10331 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir</span>»</span>,
10332 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003,
10333 tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10334 #60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
10335 at WIPO</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
10336 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
10337 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587787" href="#id2587787" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10338
10339 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10340 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587929" href="#id2587929" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10341
10342
10343 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10344 sofistikert.  De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10345 programvare som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode</span>»</span> eller programvare som er
10346 allemannseie.  Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
10347 programvare</span>»</span> lisensiert med en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyleft</span>»</span>-lisens, som
10348 betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal adoptere same vilkår for
10349 ethvert avledet verk.  Se Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Software:
10350 Enabling the Marketplace to Decide</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
10351 Toward Open Source Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings
10352 Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
10353 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,
10354 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10355 Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
10356 Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10357 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588082" href="#id2588082" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10358
10359
10360 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>.
10361 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588317" href="#id2588317" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10362
10363 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10364 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2587203"></a>
10365 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588621" href="#id2588621" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10366
10367
10368 John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
10369 september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica,
10370 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers</span>»</span>, CNN/Money, 8 september 2003,
10371 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10372 #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis Furman sammen med Robert Gearty,
10373 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers</span>»</span>,
10374 <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9. september 2003, 3; Frank
10375 Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
10376 Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants</span>»</span>,
10377 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10378 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wired
10379 News</em>, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10380 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588686" href="#id2588686" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10381
10382
10383 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10384 Lady</span>»</span>, mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10385 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588709" href="#id2588709" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10386
10387
10388
10389 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10390 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>.
10391
10392 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588804" href="#id2588804" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10393
10394 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public</span>»</span>, pressemelding
10395 fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10396 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588828" href="#id2588828" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10397
10398
10399 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil</span>»</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
10400 6. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #71</a>.
10401 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10402
10403
10404
10405 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10406 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder.  Balansen i denne boken
10407 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10408 </p><p>
10409 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10410 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10411 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10412 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10413 </p><p>
10414 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10415 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10416 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10417 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10418 så viktig.
10419 </p><p>
10420 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10421 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10422 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10423 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10424 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10425 fri kultur.
10426 </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>
10427 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10428 been framed at the extremes&#8212;as a grand either/or: either property or
10429 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10430 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10431 </p><p>
10432 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10433 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10434 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>&#8212;
10435 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>»</span> The
10436 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10437 permission before you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10438 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10439 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10440 </p><p>
10441
10442 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10443 tilted in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> direction. Content could be
10444 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10445 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10446 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>»</span>
10447 Content was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10448 effectively unprotected.
10449 </p><p>
10450 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10451 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10452 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10453 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10454 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10455 default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>»</span> the future architecture will make
10456 the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>»</span> The architecture
10457 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10458 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut
10459 and paste</span>»</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10460 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span> world that is a creator's
10461 nightmare.
10462 </p><p>
10463 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10464 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but
10465 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>»</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10466 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10467 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10468 for granted before.
10469 </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>
10470 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10471 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10472 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10473 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10474 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10475 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10476 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10477 </p><p>
10478 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10479 </p><p>
10480 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, your privacy was
10481 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10482 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10483 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10484 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10485 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10486 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10487 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10488 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10489 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in
10490 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10491 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10492 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589098"></a><p>
10493 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10494 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10495 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10496 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recently
10497 viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10498 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10499 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
10500 protected by the friction disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2589122"></a>
10501 </p><p>
10502 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10503 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10504 should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
10505 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10506 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10507 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10508 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10509 </p><p>
10510
10511 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10512 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10513 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10514 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2589155" href="#ftn.id2589155" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10515 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10516 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10517 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10518 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10519 by default.
10520 </p><p>
10521 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10522 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10523 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10524 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10525 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10526 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2589196"></a>
10527 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589208"></a><p>
10528 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10529 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10530 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10531 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10532 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10533 </p><p>
10534 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10535 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10536 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10537 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10538 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10539 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10540 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10541 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10542 else?
10543 </p><p>
10544 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10545 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10546 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10547 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10548 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10549 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10550 market than it was for you.
10551 </p><p>
10552
10553 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10554 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10555 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10556 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10557 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10558 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589265"></a><p>
10559 Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10560 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10561 overleve.  Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
10562 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
10563 produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2589286"></a>
10564 <a class="indexterm" name="id2589293"></a>
10565 </p><p>
10566 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10567 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10568 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10569 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10570 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10571 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10572 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10573 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10574 </p><p>
10575 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10576 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10577 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10578 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10579 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10580 passively guaranteed.
10581 </p><p>
10582 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10583 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10584 journals are produced.
10585 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10586
10587 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10588 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10589 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10590 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10591 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10592 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10593 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10594 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10595 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10596 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10597 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10598 opinion through their respective services.
10599 </p><p>
10600 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10601 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10602 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10603 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10604 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10605 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10606 the public domain.
10607 </p><p>
10608 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10609 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10610 data except by paying for a subscription?
10611 </p><p>
10612 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10613 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10614 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10615 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10616 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10617 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10618 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10619 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10620 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10621 paper journal.
10622 </p><p>
10623 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10624 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10625 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10626 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10627 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10628 </p><p>
10629 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10630 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10631 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10632 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10633 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10634 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10635 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10636 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10637 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2589429"></a>
10638 </p><p>
10639 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10640 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10641 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10642 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10643 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10644 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10645 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589440"></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>
10646 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10647 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10648 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589489"></a><p>
10649 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10650 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10651 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10652 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10653 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10654 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10655 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10656 possible.
10657 </p><p>
10658
10659 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10660 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10661 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10662 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10663 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10664 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10665 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10666 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10667 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10668 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10669 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10670 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
10671 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10672 freedoms are given.
10673 </p><p>
10674 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10675 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10676 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10677 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10678 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10679 uses (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>»</span>). Or any use so long as no
10680 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10681 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10682 educational use.
10683 </p><p>
10684 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10685 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10686 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10687 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10688 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10689 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10690 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10691 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10692 </p><p>
10693 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10694 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10695 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10696 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10697 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10698 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content
10699 conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10700 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10701 domain to other creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2589585"></a>
10702 </p><p>
10703 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The
10704 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10705 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10706 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10707 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10708 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10709 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10710 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10711 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10712 those rules.
10713 </p><p>
10714 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10715 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10716 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10717 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10718 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10719 </p><p>
10720 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10721 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10722 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10723 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10724 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10725 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10726 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10727 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10728 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10729 </p><p>
10730 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10731 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10732 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10733 </p><p>
10734 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10735 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10736 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10737 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10738 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10739 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10740 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10741 <a class="indexterm" name="id2589660"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2589669"></a>
10742 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589676"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2589682"></a><p>
10743 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10744 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10745 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10746 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling license</span>»</span> do so because anything else would be
10747 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10748 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10749 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10750 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10751 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10752 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10753 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10754 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10755 are so high<sup>[<a name="id2589715" href="#ftn.id2589715" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10756 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10757 their form of creativity might grow.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2589736"></a>
10758 </p><p>
10759 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10760 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10761 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10762 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>
10763 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10764 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10765 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10766 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Some Rights
10767 Reserved,</span>»</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10768 </p><p>
10769
10770 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10771 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10772 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10773 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10774 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10775 build content based upon content set free.
10776 </p><p>
10777 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10778 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10779 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10780 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10781 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10782 possible.
10783 </p><p>
10784 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10785 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10786 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10787 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10788 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10789 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10790 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589795"></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>
10791 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10792 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10793 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms.  But
10794 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10795 we need.
10796 </p><p>
10797 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10798 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10799 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10800 end.
10801 </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>
10802 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10803 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10804 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10805 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10806 </p><p>
10807
10808
10809 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10810 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10811 </p><p>
10812 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10813 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10814 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10815 and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> are banished.
10816 </p><p>
10817 Why?
10818 </p><p>
10819 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10820 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10821 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10822 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10823 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10824 </p><p>
10825 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10826 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10827 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10828 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10829 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10830 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10831 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10832 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10833 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10834 </p><p>
10835 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2589903" href="#ftn.id2589903" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10836 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10837 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10838 </p><p>
10839 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10840 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10841 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10842 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10843 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10844 approving standards developed by others.
10845 </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>
10846 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10847 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10848 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10849 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10850 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10851 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10852 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10853 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10854 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10855 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10856 </p><p>
10857 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10858 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10859 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10860 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10861 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10862 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10863 that the government sets.
10864 </p><p>
10865 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10866 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10867 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10868 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10869 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10870 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10871 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10872 </p><p>
10873
10874 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10875 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10876 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10877 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10878 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10879 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10880 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10881 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10882 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10883 </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>
10884 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10885 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10886 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10887 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10888 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10889 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10890 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10891 </p><p>
10892 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10893 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10894 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10895 </p><p>
10896 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10897 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10898 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10899 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10900 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10901 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10902 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10903 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10904 </p><p>
10905
10906 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10907 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10908 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10909 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10910 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10911 permission.<sup>[<a name="id2590027" href="#ftn.id2590027" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10912 work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>»</span> If
10913 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10914 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10915 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10916 their work.
10917 </p><p>
10918 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10919 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10920 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10921 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10922 elsewhere.
10923 </p><p>
10924 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10925 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10926 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10927 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10928 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10929 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10930 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10931 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10932 its other important functions.
10933 </p><p>
10934 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10935 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10936 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10937 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10938 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10939 possible.
10940 </p><p>
10941 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10942 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10943 unclear.
10944 </p><p>
10945 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10946 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10947 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10948 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10949 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10950 the appropriate time.
10951 </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>
10952 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10953 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10954 for individuelle forfattere.
10955 </p><p>
10956 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
10957 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10958 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10959 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
10960 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
10961 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10962 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2590155" href="#ftn.id2590155" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
10963 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10964 </p><p>
10965 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10966 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10967 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10968 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
10969
10970
10971 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10972 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10973 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10974 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10975 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10976 when it no longer benefits an author.
10977 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10978
10979
10980
10981 <span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
10982 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart.  Advokater
10983 liker uklarheten som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og forskjellen mellom
10984 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idéer</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uttrykk</span>»</span> har.  Denne type lovverk gir
10985 dem en masse arbeid.  Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé:
10986 vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at det er lite
10987 behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort.  En
10988 klar og aktiv <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span> gjør komplesiteten av
10989 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
10990 håndtere.
10991
10992 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10993
10994 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10995 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10996 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10997 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10998 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10999 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2590268" href="#ftn.id2590268" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
11000 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
11001 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
11002 <a class="indexterm" name="id2590288"></a>
11003 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11004
11005
11006 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
11007 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
11008 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
11009 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
11010 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
11011 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
11012 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
11013 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
11014 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
11015 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
11016 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
11017 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
11018 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
11019 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
11020 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
11021 det samme.
11022 </p><p>
11023 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene
11024 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikale</span>»</span>. (Tross alt, så kaller jeg dem
11025 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekstremister</span>»</span>.) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre
11026 enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det
11027 være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
11028 president?
11029 </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="id2590379"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590386"></a><p>
11030 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11031 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11032 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11033 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11034 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11035 technology.
11036 </p><p>
11037 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive
11038 right</span>»</span> to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings.</span>»</span> Congress has given authors
11039 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings</span>»</span> plus any derivative
11040 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11041 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11042 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11043 movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
11044 </p><p>
11045 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11046 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11047 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2590435" href="#ftn.id2590435" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11048 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11049 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11050 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2590449"></a>
11051 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11052 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11053 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11054 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11055 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2590465" href="#ftn.id2590465" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11056 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11057 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11058 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11059 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11060 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11061 each limitation in turn.
11062 </p><p>
11063 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11064 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11065 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11066 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11067 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11068 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11069 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2590495"></a>
11070 </p><p>
11071 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11072 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11073 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11074 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11075 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reuse</span>»</span> of creative material was within the control of
11076 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11077 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11078 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11079 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11080 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11081 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590530"></a><p>
11082 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11083 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11084 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11085 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11086 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11087 </p><p>
11088 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11089 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11090 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2590552" href="#ftn.id2590552" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11091 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11092 </p><p>
11093 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11094 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11095 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11096 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11097 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11098 </p><p>
11099
11100 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11101 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11102 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11103 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11104 would earn artists more income.
11105 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
11106 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11107 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11108 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11109 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11110 music.
11111 </p><p>
11112 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11113 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11114 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11115 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11116 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11117 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11118 </p><p>
11119 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11120 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11121 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11122 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11123 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11124 </p><p>
11125 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11126 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11127 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, they enable four
11128 different kinds of sharing:
11129 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11130
11131
11132 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11133 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11134
11135
11136 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11137 purchasing CDs.
11138 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11139
11140
11141
11142
11143 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11144 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11145 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11146 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11147
11148
11149 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11150 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11151 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11152 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11153 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11154 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11155 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11156 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11157 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11158 weakened.
11159 </p><p>
11160 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11161 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11162 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11163 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11164 </p><p>
11165 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11166 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11167 </p><p>
11168 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11169 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11170 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11171 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11172 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11173 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11174 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11175 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11176 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11177 </p><p>
11178
11179 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11180 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11181 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11182 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11183 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11184 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11185 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11186 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11187 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11188 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11189 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11190 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590752"></a><p>
11191 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11192 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11193 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11194 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11195 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11196 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11197 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11198 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11199 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11200 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11201 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11202 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11203 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11204 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11205 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11206 Web.<sup>[<a name="id2590815" href="#ftn.id2590815" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11207
11208 </p><p>
11209
11210 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11211 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with file
11212 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11213 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11214 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11215 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">solving</span>»</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11216 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11217 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11218 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11219 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11220 twenty-first-century technologies.
11221 </p><p>
11222 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11223 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problems</span>»</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11224 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11225 wants shared. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with this content is to make sure
11226 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11227 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11228 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11229 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11230 eliminate kidnapping.
11231 </p><p>
11232 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem.</span>»</span> This is content
11233 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11234 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11235 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11236 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11237 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11238 artist.
11239 </p><p>
11240 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11241 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11242 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11243 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11244 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11245 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11246 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing</span>»</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11247 than ideal.
11248 </p><p>
11249 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11250 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11251 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11252 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share</span>»</span> that content, even though
11253 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11254 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11255 should be as free as trading books.
11256 </p><p>
11257
11258
11259
11260 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11261 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11262 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11263 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11264 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11265 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11266 artists would benefit from this trade.
11267 </p><p>
11268 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11269 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11270 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11271 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11272 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11273 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11274 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11275 publisher.
11276 </p><p>
11277 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11278 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11279 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11280 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11281 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11282 content.
11283 </p><p>
11284 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11285 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11286 seg om.
11287 </p><p>
11288 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11289 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11290 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11291 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11292 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11293 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11294 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11295 industry.
11296 </p><p>
11297
11298
11299 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11300 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11301 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11302 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11303 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11304 </p><p>
11305 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11306 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2590996" href="#ftn.id2590996" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11307 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11308 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11309 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11310 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11311 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11312 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11313 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11314 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11315 </p><p>
11316 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11317 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11318 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11319 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11320 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11321 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11322 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11323 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11324 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11325 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11326 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11327 old system of controlling access.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2591200"></a>
11328 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591207"></a><p>
11329
11330 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11331 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11332 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span> possible. But
11333 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11334 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11335 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11336 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11337 do with the content itself.
11338 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591230"></a><p>
11339 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11340 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11341 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11342 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11343 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11344 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11345 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11346 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11347 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11348 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11349 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11350 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11351 on-line.
11352 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591267"></a><p>
11353 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11354 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11355 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11356 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11357 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>»</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11358 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11359 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11360 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11361 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first class</span>»</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11362 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11363 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span>
11364 </p><p>
11365 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11366 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11367 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11368 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11369 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11370 strenge straffer fra loven.
11371 </p><p>
11372 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11373 </p><p>
11374
11375
11376
11377 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11378 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11379 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11380 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11381 </p><p>
11382 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11383 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11384
11385
11386 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11387 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11388
11389
11390 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11391 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11392 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11393
11394
11395 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11396 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11397 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11398 Men hva om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> ikke forsvinner?  Hva om det
11399 finnes et konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad,
11400 men et signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span>
11401 innhold uten å betale?  Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11402 </p><p>
11403 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11404 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11405 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11406 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11407 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11408 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11409 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11410 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11411 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11412 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11413 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11414 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11415 </p><p>
11416
11417 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11418 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11419 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11420 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11421 som internettet er.
11422 </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>
11423 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11424 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11425 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11426 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11427 </p><p>
11428 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11429 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11430 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11431 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11432 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11433 synet ødelegge loven.
11434 </p><p>
11435 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene.  Jeg er angrepet som en
11436 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
11437 argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
11438 betydningsfulle personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde
11439 for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
11440 vernetid var galskap.  Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
11441 foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11442 åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2591495" href="#ftn.id2591495" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11443
11444 </p><p>
11445 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11446 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11447 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11448 </p><p>
11449 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11450 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11451 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11452 lav.<sup>[<a name="id2591531" href="#ftn.id2591531" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11453 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11454 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11455 </p><p>
11456
11457
11458 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11459 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11460 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11461 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11462 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11463 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11464 </p><p>
11465 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11466 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11467 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11468 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11469 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11470 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11471 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11472 </p><p>
11473 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11474 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11475 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11476 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11477 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11478 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11479 </p><p>
11480 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11481 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11482 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11483 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591631"></a><p>
11484 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11485 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11486 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11487 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11488 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11489 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11490 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11491 </p><p>
11492
11493 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11494 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11495 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11496 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>»</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11497 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11498 ikke?</span>»</span>
11499 </p><p>
11500 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>»</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11501 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11502 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11503 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589155" href="#id2589155" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11504
11505
11506
11507 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11508 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>»</span>
11509 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11510 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11511 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11512 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11513 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11514 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589715" href="#id2589715" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11515
11516
11517 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11518 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11519 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11520 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589903" href="#id2589903" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11521
11522
11523 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11524 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11525 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590027" href="#id2590027" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11526
11527
11528 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11529 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11530 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11531 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590155" href="#id2590155" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11532
11533
11534
11535 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11536 (25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11537 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590268" href="#id2590268" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11538
11539
11540 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11541 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11542 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590435" href="#id2590435" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11544
11545
11546 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11547 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11548 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590465" href="#id2590465" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11549
11550 Ibid., 56.
11551 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590552" href="#id2590552" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11552
11553 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11554 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11555 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2589170"></a>
11556 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590815" href="#id2590815" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11557
11558
11559 For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch</span>»</span>, The J@pan
11560 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11561 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590996" href="#id2590996" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11562
11563 <a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
11564 Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
11565 2000), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11566 #77</a>; William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law,
11567 and the Future of Entertainment</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford
11568 University Press, 2004), kap. 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11569 foreslått en relatert idé som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11570 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11571 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Impose a
11572 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
11573 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For andre
11574 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>»</span>
11575 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8. january 2002, A17; Philip
11576 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11577 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26. februar. 2002,
11578 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11579 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11580 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,
11581 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly</span>»</span>,
11582 <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,
11583 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right</span>»</span>, IEEE Spectrum Online, 1. juli 2002,
11584 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11585 #83</a>; Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign</span>»</span>,
11586 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
11587 er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman når det gjelder DAT.  I
11588 motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
11589 kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
11590 enn mindre populære.  Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
11591 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="id2591142"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2591148"></a>
11592 <a class="indexterm" name="id2591155"></a>
11593 <a class="indexterm" name="id2591161"></a>
11594 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2591495" href="#id2591495" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11595
11596
11597 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville
11598 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48
11599 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11600 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2591531" href="#id2591531" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11601
11602 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11603 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11604 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon&#8212;to ganger.  I starten
11605 predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade.  Han
11606 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11607 på nytt.  Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11608 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11609 York: Amacom, 2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11610 med Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11611 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
11612 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11613 fildelingsteknologi.  Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11614 til det juridiske system.  Se, for eksempel,
11615 <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2591508"></a>
11616 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11617 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11618 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11619 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11620 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11621 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11622 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11623 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11624 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11625 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11626 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11627 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11628 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11629 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11630 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11631 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591770"></a><p>
11632 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11633 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11634 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11635 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11636 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11637 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11638 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11639 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11640 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11641 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11642 </p><p>
11643
11644 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11645 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11646 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11647 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11648 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11649 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11650 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11651 mens jeg var der.
11652 </p><p>
11653 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11654 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11655 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11656 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11657 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11658 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11659 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11660 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11661 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11662 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11663 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11664 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11665 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11666 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Wink,</span>»</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>»</span> og Richard
11667 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11668 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11669 flotte svar.)
11670 </p><p>
11671 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11672 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11673 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11674 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11675 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11676 i denne boken.
11677 </p><p>
11678 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11679 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11680 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11681 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11682 </p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2591900"></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>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&#8212;igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;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="#id2563921">«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&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>AT&amp;T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barnes &amp; 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>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><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>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</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="#id2563921">«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&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2563921">«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>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</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>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</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="#id2563921">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2563921">«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>markedsføring, <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>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>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><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&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id2563921">«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>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</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>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</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>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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="#id2563921">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>