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="no" 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">Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Legal Notice"><a name="id3093404"></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="id3086549"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  33 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  34 hvem saken fortsetter.
  35 </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: Fantasifoster</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="#id3137492">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Colophon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id3097606"></a>Colophon</h2><p>
  36 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  37 New York, New York
  38 </p><p>
  39 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  40 </p><p>
  41 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
  42 Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
  43 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with
  44 permission.
  45 </p><p>
  46 Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figure 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
  47 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  48 </p><p>
  49 Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figure 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figure 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
  50 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
  51 </p><p>
  52 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  53 </p><p>
  54 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  55 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  56 </p><p>
  57 p. cm.
  58 </p><p>
  59 Includes index.
  60 </p><p>
  61 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  62 </p><p>
  63 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  64 States.
  65 </p><p>
  66 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  67 States. I. Title.
  68 </p><p>
  69 KF2979.L47
  70 </p><p>
  71 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  72 </p><p>
  73 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  74 </p><p>
  75 Printed in the United States of America
  76 </p><p>
  77 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  78 </p><p>
  79 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  80 </p><p>
  81 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  82 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  83 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  84 </p><p>
  85 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  86 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  87 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  88 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  89 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
  90 </p><p>
  91 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
  92 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
  93 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
  94 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
  95 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
  96 </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>
  97 <span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
  98 første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
  99 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 100 datarelaterte tekster, dette:
 101 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 102 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 103 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 104 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 105 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 106 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 107 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 108 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken &#8212; at
 109 programvaren, eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">koden</span>»</span>, fungerte som en slags lov &#8212;
 110 og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
 111 gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
 112 komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
 113 problemer som finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
 114 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">påvirke</span>»</span> oss mer.
 115 </p><p>
 116
 117 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 &#8212; jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
 118 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
 119 nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
 120 selv etter at modemet er slått av.  Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
 121 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk som
 122 er ikke pålogget.</span>»</span>  Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
 123 internettets effekt.
 124 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3080060"></a><p>
 125 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 126 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 127 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 128 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 129 </p><p>
 130 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på.  Som jeg vil forklare i
 131 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
 132 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>
 133 (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
 134 programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id3105727" href="#ftn.id3105727" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
 135 <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
 136 marked</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frihandel</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>»</span>,
 137 <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
 138 og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.  Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele
 139 immaterielle rettigheter.  Men det gjør den indirekte ved å begrense
 140 rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å garantere at neste generasjon
 141 skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri som mulig</em></span> fra
 142 kontroll fra fortiden.  En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
 143 lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis.  Det motsatte av
 144 fri kultur er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>»</span>&#8212;en kultur der skapere
 145 kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
 146 fortiden.
 147 </p><p>
 148 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den.  Ikke
 149 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi</span>»</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dere</span>»</span> på høyresiden,
 150 men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
 151 definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
 152 du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi
 153 deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider
 154 av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
 155 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3084951"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3085436"></a><p>
 156 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
 157 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
 158 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
 159 mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen.  Mens William
 160 Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
 161 Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
 162 konservative Ted Stevens</span>»</span>, formulerte han  kanskje det enkleste
 163 uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt.  Så spurte han:
 164 <a class="indexterm" name="id3105563"></a>
 165 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 166 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 167 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 168 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 169 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 170 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id3091295" href="#ftn.id3091295" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 171 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 172 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 173 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 174 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 175 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 176 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 177 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 178 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 179 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre.
 180 </p><p>
 181 <span class="strong"><strong>Inspirasjonen</strong></span> til tittelen og mye av
 182 argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman og Free
 183 Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på nytt,
 184 spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 185 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 186 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 187 dette verket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kun</span>»</span> er et avledet verk.
 188 </p><p>
 189
 190 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 191 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 192 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 193 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 194 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 195 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 196 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 197 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 198 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 199 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 200 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 201 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 202 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 203 </p><p>
 204 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 205 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 206 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 207 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 208 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 209 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 210 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 211 denne boken er skrevet.
 212 </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>
 213 David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 214 York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
 215 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105727" href="#id3105727" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 216 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
 217 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 218 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3091295" href="#id3091295" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
 219 Times</em>, 22. mai 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3087925"></a>
 220 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Chapter 0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtraffic"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownership"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxproprigtair"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3089021"></a><p>
 221 <span class="strong"><strong>Den 17. desember</strong></span> 1903, på en vindfylt
 222 strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under hundre sekunder, demonstrerte
 223 Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre enn luft kunne fly.
 224 Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment forstått. Nesten
 225 umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye teknologien som
 226 muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere begynte å bygge
 227 videre på den.
 228 </p><p>
 229 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 230 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 231 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 232 bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3104612" href="#ftn.id3104612" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
 233 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 234 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 235 manns eiendom?
 236 </p><p>
 237 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 238 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 239 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 240 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 241 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 242 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 243 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 244 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3088372"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3093383"></a><p>
 245 I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
 246 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
 247 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
 248 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
 249 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
 250 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
 251 strakk seg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>»</span> så hadde regjeringen
 252 trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
 253 dette.
 254 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3101439"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3088144"></a><p>
 255 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
 256 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
 257 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
 258 grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
 259 Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
 260 rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>»</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
 261 tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner.  I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
 262 av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
 263 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 264 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 265 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 266 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 267 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 268 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 269 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 270 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 271 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id3092186" href="#ftn.id3092186" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 272 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 273 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
 274 </p><p>
 275
 276 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 277 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 278 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 279 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 280 linje: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>.  Men uansett om
 281 det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
 282 et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
 283 aktuelle teknologiene.  Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den.  Idéer som
 284 var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
 285 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3100556"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3092447"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3094033"></a><p>
 286 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
 287 av endringen.  Causbyene var bare bønder.  Og selv om det uten tvil var
 288 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
 289 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
 290 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
 291 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden.  Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
 292 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
 293 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
 294 synes rimelig</span>»</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
 295 De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
 296 knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville.  De kunne ringe sine
 297 representanter eller til og med saksøke.  Men når alt kom til alt, ville
 298 kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>»</span> for alle andre&#8212;makten
 299 til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span>&#8212;ville vinne frem.  Deres
 300 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>»</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
 301 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
 302 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072463"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3083590"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3092213"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3098132"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3089517"></a><p>
 303
 304 <span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> er en av USAs
 305 glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
 306 Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området
 307 radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i
 308 de første femti årene av radio.  Han var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday,
 309 som var bokbinderlærling da han oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men
 310 han hadde like god intuisjon om hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre
 311 anledninger, fant Armstrong opp svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår
 312 forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
 313
 314 </p><p>
 315 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 316 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;FM-radio.  Inntil da hadde
 317 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio.  Tidens teoretikere
 318 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio.  De hadde rett når det gjelder
 319 et smalt bånd av spektrumet.  Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
 320 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
 321 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
 322 </p><p>
 323 Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
 324 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City.  Han vred
 325 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
 326 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna.  Radioen ble helt
 327 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
 328 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
 329 opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
 330 som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>»</span>
 331 </p><p>
 332 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 333 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 334 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
 335 et glass som ble fylt opp. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 336 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 337 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 338 utført. &#8230; Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
 339 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
 340 radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3087022" href="#ftn.id3087022" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 341 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 342
 343 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 344 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 345 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 346 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 347 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 348
 349 </p><p>
 350 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
 351 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
 352 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
 353 støy fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>.   Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
 354 oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3087265"></a>
 355 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 356 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 357 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 358 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id3079094" href="#ftn.id3079094" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 359 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessing"></a><p>
 360 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 361 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 362 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 363 <a class="indexterm" name="id3106428"></a>
 364 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 365 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 366 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 367 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 368 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 369 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 370 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 371 makt.<sup>[<a name="id3079556" href="#ftn.id3079556" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 372 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 373 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 374 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 375 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 376 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 377 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 378 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 379 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 380 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 381 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 382 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 383 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 384 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 385 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 386 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 387 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id3086357" href="#ftn.id3086357" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 388 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3078884"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103147"></a><p>
 389 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 390 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 391 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 392 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 393 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 394 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 395 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 396 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 397 </p><p>
 398 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 399 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 400 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 401 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 402 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 403 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 404 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 405 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 406 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 407 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3072030"></a><p>
 408
 409 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 410 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 411 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 412 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 413 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 414 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 415 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 416 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 417 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 418 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 419 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 420 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 421 </p><p>
 422 <span class="strong"><strong>Det er ingen</strong></span> enkeltoppfinner av
 423 Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som kan brukes til å markere når det
 424 ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet av svært kort tid blitt en del av
 425 vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew Internet and American
 426 Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt tilgang til internettet
 427 i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id3107228" href="#ftn.id3107228" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen
 428 ved utgangen av 2004.
 429 </p><p>
 430 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 431 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 432 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 433 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 434 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 435 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 436 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 437 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 438 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 439 </p><p>
 440 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 441 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 442 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 443 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 444 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 445 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 446 har introdusert.
 447 </p><p>
 448 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
 449 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
 450 Med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
 451 er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt.  Med
 452 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
 453 menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
 454 unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur.  Da Noah
 455 Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Reader</span>»</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
 456 så var det kommersiell kultur.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3088443"></a>
 457 <a class="indexterm" name="id3078283"></a>
 458 </p><p>
 459 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
 460 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert.  Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
 461 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
 462 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
 463 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span>.  Den
 464 vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
 465 kultur&#8212;historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
 466 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke
 467 styrt av lovverket.
 468 </p><p>
 469 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 470 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 471 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 472 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id3081693" href="#ftn.id3081693" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 473 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 474 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 475 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 476 </p><p>
 477 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 478 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id3088735" href="#ftn.id3088735" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 479 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 480 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 481 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 482 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 483 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 484 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 485 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 486 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 487 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 488 </p><p>
 489 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 490 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 491 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 492 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 493 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 494 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 495 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 496 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 497 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 498 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 499 drømmen til Causbyene.
 500 </p><p>
 501 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 502 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 503 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 504 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 505 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 506 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 507 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 508 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 509 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 510 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 511 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 512 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 513 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 514 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 515 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 516 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 517 </p><p>
 518 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 519 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 520 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 521 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 522 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 523 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 524 </p><p>
 525 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange.  Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
 526 internettet er fjernt for de fleste.  For de få som følger dem, virker de i
 527 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål&#8212;hvorvidt
 528 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
 529 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> vil bli beskyttet.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Krigen</span>»</span> som
 530 har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet&#8212;det presidenten for
 531 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
 532 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3107845" href="#ftn.id3107845" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
 533 respektere eiendomsretten.  For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
 534 krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
 535 eiendomsrett eller mot den.
 536 </p><p>
 537 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
 538 Valenti og innholdsindustrien.  Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
 539 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativ
 540 eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Jeg tror at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt,
 541 og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>,
 542 både på og utenfor internettet.
 543 </p><p>
 544 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
 545 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
 546 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
 547 internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
 548 har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
 549 </p><p>
 550 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 551 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 552 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 553 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 554 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id3089924" href="#ftn.id3089924" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 555 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 556 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 557 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 558 </p><p>
 559 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 560 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 561 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 562 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 563 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 564 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 565 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 566 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 567 vår tradisjon.
 568 </p><p>
 569 Historien som følger er om denne krigen.  Er det ikke om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">betydningen
 570 av teknologi</span>»</span> i vanlig liv.  Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
 571 eller andre typer.  Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
 572 individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
 573 eller på annen måte.  Det er ikke en moralsk historie.  Ei heller er det et
 574 rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
 575 </p><p>
 576 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 577 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 578 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 579 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 580 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 581 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 582 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 583 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3108061"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3108067"></a><p>
 584 <span class="strong"><strong>Lik Causbyenes</strong></span> kamp er denne krigen,
 585 delvis, om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke
 586 like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så
 587 langt mistet livet.  Likevel er idéene rundt denne
 588 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> like åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes
 589 krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss
 590 tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav som eierne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 591 rettigheter</span>»</span> nå hevder.  De fleste av oss, som Causbyene, behandler
 592 disse kravene som åpenbare.  Og dermed protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når
 593 ny teknologi griper inn i denne eiendomsretten.  Det er så klart for oss som
 594 det var fro dem at de nye teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tar seg til
 595 rette</span>»</span> mot legitime krav til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Det er
 596 like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å
 597 stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
 598 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3108122"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3108129"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3108135"></a><p>
 599
 600 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 601 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 602 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 603 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 604 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 605 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 606 </p><p>
 607 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre.  Jeg har blitt stadig mer
 608 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
 609 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
 610 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kultur</span>»</span>
 611 som har vært <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eid</span>»</span> enn det er nå.  Og likevel har aldri før
 612 konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av
 613 kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
 614 </p><p>
 615 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 616 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 617 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 618 feil?
 619 </p><p>
 620 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 621 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 622 intuisjon?
 623 </p><p>
 624 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 625 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 626 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 627 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 628 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 629 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 630 </p><p>
 631 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 632 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 633 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 634 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 635 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3108234"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3108240"></a><p>
 636
 637 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk.  Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
 638 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
 639 Causbyene.  Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
 640 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 641 rettigheter</span>»</span>.  Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
 642 om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
 643 eiendom.  Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
 644 dyptgripende.
 645
 646 </p><p>
 647 <span class="strong"><strong>Basketaket</strong></span> som pågår akkurat nå senterer
 648 seg rundt to idéer: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og
 649 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er å
 650 utforske disse to idéene.
 651 </p><p>
 652 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 653 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 654 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 655 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 656 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 657 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 658 </p><p>
 659 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
 660 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
 661 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noe
 662 nytt</span>»</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt.  I stedet for å forstå
 663 endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
 664 som trengs for å la <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
 665 på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
 666 til å endre loven&#8212;og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
 667 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
 668 </p><p>
 669 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 670 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 671 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 672 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 673 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 674 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 675 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104612" href="#id3104612" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 676 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 677 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 678 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3092186" href="#id3092186" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 679 USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
 680 å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
 681 ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby.  Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
 682 meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
 683 Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>»</span>,
 684 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
 685 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
 686 Foundation Press (1984)), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3078227"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3088447"></a>
 687 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3087022" href="#id3087022" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 688 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 689 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 690 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3079094" href="#id3079094" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
 691 første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
 692 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3079556" href="#id3079556" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 694 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3086357" href="#id3086357" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 695 Lessing, 256.
 696 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3107228" href="#id3107228" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 697 Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 698 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
 699 Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 700 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081693" href="#id3081693" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 701 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
 702 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
 703 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
 704 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser.  Ved
 705 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
 706 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
 707 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to
 708 Privacy</span>»</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.
 709 <a class="indexterm" name="id3086193"></a>
 710 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3088735" href="#id3088735" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 711 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 712 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3101508"></a>
 713 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3107845" href="#id3107845" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 714 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
 715 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 716 York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
 717 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3089924" href="#id3089924" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 718 Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span>
 719 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3097477"></a>
 720 </p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part I. «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part 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>
 721 <span class="strong"><strong>Helt siden</strong></span> loven begynte å regulere
 722 kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot
 723 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>.  De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
 724 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet
 725 av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive.  Som Lord Mansfield skrev i en sak
 726 som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere noteark,
 727 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 728 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 729 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 730 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id3108414" href="#ftn.id3108414" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 731 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3108429"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 732
 733 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krig</span>»</span> mot
 734 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
 735 Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold.  Peer-to-peer (p2p)
 736 fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
 737 internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
 738 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
 739 for en generasjon siden.
 740
 741 </p><p>
 742 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
 743 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
 744 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
 745 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold.  Denne
 746 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
 747 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
 748 overskuddet.</span>»</span>
 749 </p><p>
 750 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
 751 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> mot denne
 752 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span>.  En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
 753 krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> skal være
 754 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span>.  Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
 755 kroppspiercing&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 756 </p><p>
 757 Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt, og at
 758 pirater bør straffes.  Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
 759 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>»</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng.  For mens begrepet
 760 blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
 761 helt sikkert er feil.
 762 </p><p>
 763 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 764 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 765 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 766 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 767 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 768 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 769 piratvirksomhet.
 770 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3108551"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3108557"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvalue"></a><p>
 771 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene.  Det er hva jussprofessor
 772 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
 773 rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id3108589" href="#ftn.id3108589" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
 774 rettigheten til denne verdien.  Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
 775 rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
 776 betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
 777 leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id3108612" href="#ftn.id3108612" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
 778 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
 779 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettighet</span>»</span>&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 780 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3108656"></a><p>
 781
 782 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
 783 eierrettigheter bør virke.  Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
 784 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter.  Men teorien om
 785 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
 786 aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter.  It har aldri stått rot
 787 i vårt lovverk.
 788 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3108683"></a><p>
 789 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 790 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 791 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 792 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 793 syne.
 794 </p><p>
 795 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 796 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 797 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 798 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 799 </p><p>
 800 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 801 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 802 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 803 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 804 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 805 ved å drive forretning.
 806 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3108721"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3108727"></a><p>
 807 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
 808 lovens virkeområde.  Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
 809 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
 810 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
 811 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopiering</span>»</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
 812 bredt og obskurt som den gjør.  Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
 813 fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt&#8212;helt klart slik den påvirker
 814 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
 815 kommersiell kreativitet.  Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
 816 følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
 817 å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse.  Akkurat på tidspunktet da
 818 digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
 819 og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
 820 sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
 821 straffer.  Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremveksten
 822 av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3108766" href="#ftn.id3108766" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
 823 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
 824 kreative klassen.
 825 </p><p>
 826 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon.  Vi bør begynne med å forstå
 827 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
 828 merkelappen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
 829 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3108414" href="#id3108414" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 830
 831
 832 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 833 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 834 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3108589" href="#id3108589" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 835
 836
 837 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
 838 in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
 839 Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
 840 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3108612" href="#id3108612" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 841
 842 Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
 843 Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
 844 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
 845 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
 846 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
 847 Globe</em>, 24. november 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3108637"></a>
 848 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3108766" href="#id3108766" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 849
 850 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 851 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 852 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 853 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 854 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 855 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 856 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3108808"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108816"></a>
 857 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Chapter 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><p>
 858 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1928</strong></span> ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En
 859 tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn
 860 <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.  I november, i Colony teateret i New
 861 York City, ble den første vidt distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert
 862 lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som
 863 skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 864 </p><p>
 865 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 866 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 867 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 868 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 869 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 870 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 871 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 872
 873 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 874 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 875 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 876 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 877
 878 </p><p>
 879 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 880 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 881 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 882 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 883 </p><p>
 884 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 885 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 886 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 887 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id3108964" href="#ftn.id3108964" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 888 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 889 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
 890 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
 891 begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
 892 bra.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108990"></a>
 893 </p><p>
 894 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 895 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 896 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 897 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 898 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 899 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 900 </p><p>
 901 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 902 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 903 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 904 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 905 </p><p>
 906 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 907 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 908 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 909 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 910 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 911 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 912 </p><p>
 913 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
 914 Steamboat Willie.  Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
 915 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
 916 Bill,<sup>[<a name="id3109062" href="#ftn.id3109062" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
 917 som kilde.  Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
 918 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 919 Willie</em>.  Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
 920 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>»</span>,
 921 at vi får Steamboat Willie.  Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
 922 </p><p>
 923 Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">låningen</span>»</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
 924 industrien.  Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
 925 ham.<sup>[<a name="id3109134" href="#ftn.id3109134" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 926 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;små variasjoner
 927 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt.  Nøkkelen til
 928 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene.  Med Disney var det lyden som ga
 929 gnisten til hans animasjoner.  Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
 930 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
 931 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
 932 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
 933 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
 934 </p><p>
 935 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 936 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 937 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 938 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 939 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 940 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 941 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 942 </p><p>
 943
 944 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 945 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 946 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 947 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 948 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 949 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 950 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 951 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 952 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 953 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 954 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 955 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 956 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 957 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 958 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 959 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 960 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 961 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 962 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 963 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 964 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 965 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 966 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3109265"></a><p>
 967 Dette er en type kreativitet.  Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
 968 feire.  Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
 969 denne typen.  Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
 970 Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>, selv om det vil være
 971 litt misvisende.  Det er mer presist <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
 972 Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>&#8212;en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
 973 kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
 974 </p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
 975 fersk.  Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
 976 levende.  Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
 977 år&#8212;for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
 978 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id3109291" href="#ftn.id3109291" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
 979 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
 980 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>»</span> til a
 981 kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket.  For å bruke disse
 982 opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
 983 opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
 984 </p><p>
 985 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
 986 allemannseie.  Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
 987 verket.  Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
 988 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span>.  Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
 989 århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
 990 1928.  Det var tilgjengelig for enhver&#8212;uansett om de hadde
 991 forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
 992 ikke&#8212;til å bruke og bygge videre på.
 993 </p><p>
 994
 995 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 996 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 997 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 998 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 999 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
1000 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
1001 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
1002 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
1003 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
1004 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3109393"></a><p>
1005 <span class="strong"><strong>Walt Disney</strong></span> hadde selvfølgelig ikke
1006 monopol på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>.  Det har heller ikke
1007 USA.  Normen med fri kultur har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære
1008 nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og svært universell.
1009 </p><p>
1010 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1011 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1012 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
1013 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1014 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
1015 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1016 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1017 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1018 </p><p>
1019 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
1020 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss.  Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
1021 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
1022 historiene i disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grafiske historiene</span>»</span> forteller.  For en
1023 japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv.  For oss er
1024 tegneserier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn i strømpebukser</span>»</span>.  Og uansett er det ikke
1025 slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway
1026 for den saks skyld.  Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig
1027 måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.
1028 </p><p>
1029 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1030 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1031 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1032 </p><p>
1033
1034 Dette er fenomenet <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>.  Doujinshi er også
1035 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier.  En rik etikk styrer
1036 de som skaper doujinshi.  Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1037 <span class="emphasis"><em>bare</em></span> er en kopi.  Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1038 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig.  En
1039 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1040 i en annen retning&#8212;med en annen historie-linje.  Eller tegneserien kan
1041 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet.  Det er ingen
1042 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig
1043 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>»</span>.  Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
1044 som ekte doujinshi.  Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
1045 å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1046 </p><p>
1047 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet.  Det
1048 er enorme.  Mer en 33 000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sirkler</span>»</span> av skapere over hele Japan
1049 som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet.  Mer en 450 000
1050 japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i
1051 langet, for å bytte og selge dem.  Dette markedet er parallelt med det
1052 kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet.  På noen måter konkurrerer det
1053 åpenbart med det markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som
1054 kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
1055 doujinshi-markedet.  Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
1056 for loven.
1057 </p><p>
1058 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1059 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1060 Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
1061 papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
1062 Doujinshi er helt klart <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">avledede verk</span>»</span>.  Det er ingen generell
1063 praksis hos doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos
1064 manga-skaperne.  I stedet er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre
1065 har laget, slik Walt Disney gjorde med <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
1066 Jr</em>.  For både japansk og USAs lov, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> uten
1067 tillatelse fra den opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig.  Det er et
1068 brudd på opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et
1069 avledet verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1070 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1071 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1072 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1073 blomstrer.  Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I
1074 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1075 Japan i dag. &#8230; Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1076 hverandre. &#8230; Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne&#8212;ved å se i
1077 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
1078 dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id3109600" href="#ftn.id3109600" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1079 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3109627"></a><p>
1080 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1081 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1082 får lov til.  Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er det
1083 en rekke regler, og du må følge dem</span>»</span>.  Det er ting som Supermann
1084 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
1085 frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
1086 gamle.</span>»</span>
1087 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3109660"></a><p>
1088 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1089 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1090 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1091 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1092 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1093 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1094 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id3109686" href="#ftn.id3109686" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1095 </p><p>
1096 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1097 er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hold hendene
1098 borte</span>»</span>-responsen ikke er forstått.  Det kan godt være at markedet som
1099 helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den,
1100 men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere
1101 ikke saksøker.  Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det
1102 finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
1103 doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
1104 blokkere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie takingen</span>»</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1105 </p><p>
1106 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1107 som jeg kunne.  Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1108 større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater</span>»</span>,
1109 fortalte han meg en ettermiddag.  Det er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
1110 å tiltale tilfeller som dette</span>»</span>.
1111 </p><p>
1112
1113 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1114 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1115 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1116 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1117 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1118 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1119 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1120 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1121 eller skade dem?
1122 </p><p>
1123 <span class="strong"><strong>La oss ta</strong></span> et øyeblikks pause.
1124 </p><p>
1125 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1126 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1127 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1128 </p><p>
1129 Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Jeg er en av de som
1130 feierer.  Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
1131 verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
1132 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3109807" href="#ftn.id3109807" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
1133 stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
1134 samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1135 </p><p>
1136 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1137 verdi der ute som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke dekker.  Jeg mener ikke
1138 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>»</span> men heller, at en verdi
1139 som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og
1140 ikke-kommersiell produksjon.  Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett
1141 med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme
1142 det som galt&#8212;selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir
1143 oppdaget.  Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at
1144 Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene.  Det var intet galt
1145 med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som
1146 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig</span>»</span>.  Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
1147 fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1148 </p><p>
1149
1150 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1151 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1152 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1153 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1154 bra.
1155 </p><p>
1156 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1157 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1158 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1159 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1160 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1161 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1162 </p><p>
1163 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1164 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span>.  Denne formen for
1165 Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
1166 advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1167 </p><p>
1168 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1169 begynner å se etter dem.  Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1170 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
1171 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1172 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?</span>»</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
1173 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1174 (Er det <span class="emphasis"><em>noen</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1175 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1176 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1177 først?)  Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1178 astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.
1179 </p><p>
1180
1181 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1182 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1183 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1184 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1185 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1186 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1187 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1188 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1189 alle samfunn.
1190
1191 </p><p>
1192 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
1193 er fri.  Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1194 er i stedet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
1195 er?</span>»</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
1196 å ta, og bygge på?  Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer?  Til
1197 medlemmer av kongefamilien?  Til de ti største selskapene på New
1198 York-børsen?  Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt,
1199 uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke?  Til musikere
1200 generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt,
1201 uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1202 </p><p>
1203 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1204 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1205 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1206 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3108964" href="#id3108964" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1207
1208
1209 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1210 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1211 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109062" href="#id3109062" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1212
1213
1214 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1215 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1216 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1217 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1218 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>»</span> (Delille),
1219 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>»</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
1220 No. 1</span>»</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1221 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>»</span> var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra
1222 David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1223 forfatteren.
1224 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109134" href="#id3109134" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1225
1226
1227 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
1228 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>.
1229 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109291" href="#id3109291" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1230
1231
1232 Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1233 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode.  Jeg har beregnet
1234 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gjennomsnittlig</span>»</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
1235 de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger.  Hvis 100
1236 opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1237 fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2
1238 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1239 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1240 #6</a>.
1241 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109600" href="#id3109600" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1242
1243
1244 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1245 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1246 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109686" href="#id3109686" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1247
1248
1249 Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1250 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span>
1251 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
1252 kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og
1253 anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at
1254 alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
1255 egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
1256 rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>»</span>
1257 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109807" href="#id3109807" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1258
1259 Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
1260 opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1261 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se
1262 også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1263 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
1264 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rettigheter&#8212;opphavsretter, patenter,
1265 varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter&#8212;men egenskapene til disse
1266 rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id3109828"></a>
1267 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 2. Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3110064"></a><p>
1268 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1839</strong></span> fant Louis Daguerre opp den første
1269 praktiske teknologien for å produsere det vi ville kalle
1270 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>.  Rimelig nok ble de kalt
1271 <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.)
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="id3110127"></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="id3110176" href="#ftn.id3110176" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
1301 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id3110190"></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="id3104478" href="#ftn.id3104478" 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="id3110255" href="#ftn.id3110255" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1321 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3110265" href="#ftn.id3110265" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1322 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3110274"></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="id3110206" href="#ftn.id3110206" 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="id3110358" href="#ftn.id3110358" 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="id3109988"></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="id3110427" href="#ftn.id3110427" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id3110467"></a><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="id3110488" href="#ftn.id3110488" 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.
1406 </p><p>
1407 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis du kjører</strong></span> gjennom området Presidio i
1408 San Francisco, kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med
1409 fargefulle og iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> i
1410 stedet for navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare</span>»</span>
1411 mentalt i prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør.  Disse bussene er fylt
1412 med teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film.  Ikke filmen til Eastman.
1413 Ikke en gang filmen i din videospiller.  I stedet er det snakk om
1414 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">filmen</span>»</span> til digitale kamera.  Just Think! er et prosjekt som
1415 gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere
1416 den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg.  Hvert år besøker
1417 disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
1418 barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media.  Ved å
1419 gjøre, så tenker de.  Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1420 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3110628"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3110636"></a><p>
1421 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1422 og billigere.  Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1423 dramatisk.  Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
1424 godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000.  I dag kan du
1425 få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3110667" href="#ftn.id3110667" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
1426 hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden.  Og det er nå mulig å
1427 forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
1428 unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
1429 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">medie-skriveføre</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span>.
1430 </p><p>
1431
1432 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media-skriveføre,</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span> som
1433 administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er
1434 evnen til &#8230; å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
1435 er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
1436 er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker
1437 dem</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3110722"></a>
1438 </p><p>
1439 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
1440 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>»</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
1441 skrive. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>»</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
1442 og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1443 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3110749"></a><p>
1444 Mulig det.  Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
1445 TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
1446 reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id3110763" href="#ftn.id3110763" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
1447 viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>»</span> til media.  For på samme måte som
1448 det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media.  Og
1449 akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
1450 lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i
1451 begynnelsen) grusom media.
1452 </p><p>
1453 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1454 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1455 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1456 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1457 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1458 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1459 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1460 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1461 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1462 </p><p>
1463 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1464 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1465 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1466 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1467 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1468 reflektere over det en har laget.
1469 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3110803"></a><p>
1470 Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg.  Da
1471 det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
1472 Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
1473 ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
1474 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, &#8230; rytme, skritt og
1475 tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3110863" href="#ftn.id3110863" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
1476 datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
1477 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spillt</span>»</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg.  Den
1478 enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
1479 teknikker nødvendig.  Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret
1480 fortellerstemmen til science fiction.  Men da han forsøkte å lage et
1481 dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
1482 lære.  Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
1483 de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
1484 forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id3110906" href="#ftn.id3110906" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1485 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3110934"></a><p>
1486 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1487 filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
1488 blir ledet gjennom en film.  Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
1489 å se det, så du aner det ikke.  Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du
1490 ikke at du har vært ledet.</span>»</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
1491 film, så har filmen feilet.
1492 </p><p>
1493 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1494 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1495 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1496 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1497 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1498 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1499 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1500 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1501 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1502 skrive.
1503 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1504 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kunne skrive.</span>»</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
1505 andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1506 århundre.
1507 </p><p>
1508 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes.  Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1509 kan bli både lesing og skriving.  Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1510 forståelse for håndverket å skrive.  Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1511 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede.  Målet med
1512 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gi folket
1513 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1514 uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3111019" href="#ftn.id3111019" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
1515 mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
1516 århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3111041" href="#ftn.id3111041" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1517 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3111049"></a><p>
1518 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1519 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1520 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1521 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1522 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1523 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1524 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1525 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1526 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1527 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1528 </p><p>
1529 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1530 skolen.  Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1531 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ungene
1532 dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta</span>»</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
1533 hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle
1534 om&#8212;å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
1535 </p><p>
1536 Ved å bruke hva som helst av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
1537 finne</span>»</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
1538 blande <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde, lyd og tekst</span>»</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
1539 produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få
1540 ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse
1541 studentene.  Prosjektet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
1542 de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det</span>»</span>, forklarer
1543 Barish.  Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk&#8212;mye mer vellykket
1544 og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst.
1545 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
1546 tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe
1547 annet</span>»</span>, forklarer Barish.  Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1548 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1549 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> idéene godt.
1550 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1551 uttrykk.
1552 </p><p>
1553
1554
1555
1556 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?</span>»</span> spurte
1557 jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis.  Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive?
1558 Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å
1559 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">konstruere mening</span>»</span>.  Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
1560 si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å
1561 stave. Tekstforming er bare en del&#8212;og i større grad ikke den
1562 kraftigste delen&#8212;for å konstruere mening.  Som Daley forklarte i den
1563 mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
1564 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1565 Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
1566 du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
1567 Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
1568 han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
1569 din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting.  Men han kan ikke lese teksten
1570 din.  Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
1571 Ingenting du gjør betyr noe</span>»</span>.  Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
1572 avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv.  Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil
1573 han avvise deg.  Men hvis du i stedet sier, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, med alle disse
1574 tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet.  Spill musikk til
1575 meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener
1576 reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere
1577 temaet</span>»</span>.  Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og &#8230; si
1578 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
1579 film</span>»</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
1580 forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.&#8230;
1581 </p><p>
1582 Dette bemyndiger enormt.  Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
1583 har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
1584 faktumet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
1585 skrive noe</span>»</span>.  Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
1586 om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
1587 </p><p>
1588
1589 Fordi de trengte det.  Det var en grunn til å gjøre det.  De trengte å si
1590 noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe.  De trengte faktisk å
1591 bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra.  Men de hadde begynt å
1592 forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
1593 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3111271"></a><p>
1594 <span class="strong"><strong>Da to fly</strong></span> krasjet inn i World Trade
1595 Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og et fjerde inn i et jorde i
1596 Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg til denne nyheten.
1597 Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og ukene som fulgte
1598 gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om disse hendelsene
1599 som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne forferdelige
1600 terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var perfekt tidsatt
1601 for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1602 </p><p>
1603 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse.  Det var musikk
1604 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1605 over skjermen.  Det var en formel for intervjuer.  Det var
1606 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet.  Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
1607 vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
1608 underholdning</span>»</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
1609 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3111322"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3111327"></a><p>
1610 Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedien
1611 11. september</span>»</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
1612 tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
1613 fortellinger om de samme hendelsene.  Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde
1614 en veldig annerledes smak.  Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget
1615 bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med
1616 tekst.  Noen tilbød åpne brev.  Det var lydopptak.  Det var sinne og
1617 frustrasjon.  Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng.  Det var, kort og
1618 godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin
1619 bruker begrepet i hans bok <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, rundt en
1620 nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden.  Det var
1621 ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet.
1622 </p><p>
1623
1624 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet&#8212;selv om
1625 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises.  Jeg
1626 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale.  For på
1627 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1628 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just
1629 Think!</span>»</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1630 </p><p>
1631 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1632 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1633 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1634 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1635 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1636 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1637 </p><p>
1638 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1639 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1640 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1641 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1642 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1643 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1644 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1645 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3111415"></a><p>
1646 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1647 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1648 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1649 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1650 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1651 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1652 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1653 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1654 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1655 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1656 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1657 </p><p>
1658
1659 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1660 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1661 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1662 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1663 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1664 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1665 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1666 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3111469"></a><p>
1667 Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg.  Demokrati betyr at folket
1668 styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg.  I vår tradisjon betyr det
1669 også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning.  Dette var idéen som
1670 fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
1671 nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
1672 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratiet i Amerika</span>»</span>.  Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
1673 fascinerte han&#8212;det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk
1674 retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere.  Og det som fascinerte
1675 han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge
1676 frem.  De diskuterte.  Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var
1677 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
1678 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
1679 enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
1680 avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id3111516" href="#ftn.id3111516" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1681 </p><p>
1682 Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag.  Og i dets sted er det
1683 ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
1684 innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id3111538" href="#ftn.id3111538" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
1685 Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
1686 Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
1687 å gjennomføre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>»</span>.
1688 </p><p>
1689 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1690 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1691 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1692 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1693 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1694 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id3111576" href="#ftn.id3111576" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1695 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1696 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogs1"></a><p>
1697
1698 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1699 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1700 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1701 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1702 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1703 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1704 </p><p>
1705 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1706 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1707 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1708 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1709 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1710 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1711 det.
1712 </p><p>
1713 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1714 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1715 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1716 lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id3111645"></a>
1717 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3111652"></a><p>
1718 En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
1719 store mediene.  Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel.  Da Logg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sa
1720 feil</span>»</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
1721 segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at
1722 historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer.
1723 Det skjedde.  Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren.
1724 Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien.  Etter hvert dukket flere og
1725 flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>»</span> opp. Så dukket
1726 historien opp igjen hos de store mediene.  Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
1727 trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id3111687" href="#ftn.id3111687" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3111698"></a>
1728 </p><p>
1729 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1730 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1731 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1732 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1733 må de bevege seg videre.
1734 </p><p>
1735 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1736 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1737 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1738 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1739 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1740 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1741 likemanns-generert rangering.
1742 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1743
1744 Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
1745 mediene.  Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
1746 programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell
1747 fraværet av finansiell <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interessekonflikt</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg tror du
1748 må ta interessekonflikten</span>»</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
1749 meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
1750 eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
1751 rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
1752 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3111780"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3111786"></a><p>
1753 Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
1754 konsentert (mer om dette under).  Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
1755 offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan&#8212;slik CNN innrømte at de
1756 gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
1757 ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id3111494" href="#ftn.id3111494" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
1758 en mer konsistent rapportering.  (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
1759 melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
1760 satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq.  New York-hovedkvarteret ba
1761 reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte
1762 tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
1763 grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var <span class="emphasis"><em>dem</em></span> som
1764 skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">historien</span>»</span>.)
1765 </p><p> Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
1766 debatten&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amatør</span>»</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
1767 betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
1768 komme med deres rapport.  Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
1769 en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
1770 hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
1771 hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id3111849" href="#ftn.id3111849" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
1772 til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulere</span>»</span>,
1773 som Winer formulerer det, sannheten.  Blogger, sier Winer,
1774 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
1775 fjernet</span>»</span>&#8212; med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
1776 </p><p>
1777
1778 Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av
1779 blogger.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet</span>»</span>, spår
1780 Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
1781 Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalismen</span>»</span> er glad for
1782 dette&#8212;noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
1783 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id3111886" href="#ftn.id3111886" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
1784 fortsatt er i en overgangsfase.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
1785 oppvarmingsøvelser</span>»</span>, fortalte Winer meg.  Det er mye som må modne før
1786 dette området har sin modne effekt.  Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
1787 dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa
1788 Wiener at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned</span>»</span>.
1789 </p><p>
1790 Slik tale påvirker demokratiet.  Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">du
1791 trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en
1792 portvokter</span>»</span>. Det er sant.  Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
1793 annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener,
1794 og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige
1795 temaer.  Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt.  Det er
1796 vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre.  Det
1797 er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å
1798 innse at han tok feil.  Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere
1799 at noen har bevist at han tok feil.  Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og
1800 kritikk forbedrer demokratiet.  I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
1801 blogger der det skrives på denne måten.  Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
1802 være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
1803 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3112029"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112037"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
1804 <span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> er sjefsforsker ved
1805 Xerox Corporation.  Hans arbeid, i følge hans eget nettsted, er
1806 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og &#8230; å skape kunnskapsøkologier for å skape
1807 &#8230; innovasjon</span>»</span>.
1808 </p><p>
1809 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1810 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1811 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1812 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1813 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1814 </p><p>
1815
1816 Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle.  Da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mange av oss vokste opp</span>»</span>,
1817 forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
1818 gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre</span>»</span>.  Men digitale
1819 teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling&#8212;med abstrakte idéer i sin
1820 konkrete form.  Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et
1821 reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker.  Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan
1822 de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og
1823 se hvordan det blir gjort.  Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags
1824 *bricolage* eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling</span>»</span>, som
1825 Brown kaller det.  Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
1826 fiklingen til mange andre.
1827 </p><p>
1828 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1829 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1830 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1831 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1832 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1833 </p><p>
1834 Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>»</span>, i
1835 følge Brown.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så &#8230; slipper
1836 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1837 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1838 forbedre den</span>»</span>.  Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
1839 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>»</span>.
1840 </p><p>
1841 I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1842 er kildekode</span>»</span>.  Unger <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1843 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1844 gjør i garasjen din.  Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. &#8230; Du
1845 fikler med andre folks greier.  Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1846 du.</span>»</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1847 </p><p>
1848 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1849 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1850 formulerer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1851 til flere former for intelligens</span>»</span>.  Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1852 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet
1853 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1854 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1855 &#8230;da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan
1856 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>»</span>
1857 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3112227"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112234"></a><p>
1858
1859 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1860 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1861 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1862 </p><p>
1863 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1864 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1865 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1866 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1867 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1868 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1869 </p><p>
1870 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1871 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>) har utviklet et
1872 kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>»</span> slik det
1873 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id3112285" href="#ftn.id3112285" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det
1874 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1875 loven.
1876 </p><p>
1877 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1878 på vei</span>»</span>, forklarer Brown.  Vi må <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1879 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>»</span>.
1880 </p><p>
1881 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Likevel</span>»</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1882 føre bevis for, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1883 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We
1884 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1885 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>»</span>.
1886 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3112344"></a><p>
1887 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1888 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1889 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1890 teknologien.
1891 </p><p>
1892 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>»</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1893 møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Chapter 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1894 nedstemthet.
1895 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110176" href="#id3110176" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1896
1897
1898 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1899 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1900 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104478" href="#id3104478" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1901
1902 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1903 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3110229"></a>
1904 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110255" href="#id3110255" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1905
1906
1907 Jenkins, 177.
1908 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110265" href="#id3110265" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1909
1910
1911 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1912 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110206" href="#id3110206" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1913
1914
1915 Coe, 58.
1916 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110358" href="#id3110358" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1917
1918
1919 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1920 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1921 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1922 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1923 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1924 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110427" href="#id3110427" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1925
1926 Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>»</span>,
1927 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3110439"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3110447"></a>
1928 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110488" href="#id3110488" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1929
1930
1931 Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
1932 and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
1933 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48
1934 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
1935 Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
1936 sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110667" href="#id3110667" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1938
1939
1940 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1941 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
1942 cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1943 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110763" href="#id3110763" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1944
1945
1946 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1947 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on
1948 Family and TV Study</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1949 1997, B6.
1950 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110863" href="#id3110863" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1951
1952 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1953 <a class="indexterm" name="id3110871"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3110878"></a>
1954 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110906" href="#id3110906" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1955
1956
1957 Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>»</span>, E!online,
1958 4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1959 <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>.
1960 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111019" href="#id3111019" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1961
1962 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3111026"></a>
1963 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111041" href="#id3111041" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1964
1965
1966 ibid.
1967 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111516" href="#id3111516" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1968
1969
1970 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1971 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1972 2000), kap. 16.
1973 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111538" href="#id3111538" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1974
1975
1976 Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day</span>»</span>,
1977 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1978 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111576" href="#id3111576" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1979
1980
1981 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1982 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1983 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111687" href="#id3111687" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1984
1985
1986 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1987 Pot</span>»</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
1988 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111494" href="#id3111494" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1989
1990
1991 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1992 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111849" href="#id3111849" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1993
1994
1995 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1996 Information Online</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar
1997 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
1998 Strong Overall</span>»</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
1999 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
2000 #10</a>.
2001 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111886" href="#id3111886" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
2002
2003 <a class="indexterm" name="id3111916"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3111924"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3111931"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3111937"></a>  Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's
2004 Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
2005 29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like
2006 stor aksept for ansatte som blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i
2007 Irak som startet en blogg om sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å
2008 publisere 12 dager senere på forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve
2009 Olafson, en <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å
2010 ha hatt en personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om
2011 noen av temaene og folkene som han dekket.</span>»</span>)
2012 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112285" href="#id3112285" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
2013
2014
2015 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
2016 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span>
2017 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
2018 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
2019 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3112394"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
2020 <span class="strong"><strong>Høsten 2001</strong></span>, ble Jesse Jordan fra
2021 Oceanside, New York, innrullert som førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer
2022 Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.  Hans studieprogram ved RPI var
2023 informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var en programmerer, bestemte Jesse
2024 seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en søkemotorteknologi som var
2025 tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2026 </p><p>
2027 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2028 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2029 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
2030 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2031 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2032 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2033 nettverksalderen.
2034 </p><p>
2035 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2036 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2037 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
2038 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2039 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2040 </p><p>
2041
2042 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2043 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2044 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket.  Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2045 enda bedre.  Idéen med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranett</span>»</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2046 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2047 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2048 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2049 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2050 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2051 </p><p>
2052 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2053 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2054 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2055 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2056 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2057 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2058 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2059 </p><p>
2060 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2061 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2062 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2063 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2064 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2065 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2066 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2067 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2068 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2069 </p><p>
2070 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2071 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2072 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2073 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2074 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2075 </p><p>
2076
2077 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2078 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2079 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2080 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2081 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2082 datamaskiner.
2083 </p><p>
2084 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2085 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2086 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2087 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2088 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2089 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2090 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2091 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2092 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2093 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2094 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2095 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2096 </p><p>
2097 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2098 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
2099 wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
2100 gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere ble
2101 Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2102 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2103 forbauset.
2104 </p><p>
2105 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>»</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
2106 ikke gjorde noe galt. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2107 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; hva jeg hadde gjort med den.  Jeg
2108 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2109 arbeidet til pirater.  Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2110 bruke</span>»</span>&#8212;igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2111 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2112 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2113 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2114 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2115 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3112647"></a><p>
2116
2117 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat.  De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2118 dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">med vilje</span>»</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene.  De krevde
2119 at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt.  I saker
2120 med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>»</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
2121 som advokater kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>»</span>.  Disse skadene
2122 tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
2123 Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
2124 opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
2125 $15 000 000.
2126 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3112672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112683"></a><p>
2127 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2128 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2129 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse.  Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2130 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2131 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">erstatning</span>»</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på.  Hvis du summerte
2132 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2133 saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>&#8212;seks ganger det
2134 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2135 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3112716" href="#ftn.id3112716" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2136 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3112733"></a><p>
2137 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2138 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2139 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2140 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2141 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3112754"></a><p>
2142 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt.  Han
2143 nektet.  De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2144 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2145 hans liv.  Han nektet.  De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2146 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig.  (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2147 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ønsker
2148 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>»</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2149 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2150 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2151 </p><p>
2152
2153 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2154 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2155 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2156 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2157 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2158 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2159 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2160 konkurs.
2161 </p><p>
2162 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2163 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2164 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3112795"></a><p>
2165 Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.  La oss
2166 legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er moralen i
2167 et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er en spesielt
2168 mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $1
2169 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.  Den
2170 gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id3112800" href="#ftn.id3112800" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2171 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2172 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id3112856" href="#ftn.id3112856" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2173 </p><p>
2174 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2175 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2176 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2177 aktivist:
2178 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2179 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2180 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2181 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2182 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2183 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2184 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2185 aktivist.  Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
2186 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. &#8230; Han er ingen
2187 treklemmer. &#8230; Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2188 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap.  Og han ønsker å
2189 korrigere rullebladet.</span>»</span>
2190 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112716" href="#id3112716" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2191
2192
2193
2194 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2195 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2196 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2197 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112800" href="#id3112800" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2198
2199
2200 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2201 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2202 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2203 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112856" href="#id3112856" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2204
2205
2206 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2207 Punishment,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
2208 10. september 2003, A24.
2209 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3112931"></a><p>
2210 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr</strong></span>
2211 å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten deres tillatelse&#8212;hvis
2212 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> er sant&#8212;da er historien om
2213 innholdsindustrien en historie om piratvirksomhet.  Hver eneste viktige
2214 sektor av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store medier</span>»</span> i dag&#8212;film, plater, radio og
2215 kabel-TV&#8212;kom fra en slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen.  Den
2216 konsekvente fortellingen er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne
2217 generasjonens borgerskap&#8212;inntil nå.
2218 </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>
2219
2220 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id3112983" href="#ftn.id3112983" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
2221 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2222 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2223 Edison.  Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2224 monopol-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kartell</span>»</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2225 basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter&#8212;patenter. Edison
2226 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2227 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2228 </p><p>
2229 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2230 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2231 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2232 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2233 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2234 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2235 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2236 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2237 undergrunnsmarked.
2238 </p><p>
2239 Med et land som så en kolosal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
2240 nickelodeons, reagerte patentselskapet på bevegelsen av uavhengige med å
2241 stifte et hardhendt datterselskap ved navn General Film Company for å
2242 blokkere innføringen av ulisensierte uavhengige.  Med tvangstaktikker som
2243 har blitt legendariske, konfiserte General Film ulisensiert utstyr, stoppet
2244 varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
2245 monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
2246 unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
2247 kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id3113064" href="#ftn.id3113064" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113108"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113115"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113121"></a>
2248 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2249 Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige</span>»</span>, var selskaper som Fox.
2250 Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
2251 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
2252 tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
2253 ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3113143" href="#ftn.id3113143" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
2254 til å flykte til østkysten.  Californa var fjernt nok fra Edisons
2255 innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
2256 frykte loven.  Og lederne blant Hollywods filmskapere, Fox mest
2257 fremtredende, gjorde akkurat dette.
2258 </p><p>
2259
2260 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2261 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2262 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> monopol (kun sytten
2263 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2264 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2265 kreative rettigheter.
2266 </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>
2267 Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2268 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2269 musikk.
2270 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3113224"></a><p>
2271 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2272 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2273 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2274 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2275 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2276 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2277 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2278 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2279 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3113252"></a><p>
2280 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span> ved hjelp av
2281 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2282 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2283 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2284 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2285 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> hvis jeg
2286 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2287 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2288 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2289 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av opphavsrettsloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2290 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2291 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2292 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2293 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2294 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2295 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3113280"></a><p>
2296 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2297 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2298 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id3113316"></a>
2299 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2300 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2301 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2302 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2303 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2304 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2305 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3113343" href="#ftn.id3113343" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2306 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3113372"></a><p>
2307 Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
2308 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, tallentet og geniet til amerikanske
2309 komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id3113389" href="#ftn.id3113389" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
2310 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkpubliseringsindistrien</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i
2311 denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3113405" href="#ftn.id3113405" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
2312 Philip Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de
2313 tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3113422" href="#ftn.id3113422" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2314 </p><p>
2315 Disse argumentene høres omtrent ut som argumentene fra våre dager. Det samme
2316 gjør argumentene fra den andre siden.  Oppfinnerne som utviklet det
2317 auomatiske pianoet argumenterte med at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er fullt mulig å vise at
2318 introduksjonen av automatiske musikkspillere ikke har fratatt noen komponist
2319 noe han hadde før det ble introdusert.</span>»</span> I stedet økte maskinene
2320 salget av noteark.<sup>[<a name="id3113450" href="#ftn.id3113450" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> Uansett,
2321 argumenterte oppfinnerne, jobben til kongressen var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å først vurdere
2322 interessen til [folket], som de representerte, og som de skal
2323 tjene.</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alt snakk om 'tyveri',</span>»</span> skrev sjefsjuristen
2324 til American Graphophone Company, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er kun nonsens, for det finnes
2325 ingen eiendom i musikalske ideer, skriftlig eller kunstnerisk, unntatt det
2326 som er definert i loven.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3113474" href="#ftn.id3113474" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2327 <a class="indexterm" name="id3113486"></a>
2328 </p><p>
2329
2330 Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
2331 komponisten og innspillingsartisten.  Kongressen endret loven slik at
2332 komponisten fikk betalt for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekaniske reproduksjonen</span>»</span> av
2333 deres musikk.  Men i stedet for å ganske enkelt gi komponisten full kontroll
2334 over rettigheten til å lage mekaniske reproduksjoner, ga kongressen
2335 innspillingsartister rett en til å spille inn musikk, til en pris satt av
2336 kongressen, så snart komponisten har tillatt at den ble spilt inn en gang.
2337 Det er denne delen av opphavsrettsloven som gjør cover-låter mulig.  Så
2338 snart en komponist tillater en innspilling av hans sang, har andre mulighet
2339 til å spille inn samme sang, så lenge de betaler den originale komponisten
2340 et gebyr fastsatt av loven.
2341 </p><p>
2342 Amerikansk lov kaller dette vanligvis en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tvangslisens</span>»</span>, men
2343 jeg vil referere til dette som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemt lisens</span>»</span>.  En
2344 lovbestemt lisens er en lisens hvis nøkkelvilkår er bestemt i lovverket.
2345 Etter kongressens endring av opphavsrettsloven i 1909, sto plateselskapene
2346 fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
2347 komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
2348 </p><p>
2349 Dette er et unntak i opphavsrettsloven.  Når John Grisham skriver en roman
2350 så kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren
2351 tillatelse til det.  Girsham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst
2352 betaling for den tillatelsen.  Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed
2353 bestemt av Grisham og opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
2354 bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
2355 <a class="indexterm" name="id3113556"></a>
2356 </p><p>
2357 Men loven som styrer innspillinger gir innspillingsartisten mindre. Og
2358 dermed er effekten at loven <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidierer</em></span>
2359 musikkindustrien med et slags piratvirksomhet&#8212;ved å gi
2360 innspillingsartister en svakere rettighet enn de gir kreative forfattere.
2361 The Beatles har mindre kontroll over deres kreative verker enn Grisham har.
2362 Og de som nyter godt av at de har mindre kontroll er musikkindustrien og
2363 folket.  Musikkindustrien får noe av verdi for mindre enn de ellers måtte
2364 betalt, og folket får tilgang til en større mengde musikalsk kreativitet.
2365 Kongressen var faktisk svært eksplisitt i sine grunner for å dele ut denne
2366 rettigheten.  Den fryktet monopolmakten til rettighetsinnehaverne, og at
2367 denne makten skulle kvele påvølgende kreativitet.<sup>[<a name="id3113023" href="#ftn.id3113023" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113603"></a>
2368 </p><p>
2369 Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
2370 historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
2371 innspillinger.  Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
2372 on the Judiciary:
2373 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2374 plateprodusentene argumenterte energisk for at tvangslisens-systemet måtte
2375 bevares.  De tok utgangspunkt i at musikkindustrien er et forretningsområde
2376 på en halv milliard dollar som er veldig viktig for økonomien i USA og
2377 resten av verden. Plater er i dag den viktigste måten å spre musikk, og
2378 dette fører til spesielle problemer, siden utøvere trenger uhindret tilgang
2379 til musikalsk materiale på ikke-diskriminerende vilkår.  Plateprodusentene
2380 pekte på at historisk var det ingen innspillingsrettigheter før 1909 og
2381 1909-endringen i lovverket vedtok tvangslisensen som en gjennomtenkt
2382 mekanisme for å unngå monopol da de tildelte disse rettighetene.  De
2383 argumenterer med at resultatet har vært at det har strømmet på med innspillt
2384 musikk, at folket har fått lavere priser, bedre kvalitet og flere
2385 valg.<sup>[<a name="id3113656" href="#ftn.id3113656" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2386 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2387 Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
2388 verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
2389 </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>
2390 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2391 </p><p>
2392 Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
2393 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id3113720" href="#ftn.id3113720" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
2394 opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
2395 hans verk.  Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
2396 fremføringe.
2397 </p><p>
2398
2399 Men når en radiostasjon spiller en plage, så fremfører det ikke bare et
2400 eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>komponistens</em></span> verk. Radiostasjonen
2401 fremfører også et eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>innspillingsartistens</em></span>
2402 verk.  Det er en ting å få <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> sunget på radio av
2403 det lokale barnekoret.  Det er noe ganske annet å få det sunget av Rolling
2404 Stones eller Lyle Lovett.  Innspillingsartisten legger til verdi på
2405 komposisjonen fremført på radiostasjonen.  Og hvis loven var fullstendig
2406 konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
2407 innspillingsartisten for hans verk, på samme måten som den betaler
2408 komponisten av musikken for hans verk.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3113811"></a>
2409
2410
2411 </p><p>
2412 Men det gjør den ikke.  I følge loven som styrer radiofremføringer, trenger
2413 ikke radiostasjonen å betale noe til innspillingsartisten. Radiostasjonen
2414 trenger kun å betale komponisten.  Radiostasjonen får dermed noe uten å
2415 betale.  Den får fremføre innspillingsartistens verk gratis, selv om den må
2416 betale komponisten noe for privilegiet det er å spille sangen.
2417 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2418 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2419 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2420 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2421 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2422 </p><p>
2423 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2424 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2425 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2426 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2427 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2428 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2429 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2430 betale henne noen ting.
2431 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3113885"></a><p>
2432 Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
2433 på dette.  I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
2434 fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg.  Kanskje.  Men selv om det er slik,
2435 så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget.  Ved å
2436 gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
2437 uten å betale.
2438 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3113909"></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>
2439
2440 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2441 </p><p>
2442
2443 Da kabel-TV-gründere først begynte å koble opp fellesskap med kabel-TV i
2444 1948, nektet de fleste å betale kringkasterne for innholdet som de sendte
2445 videre til sine kunder.  Selv da kabelselskapene begynte å selge tilgang til
2446 TV-kringkastinger, nektet de å betale for det de solgte.  Kabelselskapene
2447 Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
2448 noen gang gjorde&#8212;Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
2449 mulig for andre å gi bort.
2450 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3113935"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3113942"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3113966"></a><p>
2451 Kringkastere og opphavsrettsinnehavere var raske til å angripe dette
2452 tyveriet.  Rosel Hyde, styreleder i FCC, så praksisen som en slags
2453 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">urettferdig og potensielt ødeleggende
2454 konkurranse</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3113984" href="#ftn.id3113984" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> Det kan ha vært en
2455 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig interesse</span>»</span> i å øke spredningen til kabel-TV, men som
2456 Douglas Anello, sjefsjurist hos Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere spurte
2457 senator Quentin Burdick under sitt vitnemål, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dikterer offentlig
2458 interesse at du kan bruke noen andres eiendom?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3114019" href="#ftn.id3114019" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
2459 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2460 Den uvanlige tingen med kabel-TV-selskapene er at det er de eneste
2461 selskapene jeg vet om hvor produktet som blir solgt ikke er betalt
2462 for.<sup>[<a name="id3114036" href="#ftn.id3114036" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2463 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2464 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2465 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2466 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2467 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2468 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2469 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id3114064" href="#ftn.id3114064" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2470 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3114076"></a><p>
2471 Disse var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>»</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2472 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2473 skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3114092" href="#ftn.id3114092" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2474 </p><p>
2475 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2476 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2477 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2478 Vårt poeng her er ikke problemet med om hvorvidt du over hode har
2479 opphavsrettsbeskyttelse.  Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
2480 som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
2481 utvide dette monopolet. &#8230; Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
2482 ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id3112890" href="#ftn.id3112890" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3114148"></a>
2483 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2484 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2485 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2486 </p><p>
2487 Det tok kongressen nesten tredve år før den fikk løst spørsmålet om hvorvidt
2488 kabel-TV-selskapene måtte betale for innholdet de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span>.  Til
2489 slutt løste kongressen dette spørsmålet på samme måte som den hadde løst
2490 spørsmålet om platespillere og automatiske pianoer.  Ja, kabel-TV-selskapene
2491 måtte betale for innholdet som de kringkastet, men prisen de måtte betale
2492 ble ikke satt av opphavsrettsinnehaveren.  Prisen ble fastsatt ved lov, slik
2493 at kringkasterne ikke kunne utøve vetomakt over den nye teknologien
2494 kabel-TV.  Kabel-TV-selskapene bygde dermed deres imperie delvis ved å
2495 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
2496 </p><p>
2497 <span class="strong"><strong>Disse separate historiene</strong></span> synger en
2498 felles melodi.  Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke verdien
2499 fra noen andres kreative eiendom uten tillatelse fra dets skaper&#8212;slik
2500 det stadig oftere beskrives i dag<sup>[<a name="id3114122" href="#ftn.id3114122" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup>
2501 &#8212;da er <span class="emphasis"><em>enhver</em></span> industri påvirket av opphavsrett i
2502 dag produktet og de som har nytt godt av ulike former for piratvirksomhet.
2503 Film, plater, radio, kabel-TV. &#8230; Listen er lang og kunne vært
2504 lengre.  Hver generasjon ønsker piratene fra den forrige velkommen.  Hver
2505 generasjon&#8212;inntil nå.
2506 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112983" href="#id3112983" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2507
2508 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2509 ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
2510 and Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2511 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id3112999"></a>
2512 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113064" href="#id3113064" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2513
2514 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2515 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) og
2516 utvidede tekster lagt ut på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2517 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
2518 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For en
2519 diskusjon om det økomiske motivet bak begge disse begresningene, og
2520 begresningene pålagt av Victor på fonografer, se Randal C. Picker,
2521 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal
2522 and the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (september 2002), University of
2523 Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working
2524 Paper No.  159.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3113097"></a>
2525 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113143" href="#id3113143" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2526
2527
2528 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2529 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2530 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113343" href="#id3113343" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2531
2532 Endre og slå sammen lovforslag om å respektere opphavsretten: Høring om
2533 S. 6330 og H.R. 19853 foran (felles)-komiteene om patenter, 59. kongr. 59,
2534 1. sess. (1906) (uttalelse til senator Alfred B. Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota,
2535 formann), gjengitt i <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright
2536 Act</em>, E.  Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South
2537 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3113360"></a>
2538 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113389" href="#id3113389" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2539
2540
2541 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2542 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113405" href="#id3113405" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2544
2545
2546 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2547 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2548 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113422" href="#id3113422" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2549
2550
2551 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2552 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2553 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113450" href="#id3113450" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2554
2555
2556
2557 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2558 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2559 Company of New York).
2560 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113474" href="#id3113474" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2561
2562
2563 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
2564 innlegg fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
2565 Company Association).
2566 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113023" href="#id3113023" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2567
2568
2569
2570 Endring i opphavsrettsloven: Høring om S. 2499, S.2900, H.R. 243, og
2571 H.R. 11794 foran (felles)-komiteen om patenter, 60. kongr., 1. sess., 217
2572 (1908) (uttalelse fra senator Reed Smooth, formann), gjengitt i
2573 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>, E.
2574 Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2575 Reprints, 1976).
2576 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113656" href="#id3113656" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2577
2578
2579 Endring av opphavsrettsloven: Rapport som følger H.R. 2512, House Committee
2580 on the Judiciary, 90. Kongr., 1. sess., House Document no. 83, (8. mars
2581 1967).  Jeg er takknemlig til Glenn Brown for å ha gjort meg oppmerksom på
2582 denne rapporten.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113720" href="#id3113720" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2583
2584 Se 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, seksjon 106 og 110. I
2585 begynnelsen skrev noen plateselskaper <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke lisensiert for
2586 radiokringkasting</span>»</span> og andre meldinger som ga inntrykk av å begrense
2587 muligheten tli å spille en plate på en radiostasjon.  Dommer Learned Hand
2588 avviste argumentet om at en advarsel klistret på en plate kunne begrense
2589 rettighetene til radiostasjonen. Se <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2590 Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2591 Cir. 1940).  Se også Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2592 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2593 Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2594 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3113757"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113765"></a>
2595 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113984" href="#id3113984" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2596
2597 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV: Høring om S. 1006 foran
2598 underkomiteen om patenter, varemerker og opphavsrett av Senate Committee on
2599 the Judiciary, 89. Kongr., 2. sess., 78 (1966) (uttalelse fra Rosel H. Hyde,
2600 styreleder i den føderale kommunikasjonskommisjonen.<a class="indexterm" name="id3113946"></a>
2601 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114019" href="#id3114019" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2602
2603
2604 Endring i opphavsretttsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 116 (uttalelse fra Douglas
2605 A. Anello, sjefsjuristen i Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere).
2606 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114036" href="#id3114036" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2607
2608
2609 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 126 (uttalelse fra Ernest
2610 W. Jennes, sjefsjurist ved Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
2611 Inc.).
2612 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114064" href="#id3114064" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2613
2614
2615 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 169 (felles uttalelse fra Arthur
2616 B.  Krim, president i United Artists Corp. og John Sinn, president i United
2617 Artists Television Inc.).
2618 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114092" href="#id3114092" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2619
2620 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (uttalelse fra Charlton Heston,
2621 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114070"></a>
2622 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112890" href="#id3112890" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2623
2624 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2625 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114095"></a>
2626 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114122" href="#id3114122" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2627
2628
2629 Se for eksempel National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2630 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2631 Information</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Trusselen fra
2632 piratvirksomhet&#8212;bruken av noen andres kreative verker uten tillatelse
2633 eller kompenasjons&#8212;har vokst med internettet.</span>»</span>
2634 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2635 Det røves opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale.  Massevis.  Og denne
2636 piratvirksomheten antar mange former.  Den mest betydningsfulle er
2637 kommersiell piratvirksomhet, det å ta andres innhold uten lov i en
2638 kommersiell setting.  På tross av de mange forklaringer om hvorfor dette er
2639 greit som fremføres i dets forsvar, så er dette galt.  Ingen bør gå god for
2640 det, og loven bør stoppe det.
2641 </p><p>
2642
2643 Men på samme måte som med piratvirksomheten til kopierings-firma, så
2644 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tas</span>»</span> det på en annen måte som er mer direkte relatert til
2645 internettet.  Denne måten å ta på virker galt for mante, og det er galt mye
2646 av tiden.  Før vi kaller det å ta på denne måten for
2647 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, bør vi dog forstå dets natur litt mer. For
2648 skaden som denne formen for å ta gjør er betydelig mer tvetydig enn direkte
2649 kopiering, og loven bør ta hensyn til denne tvetydingheten, slik den har
2650 gjort ofte tidligere.
2651
2652 </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="id3114307"></a><p>
2653 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2654 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2655 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2656 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2657 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id3114126" href="#ftn.id3114126" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2658 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2659 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2660 </p><p>
2661 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2662 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2663 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2664 </p><p>
2665 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2666 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2667 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2668 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2669 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2670 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2671 treated as right.
2672 </p><p>
2673 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2674 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2675 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2676 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2677 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2678 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2679 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2680 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2681 legal wrong as well.
2682 </p><p>
2683 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2684 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2685
2686 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2687 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2688 </p><p>
2689 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2690 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2691 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2692 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id3114400" href="#ftn.id3114400" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2693 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2694 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2695 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2696 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3114443"></a><p>
2697 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2698 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2699 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2700 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2701 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id3114458" href="#ftn.id3114458" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2702 </p><p>
2703 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2704 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2705 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2706 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
2707 Barnes &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2708 should it be any different with on-line music?</span>»</span> The difference is, of
2709 course, that when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less
2710 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2711 there is not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the
2712 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2713 </p><p>
2714
2715 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2716 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2717 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2718 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2719 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2720 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2721 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2722 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take</span>»</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2723 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2724 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2725 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2726 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2727 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
2728 means.
2729 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3114545"></a><p>
2730 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2731 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2732 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2733 Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2734 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2735 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2736 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2737 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2738 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2739 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft.  Without
2740 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114569"></a>
2741 <a class="indexterm" name="id3114576"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3114582"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3114594"></a>
2742 </p><p>
2743 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2744 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2745 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2746 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2747 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2748 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2749 </p><p>
2750 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2751 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2752 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2753 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2754 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2755 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2756 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2757 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2758 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2759 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114318"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3114618"></a>
2760 <a class="indexterm" name="id3114639"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3114645"></a>
2761 </p><p>
2762
2763
2764 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2765 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2766 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2767 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2768 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2769 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2770 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2771 </p><p>
2772 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2773 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span>
2774 is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong if that term is
2775 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2776 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2777 content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our tradition nor any
2778 tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> in that sense of the
2779 term.
2780 </p><p>
2781 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2782 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2783 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2784 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2785 </p><p>
2786 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2787 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2788 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2789 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2790 </p><p>
2791 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2792 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2793 </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>
2794
2795 The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2796 that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3114730" href="#ftn.id3114730" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2797 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2798 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2799 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3114748"></a><p>
2800 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2801 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2802 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2803 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id3114761" href="#ftn.id3114761" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2804 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2805 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114797"></a>
2806 </p><p>
2807 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2808 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2809 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id3114810" href="#ftn.id3114810" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2810 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2811 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2812 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2813 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2814 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2815 or your 20,000 best friends.
2816 </p><p>
2817 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2818 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2819 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2820 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id3114859" href="#ftn.id3114859" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2821 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2822 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2823 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id3114887" href="#ftn.id3114887" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2824 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2825 being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2826 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2827 they hadn't before.
2828 </p><p>
2829 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2830 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2831 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2832 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2833 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2834 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2835 </p><p>
2836
2837
2838 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2839 fire typer.
2840 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2841
2842 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2843 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2844 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2845 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2846 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2847 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2848 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114947"></a>
2849 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2850
2851
2852 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2853 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2854 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2855 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2856 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2857 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2858 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2859 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2860
2861
2862 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2863 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2864 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2865 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2866 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2867 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2868 solid weekend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recalling</span>»</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2869 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2870 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2871 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2872 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2873 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2874 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2880 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2881 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2882 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2883 </p><p>
2884 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2885 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2886 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id3115017" href="#ftn.id3115017" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2887 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2888 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2889 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2890 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2891 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2892 </p><p>
2893 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2894 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2895 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2896 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2897 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> that is
2898 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">devastating</span>»</span> the industry.
2899 </p><p>
2900 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2901 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2902 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2903 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2904 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2905 fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3115070" href="#ftn.id3115070" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2906 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2907 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2908 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2909 the answer.
2910 </p><p>
2911 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2912 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2913 turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
2914 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2915 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2916 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3114469" href="#ftn.id3114469" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2917 </p><p>
2918 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2919 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2920 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2921 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2922 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2923 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2924 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2925 other types of sharing are.
2926 </p><p>
2927 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2928 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2929 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">net harm</span>»</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2930 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2931 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2932 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2933 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2934
2935 </p><p>
2936 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2937 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2938 it might be close.
2939 </p><p>
2940 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2941 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id3115177" href="#ftn.id3115177" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2942 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2943 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2944 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2945 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2946 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2947 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3115234" href="#ftn.id3115234" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2948 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2949 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2950 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2951 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3115271" href="#ftn.id3115271" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2952 </p><p>
2953
2954
2955
2956 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2957 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2958 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2959 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2960 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2961 percent.
2962 </p><p>
2963 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2964 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2965 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2966 song and stealing a CD?</span>»</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2967 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2968 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2969 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2970 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2971 [his] profit</span>»</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2972 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2973 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2974 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2975 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
2976 </p><p>
2977 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2978 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2979 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2980 </p><p>
2981 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2982 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2983 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2984 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id3115321" href="#ftn.id3115321" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2985 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2986 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2987 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2988 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2989 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2990 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3115360"></a><p>
2991 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2992 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2993 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id3115373" href="#ftn.id3115373" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2994 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2995 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2996 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2997 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2998 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2999 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
3000 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3115434"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3115441"></a><p>
3001 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
3002 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
3003 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
3004 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
3005 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
3006 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>»</span> I still have it. That
3007 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
3008 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
3009 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
3010 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
3011 the market.
3012 </p><p>
3013 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
3014 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
3015 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
3016 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
3017 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
3018 well?
3019 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><p>
3020
3021 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
3022 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
3023 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
3024 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
3025 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
3026 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
3027 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
3028 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> book. People
3029 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
3030 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
3031 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
3032 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
3033 great book!)
3034 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3115523"></a><p>
3035 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3036 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3037 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3038 important in order to protect type A content.
3039 </p><p>
3040 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3041 says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>»</span> we must also ask,
3042 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3043 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3044 unavailable?</span>»</span>
3045 </p><p>
3046 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3047 of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3048 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
3049 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3050 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3051 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3052 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3053 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3054 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3055 balance will be found only with time.
3056 </p><p>
3057 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling?  Er ikke
3058 angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>»</span>
3059 </p><p>
3060 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3061 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3062 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3063 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3064 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3065 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3066 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to
3067 zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3115600" href="#ftn.id3115600" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3068 </p><p>
3069 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3070 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3071 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3072 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3073 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3074 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3075 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3076 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3077 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3078 </p><p>
3079 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3080 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3081 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3082 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3083 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3084 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3085 less.
3086 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3115650"></a><p>
3087 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
3088 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3089 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3090 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3091 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3092 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3093 that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being respected (since
3094 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3095 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3096 </p><p>
3097 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3098 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3099 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3100 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3101 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3102 </p><p>
3103
3104
3105
3106 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3107 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3108 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3109 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3110 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3111 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3112 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3113 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3114 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3115 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3116 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3117 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3118 control over the future (cable).
3119 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3115714"></a><p>
3120 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3121 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3122 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3123 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3124 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3125 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3126 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">record</span>»</span> button, the device could
3127 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3128 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3129 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3130 infringement.
3131 </p><p>
3132
3133 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3134 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3135 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3136 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3137 only if there were a special <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy me</span>»</span> signal on the line. It
3138 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3139 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3140 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3141 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3142 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3143 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3144 </p><p>
3145 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3146 called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3147 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3148 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3149 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3115773" href="#ftn.id3115773" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3150 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress,
3151 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3152 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3153 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3154 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3115795" href="#ftn.id3115795" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3155 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id3115804" href="#ftn.id3115804" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3156 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
3157 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3158 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3159 copyrightowners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from
3160 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3161 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3162 from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3115834" href="#ftn.id3115834" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3163 </p><p>
3164 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3165 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3166 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3167 refers to it as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>»</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3168 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3169 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3170 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3171 of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse yet, it was a
3172 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3173 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id3115856" href="#ftn.id3115856" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3115880"></a>
3174 </p><p>
3175
3176 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3177 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3178 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3179 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3180 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3181 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3182 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3183 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3184 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3185 technology.<sup>[<a name="id3115906" href="#ftn.id3115906" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3186 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3187 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3188 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3189 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3190 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3191 pattern is clear:
3192 </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">Lovbestemt lisens</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">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Videospiller/opptaker</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
3193 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3194 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id3116038" href="#ftn.id3116038" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3195 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
3196 ride</span>»</span> on someone else's work.
3197 </p><p>
3198
3199 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3200 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3201 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3202 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3203 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> In every
3204 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3205 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3206 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3207 stake.
3208
3209 </p><p>
3210 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3211 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3212 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3213 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3214 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3215 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3216 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3217 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3218 </p><p>
3219 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3220 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3221 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3222 possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3116138" href="#ftn.id3116138" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3223 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3224 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3225 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3226 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3227 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3228 </p><p>
3229 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3230 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3231 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3232 become a tool for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from artists. But neither should
3233 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3234 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3235 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3236 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3237 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3238 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3239 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3240 </p><p>
3241
3242
3243 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3244 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3245 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3246 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3247 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3248 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3249 P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3116198" href="#ftn.id3116198" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup>
3250 </p><p>
3251 <span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk about
3252 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
3253 argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and incentives,</span>»</span>
3254 they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our content,</span>»</span> the
3255 warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we
3256 wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait
3257 before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why should
3258 Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether
3259 the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
3260 </p><p>
3261 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
3262 krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
3263 eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
3264 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114126" href="#id3114126" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3265
3266
3267 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3268 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3269 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3270 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3271 Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3272 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114400" href="#id3114400" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3273
3274 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3275 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3276 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3277 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3278 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3279 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3280 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3281 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3282 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3283 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3284 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3285 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3286 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3287 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3113456"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3114431"></a>
3288 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114458" href="#id3114458" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3289
3290 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3291 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3292 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3293 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3294 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3295 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3296 pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114475"></a>
3297 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114730" href="#id3114730" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3298
3299
3300 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3301 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3302 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114761" href="#id3114761" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3303
3304 <a class="indexterm" name="id3114764"></a> See Clayton M. Christensen,
3305 <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller
3306 That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
3307 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies that give rise to and
3308 dominate a product area are frequently unable to come up with the most
3309 creative, paradigm-shifting uses for their own products.  This job usually
3310 falls to outside innovators, who reassemble existing technology in inventive
3311 ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig,
3312 <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114466"></a>
3313 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114810" href="#id3114810" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3314
3315
3316 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3317 Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3318 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3319 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster
3320 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3321 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3322 Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3323 Naughton, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London)
3324 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3325 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114859" href="#id3114859" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3326
3327
3328
3329 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3330 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3331 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3332 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3333 computers.
3334 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114887" href="#id3114887" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3335
3336
3337 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
3338 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6. juni 2003, A1.
3339 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115017" href="#id3115017" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3340
3341 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3342 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3114788"></a>
3343 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115070" href="#id3115070" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3344
3345
3346 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3347 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3348 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3349 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3350 cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
3351 music.</span>»</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3352 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
3353 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3354 format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3355 <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3356 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3357 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114469" href="#id3114469" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3358
3359
3360 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3361 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115177" href="#id3115177" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3362
3363
3364 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3365 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3366 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3367 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3368 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3369 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3370 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3371 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3372 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3373 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3374 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3375 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>»</span>
3376 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115234" href="#id3115234" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3377 Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>»</span>, BusinessWeek online,
3378 13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3115251"></a>
3379 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115271" href="#id3115271" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3380
3381
3382 ibid.
3383 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115321" href="#id3115321" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3384
3385
3386 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3387 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3388 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3389 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3390 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3391 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115373" href="#id3115373" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3392
3393 <a class="indexterm" name="id3115382"></a> While there are not good estimates of
3394 the number of used record stores in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198
3395 used book dealers in the United States, an increase of 20 percent since
3396 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion
3397 of the Used Book Market</em> (2002), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Used records accounted
3398 for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National Association of Recording
3399 Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey Results,</span>»</span> available at
3400 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3401 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115600" href="#id3115600" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3402
3403
3404 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3405 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3406 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3407 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3408 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3409 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3410 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115773" href="#id3115773" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3411
3412
3413 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3414 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3415 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3416 of America, Inc.).
3417 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115795" href="#id3115795" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3418
3419
3420 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3421 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115804" href="#id3115804" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3422
3423
3424 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3425 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3426 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115834" href="#id3115834" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3427
3428
3429 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3430 Valenti).
3431 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115856" href="#id3115856" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3432
3433
3434 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3435 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3436 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115906" href="#id3115906" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3437
3438
3439 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3440 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3441 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116038" href="#id3116038" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3442
3443 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3444 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3445 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3446 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3447 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3448 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3449 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3450 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3451 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
3452 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3453 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3115622"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3116077"></a>
3454 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116138" href="#id3116138" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3455
3456
3457 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3458 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3459 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116198" href="#id3116198" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3460
3461
3462 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3463 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
3464 22. september 2003, C3.
3465 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part II. «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Part II. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Eiendom»"><div></div><p>
3466
3467
3468
3469 <span class="strong"><strong>Opphavsretts-krigerne</strong></span> har rett:
3470 Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan eies og selges, og loven beskytter
3471 mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som
3472 helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i
3473 hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun kan få.
3474 </p><p>
3475 Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
3476 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
3477 er en merkelig type eiendom.  Selve Idéen om eienrettigheter til en idé
3478 eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig.  Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
3479 tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage.  Jeg tar en ting,
3480 piknik-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det.  Men hva tar jeg
3481 når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>idéen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
3482 piknik-bordet i bakhagen&#8212;ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
3483 kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
3484 </p><p>
3485 Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og ideer er ting, selv om det
3486 er en viktig forskjell.  Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
3487 tilfelle&#8212;faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
3488 rekke med unntak&#8212;er ideer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
3489 fra deg når jeg kopierer måten du kler deg&#8212;selv om det ville se sært
3490 ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt sært hvis du er en kvinne.
3491 Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
3492 hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
3493 information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
3494 från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3116360" href="#ftn.id3116360" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3495 </p><p>
3496 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3497 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3498 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min idé eller uttrykk uten
3499 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
3500 </p><p>
3501 Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form&#8212;detaljene,
3502 med andre ord&#8212;betyr noe.  For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
3503 praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
3504 plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id3116403" href="#ftn.id3116403" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3505 </p><p>
3506 Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
3507 foregående del.  Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
3508 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span> i sammenheng.  Hvor kom
3509 idéen fra?  Hva er dens begresninger?  Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
3510 Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
3511 utsagnet&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>&#8212; bli
3512 litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
3513 fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
3514 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116360" href="#id3116360" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3515
3516
3517 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3518 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3519 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3520 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116403" href="#id3116403" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3521
3522
3523 Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
3524 eiendomsretter immaterielle.  En eiendomsrett er ganske enkelt den retten
3525 som et idivid har mot verden til å gjøre eller ikke gjøre visse ting som er
3526 eller ikke er knyttet til et fysisk objekt.  Retten i seg selv er
3527 immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er
3528 materielt.  Se Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
3529 Back Together,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003):
3530 373, 429 n. 241.
3531 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3116467"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3116473"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishlaw"></a><p>
3532 <span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> skrev
3533 <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
3534 1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han
3535 fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar
3536 fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en
3537 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner
3538 kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av
3539 Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men Shakespeare er så full av
3540 klisjeer.</span>»</span>
3541 </p><p>
3542
3543 I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
3544 skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
3545 utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id3116537" href="#ftn.id3116537" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
3546 var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
3547 Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3116586" href="#ftn.id3116586" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
3548 boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
3549 en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
3550 forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
3551 kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
3552 konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3553 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><p>
3554 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
3555 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
3556 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3557 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
3558 beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
3559 forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
3560 en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id3116645" href="#ftn.id3116645" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
3561 grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt
3562 i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
3563 1774?
3564 </p><p>
3565 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3566 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3567 engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, var det ingen annen
3568 lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
3569 lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
3570 over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
3571 ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
3572 at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3116699"></a>
3573 </p><p>
3574 At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3575 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3576 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3577 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3578 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3579 dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common law</span>»</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
3580 lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
3581 bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
3582 det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
3583 beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3584 </p><p>
3585
3586 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>»</span>,
3587 som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
3588 Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
3589 hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
3590 Conger</span>»</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
3591 for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
3592 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>.
3593 </p><p>
3594 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eieren</span>»</span> av
3595 en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
3596 bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
3597 retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
3598 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
3599 hadde tenkt.
3600 </p><p>
3601 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3602 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3603 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3604 </p><p>
3605 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3606 krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3607 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3608 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3609 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3610 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3611 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3612 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3613 finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares verk?
3614 </p><p>
3615 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3616 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
3617 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3618 </p><p>
3619
3620 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3621 begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
3622 det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
3623 født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
3624 reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>»</span> en rett til å bruke
3625 en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
3626 dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
3627 verk kunne <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
3628 samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
3629 rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
3630 fremføre, og så videre.
3631 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3116879"></a><p>
3632 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3633 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3634 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3635 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3636 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3637 lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
3638 til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3639 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3116906"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3116912"></a><p>
3640 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3641 en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>»</span>,
3642 spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
3643 utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
3644 monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
3645 VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
3646 spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
3647 makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>»</span> vedtatt
3648 for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var
3649 parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
3650 </p><p>
3651 Dermed ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>»</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
3652 en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
3653 om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>»</span> prøv
3654 hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
3655 skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
3656 så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
3657 skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3658 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellers"></a><p>
3659 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3660 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3661 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3662 England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span> ble av en voksende mengde
3663 sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
3664 undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
3665 monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
3666 som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>;
3667 de var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde  et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
3668 nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3117023" href="#ftn.id3117023" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3669 </p><p>
3670 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3671 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3672 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3673 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3674 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3675 </p><p>
3676 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3677 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3678 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3679 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3680 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3681 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3682 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3683 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3684 </p><p>
3685 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3686 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3687 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, og
3688 fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
3689 1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
3690 år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3691 </p><p>
3692 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3693 idag,
3694 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3695 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3696 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3697 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3698 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3699 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3700 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id3117107" href="#ftn.id3117107" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3701 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3702 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3703 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3704 ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3705 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3706 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3707 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute
3708 of Anne</span>»</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
3709 betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3710 utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
3711 de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
3712 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
3713 var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
3714 </p><p>
3715 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3716 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3717 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne &#8230; like
3718 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3115116" href="#ftn.id3115116" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3719 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3720 forfatterens verk ga.
3721 </p><p>
3722 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3723 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id3117214" href="#ftn.id3117214" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3724 </p><p>
3725 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>. Han startet
3726 in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
3727 standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3728 Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3117241" href="#ftn.id3117241" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
3729 og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
3730 dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
3731 som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
3732 skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3117271" href="#ftn.id3117271" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3117279"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3117286"></a>
3733 </p><p>
3734 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3735 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
3736 mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3737 eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id3117306" href="#ftn.id3117306" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
3738 mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
3739 sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3740 Anne</span>»</span>, var falt i det fri.
3741 </p><p>
3742 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> som
3743 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3744 i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
3745 <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3746 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3117345"></a><p>
3747 Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3748 Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
3749 gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
3750 uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
3751 sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
3752 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id3117374" href="#ftn.id3117374" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3753 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3754 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3755 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3756 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> gav
3757 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3758 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3759 mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
3760 Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
3761 sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3762 </p><p>
3763
3764 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3765 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3766 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3767 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3768 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3769 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3770 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3771 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3772 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3773 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3117457"></a><p>
3774 Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
3775 uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3776 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3117474"></a><p>
3777 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3778 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3779 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id3117488" href="#ftn.id3117488" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3780 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3781 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3782 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3783 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3784 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3785 </p><p>
3786 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3787 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3788 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3789 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3790 Anne</span>»</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> var blitt vedtatt,
3791 skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
3792 mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, falle i det
3793 fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3794 </p><p>
3795 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3796 huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av
3797 enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3798 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslordene</span>»</span> hadde stemt,
3799 stemte resten av Overhuset.
3800 </p><p>
3801
3802 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3803 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3804 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3805 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3806 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3807 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3808 </p><p>
3809 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>»</span>. Før rettssaken
3810 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
3811 ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
3812 en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble
3813 Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
3814 lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
3815 historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
3816 frie.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3117601"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3117607"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3117613"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3117620"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3117626"></a>
3817 </p><p>
3818 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3819 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3820 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3821 <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
3822 noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
3823 prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
3824 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
3825 *illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3117660" href="#ftn.id3117660" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3826 </p><p>
3827 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3828 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3829 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3830 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3831 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3832 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3833 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3834 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3835 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id3117183" href="#ftn.id3117183" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3836 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3837
3838
3839 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>»</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
3840 si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
3841 ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
3842 utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
3843 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
3844 for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
3845 ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
3846 falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i
3847 betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
3848 liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
3849 utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
3850 formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
3851 valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og
3852 beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der
3853 hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
3854 og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
3855 ønsker.
3856 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3117756"></a><p>
3857 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3858 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3859 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3860 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3117774"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3117782"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116537" href="#id3116537" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3861
3862 <a class="indexterm" name="id3116541"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3116549"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
3863 litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
3864 versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
3865 Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
3866 hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
3867 Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
3868 Bookseller</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
3869 424-31.
3870 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116586" href="#id3116586" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3871
3872
3873 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3874 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3875 151&#8211;52.
3876 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116645" href="#id3116645" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3877
3878 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3879 en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
3880 and Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3116658"></a>
3881 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117023" href="#id3117023" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3882
3883
3884
3885 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3886 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3887 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117107" href="#id3117107" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3888
3889
3890 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3891 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3892 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3893 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3894 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3895 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3896 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3897 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115116" href="#id3115116" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3898
3899 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>»</span>,
3900 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
3901 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3902 <a class="indexterm" name="id3116596"></a>
3903 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117214" href="#id3117214" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3904
3905
3906 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3907 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3908 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117241" href="#id3117241" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3909
3910 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3911 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3117248"></a>
3912 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117271" href="#id3117271" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3913
3914
3915 Ibid., 93.
3916 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117306" href="#id3117306" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3917
3918
3919 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3920 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3921 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117374" href="#id3117374" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3922
3923
3924 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3925 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3926 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3927 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117488" href="#id3117488" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3928
3929
3930 Ibid., 1156.
3931 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117660" href="#id3117660" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3932
3933
3934 Rose, 97.
3935 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117183" href="#id3117183" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3936
3937
3938 ibid.
3939 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3940 <span class="strong"><strong>Jon Else</strong></span> er en filmskaper. Han er mest
3941 kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på ypperlig vis klart å spre sin
3942 kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og jeg misunner den lojaliteten
3943 og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved et uhell møtte jeg to av
3944 hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres Gud.)
3945 </p><p>
3946 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3947 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3948 </p><p>
3949 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3950 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3951 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3952 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3953 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id3117843"></a>
3954 </p><p>
3955
3956 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3957 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3958 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3959 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3960 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3961 </p><p>
3962 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3963 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3964 med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3965 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3966 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> eller
3967 det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3968 </p><p>
3969 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3970 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3971 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3972 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3973 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3974 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id3117907"></a>
3975 </p><p>
3976 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3977 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3978 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3979 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3980 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id3117927"></a>
3981 </p><p>
3982 Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi &#8230;
3983 at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk &#8212; ihvertfall at noen [hos
3984 Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>»</span> Som det andre krevde
3985 Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
3986 sekundene med &#8230; fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
3987 som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
3988 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3117955"></a><p>
3989 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3990 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3991 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her &#8230; Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
3992 dette.</span>»</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
3993 etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
3994 </p><p>
3995
3996 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
3997 meg</span>»</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>»</span>, sa
3998 hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The
3999 Simpson</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
4000 om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
4001 å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>»</span> En
4002 av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
4003 heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
4004 </p><p>
4005 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
4006 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
4007 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
4008 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
4009 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id3118031"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3118037"></a>
4010 </p><p>
4011 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
4012 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
4013 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
4014 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
4015 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
4016 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
4017 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
4018 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
4019 </p><p>
4020 For eksempel <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>»</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
4021 Simpson</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
4022 kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
4023 selger billetter til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mine
4024 <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>»</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
4025 fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
4026 det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
4027 loven.
4028 </p><p>
4029 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
4030 første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3118103" href="#ftn.id3118103" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
4031 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
4032 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>&#8212; og
4033 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
4034 </p><p>
4035
4036
4037 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4038 use</span>»</span>. Og her er hans svar:
4039 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4040 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
4041 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
4042 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
4043 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4044 bruk</span>»</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
4045 dette er grunnen:
4046 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4047
4048
4049 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
4050 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>»</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
4051 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
4052 scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>, og å påstå
4053 at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
4054 </p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id3118212"></a><p>
4055
4056 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4057 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4058 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4059 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4060 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4061 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4062 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4063 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4064 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4065 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4066
4067
4068
4069 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School &#8230;
4070 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
4071 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>»</span>,
4072 uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
4073 ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
4074
4075 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4076
4077
4078 Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
4079 av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4080 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4081 I teorien betyr <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> at du ikke trenger
4082 tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
4083 tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> helt
4084 annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
4085 konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
4086 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4087 ikke fulgt opp.
4088 </p><p>
4089 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4090 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4091 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4092 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4093 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118103" href="#id3118103" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4094
4095
4096 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4097 use</span>»</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
4098 A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
4099 Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>»</span> (utkast arkivert hos
4100 forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
4101 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3118338"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3118356"></a><p>
4102 <span class="strong"><strong>In 1993</strong></span>, Alex Alben was a lawyer working
4103 at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an innovative company founded by Microsoft
4104 cofounder Paul Allen to develop digital entertainment. Long before the
4105 Internet became popular, Starwave began investing in new technology for
4106 delivering entertainment in anticipation of the power of networks.
4107 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsretrospective"></a><p>
4108 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4109 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
4110 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
4111 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4112 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4113 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4114 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4115 </p><p>
4116 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4117 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4118 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4119 include them on the CD.
4120 </p><p>
4121
4122
4123 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4124 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4125 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4126 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4127 permission for that content.
4128 </p><p>
4129 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Our
4130 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4131 films,</span>»</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No
4132 one had ever really done this before,</span>»</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No one
4133 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4134 career.</span>»</span>
4135 </p><p>
4136 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4137 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>»</span>
4138 </p><p>
4139 Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4140 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4141 we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go for
4142 it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3118460" href="#ftn.id3118460" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4143 </p><p>
4144 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4145 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4146 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4147 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4148 Starwave was to do.
4149 </p><p>
4150 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4151 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4152 recounted just what they did:
4153 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4154 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4155 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4156 going to use the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my day</span>»</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4157 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4158 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4159 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4160 </p><p>
4161
4162
4163 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4164 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4165 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4166 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4167 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4168 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4169 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4170 just started calling people.
4171 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3118533"></a><p>
4172 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4173 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4174 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
4175 you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>»</span> And
4176 they would say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4177 $1,200.</span>»</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4178 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4179 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4180 </p><p>
4181 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">and even then we
4182 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>»</span>
4183 </p><p>
4184 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4185 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4186 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4187 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4188 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4189 and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4190 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4191 actors.</span>»</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4192 constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4193 directors, &#8230; this many musicians,</span>»</span> and we just went at it very
4194 systematically and cleared the rights.
4195 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4196
4197
4198
4199 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4200 and it sold very well.
4201 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3118614"></a><p>
4202 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4203 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4204 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
4205 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4206 all.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3118630" href="#ftn.id3118630" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4207 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4208 </p><p>
4209 For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">very few &#8230; have the time and
4210 resources, and the will to do this,</span>»</span> and thus, very few such works
4211 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4212 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4213 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4214 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4215 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4216 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4217 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4218 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4219 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4220 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4221 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4222 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4223 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4224 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4225 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4226 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4227 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4228
4229 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4230 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4231 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4232 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4233 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4234 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4235 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4236 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4237 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4238 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4239 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4240 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh,
4241 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4242 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4243 money,</span>»</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4244 together.
4245 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4246 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4247 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4248 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4249 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4250 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
4251 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3118727"></a><p>
4252 These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat
4253 for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of
4254 these rights, and the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost
4255 to negotiate them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and
4256 imagine the pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from
4257 Los Angeles to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made
4258 sense; but as circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least,
4259 a well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights
4260 and ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
4261 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3118752"></a><p>
4262
4263 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4264 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4265 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4266 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4267 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4268 Fairbank, had produced.
4269 </p><p>
4270 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4271 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4272 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4273 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4274 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3118787"></a><p>
4275 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4276 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4277 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4278 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4279 tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
4280 brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
4281 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3118812"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3118819"></a><p>
4282 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4283 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4284 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4285 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4286 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4287 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4288 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4289 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4290 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4291 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4292 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4293 couldn't easily do them legally.
4294 </p><p>
4295 We live in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> culture enabled by
4296 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4297 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a
4298 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4299 can have it planted in your presentation.
4300 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3118848"></a><p>
4301
4302 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4303 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4304 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4305 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4306 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4307 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4308 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4309 and music.
4310 </p><p>
4311 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4312 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal,</span>»</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4313 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4314 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4315 rules, it doesn't get released.
4316 </p><p>
4317 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4318 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4319 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4320 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,
4321 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4322 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4323 example, that says <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4324 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
4325 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4326 owner.</span>»</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4327 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4328 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4329 </p><p>
4330 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4331 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4332 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4333 would anyone have to oppose it?
4334 </p><p>
4335
4336 <span class="strong"><strong>In February 2003</strong></span>, DreamWorks studios
4337 announced an agreement with Mike Myers, the comic genius of
4338 <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin Powers. According to
4339 the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work together to form a
4340 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>»</span> Under the agreement, DreamWorks
4341 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion picture hits and classics,
4342 write new storylines and&#8212;with the use of stateof-the-art digital
4343 technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into the film, thereby
4344 creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>»</span>
4345 </p><p>
4346 The announcement called this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>»</span> As Myers
4347 explained, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4348 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4349 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4350 take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg is
4351 quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4352 new audiences, it is Mike.</span>»</span>
4353 </p><p>
4354 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4355 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4356 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4357 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4358 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4359 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4360 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4361 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4362 </p><p>
4363 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4364 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4365 use.</span>»</span> Much of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> should be considered
4366 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4367 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4368 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4369 content are astronomically high.  These costs mirror the costs with fair
4370 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4371 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4372 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4373 lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4374 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118460" href="#id3118460" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4375
4376 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4377 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4378 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
4379 creativity, as this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3118472"></a>
4380 <a class="indexterm" name="id3118486"></a>
4381 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118630" href="#id3118630" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4382
4383
4384 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4385 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4386 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4387 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119032"></a><p>
4388 <span class="strong"><strong>In April 1996</strong></span>, millions of
4389 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>&#8212;computer codes designed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span>
4390 or automatically search the Internet and copy content&#8212;began running
4391 across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information
4392 onto a small set of computers located in a basement in San Francisco's
4393 Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of the Internet, they started
4394 again. Over and over again, once every two months, these bits of code took
4395 copies of the Internet and stored them.
4396 </p><p>
4397 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4398 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4399 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4400 technology called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>»</span> you could enter a Web
4401 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4402 pages changed.
4403 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
4404 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4405 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4406 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4407 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4408 </p><p>
4409
4410
4411 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4412 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4413 printed on the date published on the paper.
4414 </p><p>
4415 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4416 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4417 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4418 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4419 updated, without any reliable memory.
4420 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3119107"></a><p>
4421 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4422 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4423 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4424 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4425 forget.<sup>[<a name="id3119131" href="#ftn.id3119131" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4426 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3119164"></a><p>
4427 <span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can go
4428 back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted
4429 to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts
4430 in 1965, or to Bull Connor's water cannon in 1963, you could go to your
4431 public library and look at the newspapers. Those papers probably exist on
4432 microfiche. If you're lucky, they exist in paper, too. Either way, you are
4433 free, using a library, to go back and remember&#8212;not just what it is
4434 convenient to remember, but remember something close to the truth.
4435 </p><p>
4436 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4437 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4438 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4439 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4440 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4441 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4442 knowedge.
4443 </p><p>
4444
4445 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4446 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4447 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4448 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4449 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4450 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4451 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4452 </p><p>
4453 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4454 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4455 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4456 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4457 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4458 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4459 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4460 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4461 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3119209"></a><p>
4462 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4463 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4464 of material</span>»</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4465 of Congress.</span>»</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4466 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4467 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4468 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4469 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4470 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4471 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4472 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4473 very low fee. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4474 unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4475 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4476 student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
4477 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3119279"></a><p>
4478
4479 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4480 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4481 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4482 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4483 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4484 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4485 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4486 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4487 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4488 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4489 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4490 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4491 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4492 media on twentieth-century America?
4493 </p><p>
4494 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4495 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4496 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4497 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4498 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4499 </p><p>
4500 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4501 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4502 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4503 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4504 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>»</span> Thus, when
4505 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4506 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4507 film company.<sup>[<a name="id3119334" href="#ftn.id3119334" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4508 </p><p>
4509 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4510 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4511 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft.</span>»</span> But as technology enabled
4512 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4513 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4514 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>»</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4515 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4516 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4517 to anyone who would look.
4518 </p><p>
4519
4520 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4521 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4522 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4523 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4524 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4525 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4526 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4527 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3119392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119398"></a><p>
4528 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4529 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
4530 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4531 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4532 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4533 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4534 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4535 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4536 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4537 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4538 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4539 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4540 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>»</span> film that instructed children how to save
4541 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4542 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.
4543 </p><p>
4544 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4545 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4546 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4547 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4548 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4549 </p><p>
4550 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4551 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4552 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4553 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4554 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4555 </p><p>
4556
4557 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4558 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> In its first
4559 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4560 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4561 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4562 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4563 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4564 </p><p>
4565 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4566 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4567 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4568 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4569 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4570 even if that information is no longer sold.
4571 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3119484"></a><p>
4572 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4573 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id3119500" href="#ftn.id3119500" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4574 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4575 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4576 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4577 the spread and stability of culture.
4578 </p><p>
4579 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4580 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4581 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4582 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4583 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4584 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4585 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4586 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4587 </p><p>
4588
4589 <span class="strong"><strong>For most of</strong></span> the twentieth century, it was
4590 economics that made this so. It would have been insanely expensive to
4591 collect and make accessible all television and film and music: The cost of
4592 analog copies is extraordinarily high. So even though the law in principle
4593 would have restricted the ability of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture
4594 generally, the real restriction was economics. The market made it impossibly
4595 difficult to do anything about this ephemeral culture; the law had little
4596 practical effect.
4597 </p><p>
4598 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4599 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4600 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4601 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4602 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4603 moving images and sound.
4604 </p><p>
4605 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4606 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4607 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4608 describes,
4609 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3119598"></a><p>
4610 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4611 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4612 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4613 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4614 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4615 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4616 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4617 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4618 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4619 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4620 press.
4621 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4622
4623 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4624 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4625 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4626 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4627 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4628 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4629 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4630 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4631 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4632 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4633 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4634 </p><p>
4635 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4636 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4637 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">archives,</span>»</span> as warm as the idea of a
4638 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">library</span>»</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is
4639 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span>
4640 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4641 exercise.
4642 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3119672"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3119131" href="#id3119131" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4643
4644 <a class="indexterm" name="id3119134"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119143"></a> The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the
4645 White House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
4646 press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span>
4647 That was later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in
4648 Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4649 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3119334" href="#id3119334" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4650
4651
4652 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4653 the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4654 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4655 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4656 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4657 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3119500" href="#id3119500" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4658
4659 <a class="indexterm" name="id3119503"></a> Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career
4660 in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by
4661 Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5
4662 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946,
4663 only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First
4664 Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
4665 College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4666 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3119695"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119702"></a><p>
4667 <span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> has been the president of
4668 the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came to
4669 Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's administration&#8212;literally. The
4670 famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in on Air Force One after the
4671 assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his
4672 almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as
4673 perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in Washington.
4674 </p><p>
4675 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4676 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4677 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4678 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4679 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4680 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4681 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4682 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4683 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3119737"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119743"></a>
4684 <a class="indexterm" name="id3119750"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119756"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119762"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119768"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119775"></a>
4685 </p><p>
4686
4687
4688 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4689 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4690 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4691 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4692 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4693 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4694 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4695 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4696 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4697 </p><p>
4698 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4699 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4700 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4701 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4702 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4703 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4704 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span>
4705 </p><p>
4706 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4707 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4708 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4709 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4710 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4711 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4712 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4713 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4714 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4715 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id3119833" href="#ftn.id3119833" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4716 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4717
4718 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4719 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4720 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">central theme</span>»</span> to which <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4721 women</span>»</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4722 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4723 owners in the nation.</span>»</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4724 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4725 </p><p>
4726 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4727 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4728 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4729 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4730 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4731 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4732 scope of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> His views have
4733 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4734 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4735 tradition, at least in Washington.
4736 </p><p>
4737 While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
4738 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4739 understand,<sup>[<a name="id3119902" href="#ftn.id3119902" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4740 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been
4741 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4742 property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4743 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4744 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4745 </p><p>
4746 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4747 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4748 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4749 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4750 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4751 </p><p>
4752
4753 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4754 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4755 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4756 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4757 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4758 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4759 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4760 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4761 creativity having less than perfect control.
4762 </p><p>
4763 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4764 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4765 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4766 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4767 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4768 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4769 threaten the old.
4770 </p><p>
4771 <span class="strong"><strong>To get</strong></span> just a hint that there is
4772 something fundamentally wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further
4773 than the United States Constitution itself.
4774 </p><p>
4775 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> Indeed, so
4776 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4777 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4778 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4779 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>»</span> to pay
4780 you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4781 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4782 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4783 government pays for the privilege.
4784 </p><p>
4785
4786 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4787 calls <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4788 power to create <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> the Constitution
4789 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited time,</span>»</span>
4790 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4791 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4792 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4793 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">takes</span>»</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4794 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just
4795 compensation</span>»</span> for this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking.</span>»</span> Instead, the same
4796 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4797 your <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> right without any compensation at all.
4798 </p><p>
4799 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4800 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4801 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4802 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4803 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4804 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4805 </p><p>
4806 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4807 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4808 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4809 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4810 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4811 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4812 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4813 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4814 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4815 </p><p>
4816 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4817 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4818 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4819 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4820 creative property there must be a public domain?
4821 </p><p>
4822 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4823 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
4824 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4825 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4826 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4827 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4828 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4829 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4830 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4831 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4832 </p><p>
4833
4834
4835
4836 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4837 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4838 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4839 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4840 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4841 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4842 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4843 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
4844 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>
4845 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4846 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4847 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4848 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4849 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4850 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4851 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4852 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4853 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4854 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4855 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4856 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3119790"></a>
4857 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120190"></a><p>
4858 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4859 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4860 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4861 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4862 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4863 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4864 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4865 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4866 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120211"></a><p>
4867 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4868 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4869 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4870 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4871 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4872 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4873 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4874 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120219"></a><p>
4875 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4876 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4877 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4878 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4879 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4880 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4881 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4882 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4883 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4884 by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture.</span>»</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4885 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4886 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4887 enforces this constraint.
4888 </p><p>
4889
4890
4891
4892 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4893 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4894 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4895 </p><p>
4896 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4897 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4898 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4899 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4900 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4901 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4902 particular interact.
4903 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120310"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120316"></a><p>
4904 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a
4905 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4906 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4907 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4908 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4909 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4910 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4911 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4912 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4913 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4914 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4915 </p><p>
4916
4917 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4918 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4919 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id3120350" href="#ftn.id3120350" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4920 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4921 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4922 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4923 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4924 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4925 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4926 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4927 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4928 driving.
4929 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120374"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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="id3120410"></a><p>
4930 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4931 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4932 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4933 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4934 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id3120425" href="#ftn.id3120425" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4935 </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>
4936 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4937 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4938 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4939 sense.
4940 </p><p>
4941 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4942 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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="id3120543"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120550"></a><p>
4943
4944
4945 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4946 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4947 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4948 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4949 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4950 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4951 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4952 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4953 this form of infringement.
4954 </p><p>
4955 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4956 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4957 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4958 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4959 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4960 of anarchy after the Internet.
4961 </p><p>
4962
4963 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4964 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4965 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4966 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4967 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4968 results.
4969 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
4970 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4971 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
4972 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4973 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4974 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4975 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4976 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4977 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4978 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4979 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120627"></a><p>
4980
4981 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4982 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4983 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4984 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4985 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4986 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4987 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4988 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4989 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4990 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4991 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4992 U.S. steel industry.
4993 </p><p>
4994 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4995 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4996 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4997 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4998 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4999 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
5000 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120666"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120671"></a><p>
5001 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
5002 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
5003 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
5004 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
5005 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
5006 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
5007 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id3120687" href="#ftn.id3120687" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
5008 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
5009 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
5010 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
5011 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
5012 weakened the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stickiness</span>»</span> of television advertising (if a
5013 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
5014 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
5015 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
5016 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
5017 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
5018 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120735"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120741"></a><p>
5019 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
5020 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
5021 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
5022 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
5023 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
5024 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
5025 patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
5026 competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3120761" href="#ftn.id3120761" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
5027 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
5028 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
5029 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
5030 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
5031 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
5032 </p><p>
5033 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5034 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5035 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5036 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5037 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5038 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5039 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5040 </p><p>
5041 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5042 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5043 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5044 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5045 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5046 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5047 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5048 Constitution: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5049 freedom of speech.</span>»</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5050 would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5051 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5052 </p><p>
5053
5054 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5055 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5056 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">justified.</span>»</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5057 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5058 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5059 of the changes the content industry wants.
5060 </p><p>
5061 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5062 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
5063 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5064 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5065 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5066 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5067 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3120861"></a>
5068 </p><p>
5069 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5070 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5071 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5072 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120879"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120885"></a><p>
5073 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5074 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5075 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5076 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
5077 </p><p>
5078 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5079 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5080 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5081 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5082 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5083 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5084 solve.
5085 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120917"></a><p>
5086
5087 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5088 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
5089 culture.<sup>[<a name="id3120933" href="#ftn.id3120933" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5090 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5091 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5092 that music should be given away <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that
5093 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5094 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5095 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5096 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5097 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5098 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5099 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5100 </p><p>
5101 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5102 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5103 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5104 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5105 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5106 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5107 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5108 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5109 for creativity.
5110 </p><p>
5111 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5112 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5113 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3120983"></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>
5114 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5115 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
5116 property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5117 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5118 </p><p>
5119 The power to establish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights is granted to
5120 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5121 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5122 </p><p>
5123
5124 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5125 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5126 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5127 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>»</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5128 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property
5129 rights.</span>»</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5130 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5131 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5132 purpose of rewarding authors.
5133 </p><p>
5134 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5135 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Chapter 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5136 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5137 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5138 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5139 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5140 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to
5141 Authors</span>»</span> only.
5142 </p><p>
5143 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5144 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5145 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5146 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5147 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5148 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5149 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5150 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5151 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5152 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5153 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5154 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5155 </p><p>
5156 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5157 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5158 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5159 to put our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5160 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5161 </p><p>
5162
5163 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5164 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5165 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5166 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5167 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5168 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5169
5170 La meg forklare hvordan.
5171
5172 </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>
5173 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5174 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5175 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5176 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5177 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id3121164" href="#ftn.id3121164" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5178 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5179 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5180 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5181 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5182 to reprint and distribute works.
5183 </p><p>
5184 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5185 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5186 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5187 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5188 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5189 expired as well.
5190 </p><p>
5191 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5192 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5193 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5194 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5195 work passed into the public domain.
5196 </p><p>
5197 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5198 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5199 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5200 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5201 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5202 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id3121232" href="#ftn.id3121232" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5203 </p><p>
5204
5205 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5206 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5207 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5208 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5209 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5210 </p><p>
5211 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5212 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5213 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5214 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id3121299" href="#ftn.id3121299" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5215 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3121329"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3121341"></a><p>
5216 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5217 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5218 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id3121357" href="#ftn.id3121357" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5219 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5220 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5221 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5222 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5223 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5224 </p><p>
5225 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5226 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5227 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5228 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5229 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5230 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5231 </p><p>
5232 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5233 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5234 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5235 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5236 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5237 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5238 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5239 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5240 </p><p>
5241
5242 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5243 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5244 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5245 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5246 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5247 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5248 copyright term.
5249 </p><p>
5250 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5251 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5252 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5253 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5254 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5255 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5256 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5257 </p><p>
5258 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5259 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5260 term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5261 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5262 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5263 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5264 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5265 </p><p>
5266 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5267 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5268 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5269 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5270 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5271 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5272 </p><p>
5273 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5274 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5275 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5276 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5277 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5278 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id3121466" href="#ftn.id3121466" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5279 </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>
5280 The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5281 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5282 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5283 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5284 </p><p>
5285 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
5286 charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5287 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5288 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> copyrighted works. That
5289 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5290 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5291 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5292 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> It would not,
5293 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5294 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5295 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5296 </p><p>
5297 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5298 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5299 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5300 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5301 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5302 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5303 over any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5304 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5305 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative work</span>»</span> that
5306 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5307 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5308 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5309 </p><p>
5310
5311 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5312 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5313 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5314 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5315 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5316 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5317 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5318 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5319 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5320 government before a copyright could be secured.
5321 </p><p>
5322 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5323 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5324 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5325 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5326 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5327 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5328 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5329 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5330 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5331 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5332 author.
5333 </p><p>
5334 All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American
5335 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5336 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5337 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5338 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5339 available for others to copy.
5340 </p><p>
5341 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5342 </p><p>
5343 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5344 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5345 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5346 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5347 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5348 United States.<sup>[<a name="id3121631" href="#ftn.id3121631" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5349 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5350 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5351 </p><p>
5352
5353
5354 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5355 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5356 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5357 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5358 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5359 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5360 </p><p>
5361 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5362 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5363 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5364 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5365 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5366 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5367 </p><p>
5368 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5369 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5370 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5371 </p><p>
5372 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5373 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5374 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative
5375 rights.</span>»</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5376 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5377 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5378 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5379 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5380 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5381 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5382 </p><p>
5383 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5384 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5385 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5386 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5387 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5388 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5389 the verbatim original work.
5390 </p><p>
5391
5392 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5393 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5394 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5395 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5396 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5397 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5398 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5399 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id3121718" href="#ftn.id3121718" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5400 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5401 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5402 </p><p>
5403 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5404 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5405 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5406 book.<sup>[<a name="id3121767" href="#ftn.id3121767" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5407 creative work are treated the same.
5408 </p><p>
5409 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5410 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5411 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5412 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>»</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5413 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5414 </p><p>
5415 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5416 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5417 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5418 originally granted.
5419 </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>
5420 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5421 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5422 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5423 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id3121833" href="#ftn.id3121833" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5424 </p><p>
5425
5426
5427 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5428 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5429 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span>
5430 deserves the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">same rights</span>»</span> as all other property, it is the
5431 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5432 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5433 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5434 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5435 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5436 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5437 </p><p>
5438 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5439 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5440 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5441 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id3121912" href="#ftn.id3121912" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5442 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5443 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5444 law.
5445 </p><p>
5446 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5447 circle.
5448 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksusetypes"></a><p>
5449
5450
5451 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5452 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5453 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5454 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5455 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5456 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5457 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5458 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5459 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5460 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5461 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5462 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5463 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5464 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5465 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5466 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5467 diagram on next page).
5468 </p><p>
5469 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5470 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
5471 bruk</span>»</span>.
5472 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
5473 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>
5474 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5475 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5476 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5477 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5478 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5479 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5480 over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5481 Amendment) reasons.
5482 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>Figure 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
5483 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>
5484
5485
5486 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5487 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5488 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
5489 owner's views.
5490 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122097"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122105"></a><p>
5491 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5492 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id3121842" href="#ftn.id3121842" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5493 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5494 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5495 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5496 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5497 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5498 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5499 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5500 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5501 burden of this shift.
5502 </p><p>
5503
5504 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5505 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5506 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5507 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5508 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5509 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5510 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5511 those uses produced a copy.
5512 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122158"></a><p>
5513 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5514 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5515 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5516 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5517 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5518 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5519 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5520 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5521 the copyright owner's wish.
5522 </p><p>
5523 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5524 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5525 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5526 clear:
5527 </p><p>
5528 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5529 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5530 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5531 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5532 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5533 Internet.
5534 </p><p>
5535 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5536 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5537 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5538 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5539 machine. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span>
5540 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5541 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5542 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5543 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5544 </p><p>
5545
5546 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5547 on category 3 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>) that fair use never before had to
5548 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5549 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5550 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5551 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5552 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5553 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5554 because reading was not regulated.
5555 </p><p>
5556 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5557 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5558 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5559 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5560 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5561 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5562 fair use are not enough.
5563 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5564 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5565 business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies
5566 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5567 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5568 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5569 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122291"></a><p>
5570 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5571 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5572 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span> technique by
5573 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span>
5574 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5575 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5576 before you bought it.
5577 </p><p>
5578
5579 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5580 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5581 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5582 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5583 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5584 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5585 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5586 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5587 was within their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5588 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5589 rights were in fact their rights.
5590 </p><p>
5591 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5592 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
5593 infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5594 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5595 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5596 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5597 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5598 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5599 </p><p>
5600 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5601 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5602 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5603 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5604 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5605 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5606 Disney's permission.
5607 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122362"></a><p>
5608 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5609 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5610 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5611 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5612 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>»</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5613 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5614 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5615 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5616 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5617 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5618 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5619 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122390"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122396"></a><p>
5620
5621
5622 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5623 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5624 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5625 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5626 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5627 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5628 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5629 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5630 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5631 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5632 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5633 are quite slight.
5634 </p><p>
5635 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5636 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5637 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5638 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5639 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5640 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5641 </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>
5642 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5643 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5644 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5645 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5646 </p><p>
5647 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5648 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5649 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5650 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5651 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5652 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122489"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5653 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5654 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5655 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5656 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5657 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id3122536" href="#ftn.id3122536" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5658 </p><p>
5659 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt.  De advarte
5660 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
5661 det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3122563" href="#ftn.id3122563" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
5662 ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
5663 å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
5664 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
5665 </p><p>
5666 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5667 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5668 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5669 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5670 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><p>
5671 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5672 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5673 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5674 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5675 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5676 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5677 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5678 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122637"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122645"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5679 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5680 </p><p>
5681 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5682 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5683 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5684 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5685 </p><p>
5686 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5687 </p><p>
5688
5689 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5690 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5691 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5692 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5693 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5694 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5695 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5696 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5697 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5698 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5699 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5700 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5701
5702
5703 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5704 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5705 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5706 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5707 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5708 computer.
5709 </p><p>
5710 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5711 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id3122769"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3122776"></a>
5712 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5713 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5714 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5715 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5716 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5717 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5718 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5719 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5720 boken!
5721 </p><p>
5722 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5723 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5724 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5725 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5726 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5727 power.<sup>[<a name="id3122860" href="#ftn.id3122860" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5728 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5729 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5730 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5731 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5732 </p><p>
5733 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5734 which the e-book <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5735 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> that most
5736 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission</span>»</span> to stay out
5737 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5738 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5739 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5740 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5741 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5742 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5743 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5744 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5745 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5746 simply won't read aloud.
5747 </p><p>
5748
5749 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5750 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5751 to type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from
5752 the sentence.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3122933"></a>
5753 </p><p>
5754 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5755 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5756 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5757 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5758 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5759 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5760 technology have no similar built-in check.
5761 </p><p>
5762 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5763 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5764 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5765 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5766 as well?
5767 </p><p>
5768 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5769 Reader.
5770 </p><p>
5771 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5772 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5773 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5774 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5775 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5776 <a class="indexterm" name="id3122983"></a>
5777 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5778 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5779 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5780 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read
5781 aloud</span>»</span>!
5782 </p><p>
5783 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5784 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5785 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5786 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5787 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5788 absurd.
5789 </p><p>
5790 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5791 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5792 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5793 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5794 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5795 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5796 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5797 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5798 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5799 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5800 </p><p>
5801 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5802 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5803 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5804 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5805 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5806 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3123058"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123066"></a><p>
5807 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5808 of mine that makes the same point.
5809 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5810 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>»</span> The Aibo
5811 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5812 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5813 </p><p>
5814 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5815 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5816 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5817
5818 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5819 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5820 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5821 </p><p>
5822 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5823 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5824 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5825 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5826 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5827 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5828 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3123160"></a><p>
5829 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5830 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5831 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5832 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5833 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5834 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5835 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5836 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5837 run, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drive,</span>»</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5838 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5839 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5840 </p><p>
5841 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5842 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5843 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5844 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5845 ethically.
5846 </p><p>
5847 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5848 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5849 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5850 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5851 built.
5852 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3123211"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123219"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123227"></a><p>
5853
5854 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5855 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5856 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5857 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5858 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5859 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5860 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5861 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5862 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5863 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5864 </p><p>
5865 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5866 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5867 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5868 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5869 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5870 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5871 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5872 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5873 knew very well.
5874 </p><p>
5875 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3123272" href="#ftn.id3123272" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5876 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5877 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5878 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5879 </p><p>
5880 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5881 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5882 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5883 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">this music cannot
5884 be copied,</span>»</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5885 was to be part of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trusted system</span>»</span> of control that would get
5886 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5887 </p><p>
5888 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5889 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5890 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5891 problems to the consortium.
5892 </p><p>
5893
5894
5895 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5896 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5897 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5898 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5899 </p><p>
5900 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5901 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5902 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5903 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5904 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5905 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5906 </p><p>
5907 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5908 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5909 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5910 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5911 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5912 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5913 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5914 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5915 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5916 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5917 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5918 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5919 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5920 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3123456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123472"></a><p>
5921 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5922 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5923 RIAA lawyer that read:
5924 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5925
5926 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5927 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5928 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5929 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
5930 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5931 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5932 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5933 information an offense.
5934 </p><p>
5935 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5936 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5937 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5938 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5939 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5940 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5941 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5942 for copyright owners.
5943 </p><p>
5944 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5945 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5946 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5947 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5948 code of copyright</em></span>.
5949 </p><p>
5950 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5951 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5952 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5953 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5954 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5955 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5956 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3123553"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123559"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123566"></a><p>
5957
5958 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5959 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5960 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5961 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5962 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5963 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5964 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5965 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5966 system was circumvented.
5967 </p><p>
5968 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5969 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5970 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5971 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5972 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5973 others to infringe others' copyright.
5974 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3123603"></a><p>
5975 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5976 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5977 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5978 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5979 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5980 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> for example, had testified
5981 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5982 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3123625"></a>
5983 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5984 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5985 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5986 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5987 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5988 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5989 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5990 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5991 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5992 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5993 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You are an important
5994 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe
5995 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5996 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5997 important.<sup>[<a name="id3123665" href="#ftn.id3123665" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5998 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5999
6000
6001 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
6002 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
6003 responsible.
6004 </p><p>
6005 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
6006 <a class="indexterm" name="id3123706"></a>
6007 </p><p>
6008 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
6009 </p><p>
6010 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
6011 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
6012 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
6013 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
6014 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
6015 use&#8212;a good end.
6016 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxhandguns"></a><p>
6017
6018 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
6019 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
6020 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
6021 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
6022 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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"><a class="indexterm" name="id3123764"></a><p>
6023 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
6024 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
6025 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
6026 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
6027 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
6028 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
6029 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3123784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123798"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123805"></a><p>
6030 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
6031 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
6032 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6033 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6034 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6035 erasing.
6036 </p><p>
6037 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6038 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6039 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6040 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6041 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6042 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6043 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6044 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6045 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6046 </p><p>
6047 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6048 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6049 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6050 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6051 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6052 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6053 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6054 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6055 violate the rules.
6056 </p><p>
6057
6058
6059 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6060 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6061 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6062 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6063 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id3123869" href="#ftn.id3123869" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6064 </p><p>
6065 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6066 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6067 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6068 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6069 wished without fear of legal control.
6070 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3123896"></a><p>
6071 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6072 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6073 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6074 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6075 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6076 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6077 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6078 is quick.
6079 </p><p>
6080 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6081 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6082 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6083 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6084 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6085 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6086 </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>
6087
6088 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6089 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6090 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6091 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6092 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6093 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6094 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6095 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6096 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6097 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6098 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6099 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6100 to copyright's control.
6101 </p><p>
6102 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6103 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6104 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6105 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6106 about all the other changes I have described.
6107 </p><p>
6108 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6109 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6110 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6111 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6112 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6113 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6114 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6115 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6116 </p><p>
6117 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6118 </p><p>
6119 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6120 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6121 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6122 sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3123989" href="#ftn.id3123989" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6123 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6124 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id3124001" href="#ftn.id3124001" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6125 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6126 nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3124019" href="#ftn.id3124019" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124032"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124038"></a>
6127 <a class="indexterm" name="id3124044"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124050"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124057"></a>
6128 </p><p>
6129
6130 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6131 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6132 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6133 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6134 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6135 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6136 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6137 revenues.
6138 </p><p>
6139 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6140 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6141 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6142 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6143 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6144 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6145 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6146 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6147 market.
6148 </p><p>
6149 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6150 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6151 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id3124089"></a>
6152 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6153 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6154 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6155 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6156 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6157 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6158 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6159 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6160 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6161 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3124113" href="#ftn.id3124113" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6162 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6163 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6164 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6165 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6166 thousand words could do:
6167 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
6168
6169
6170 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6171 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6172 distribuere innhold?
6173 </p><p>
6174 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6175 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6176 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6177 begynt å endre mening.
6178 </p><p>
6179 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6180 er viktig.
6181 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3124195"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3124202"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3124208"></a><p>
6182 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6183 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6184 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6185 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6186 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6187 ikke mer.
6188 </p><p>
6189 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6190 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6191 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6192 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id3124240" href="#ftn.id3124240" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6193 </p><p>
6194
6195
6196
6197 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6198 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6199 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6200 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6201 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6202 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independent</span>»</span> of the networks.
6203 </p><p>
6204 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6205 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6206 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6207 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6208 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6209 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6210 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6211 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6212 one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3124303" href="#ftn.id3124303" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6213 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the
6214 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6215 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6216 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6217 studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3124331" href="#ftn.id3124331" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6218 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3124338"></a><p>
6219 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6220 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6221 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6222 increasingly owned by the network.
6223 </p><p>
6224 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6225 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6226 <a class="indexterm" name="id3124362"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124368"></a>
6227 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6228 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6229 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6230 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6231 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6232 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6233 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id3124387" href="#ftn.id3124387" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6234 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6235 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6236 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6237 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6238 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6239 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6240 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6241 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6242 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6243 the environment for a democracy.
6244 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3124414"></a><p>
6245 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6246 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6247 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6248 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6249 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6250 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6251 trends.<sup>[<a name="id3124445" href="#ftn.id3124445" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6252 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6253 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3124476"></a>
6254 </p><p>
6255 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6256 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6257 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6258 </p><p>
6259 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6260 the concern.
6261 </p><p>
6262 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6263 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6264 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6265 </p><p>
6266
6267 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6268 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6269 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6270 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6271 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6272 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6273 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6274 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6275 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6276 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6277 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6278 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6279 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6280 </p><p>
6281 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6282 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6283 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6284 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6285 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6286 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign
6287 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6288 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6289 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6290 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6291 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6292 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6293 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6294 campaign.
6295 </p><p>
6296 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6297 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6298 </p><p>
6299 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6300 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6301 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6302 war. Can you do it?
6303 </p><p>
6304
6305 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6306 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6307 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6308 heard then?
6309 </p><p>
6310 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6311 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6312 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6313 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6314 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6315 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6316 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6317 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id3124598" href="#ftn.id3124598" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6318 </p><p>
6319 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6320 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6321 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6322 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6323 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6324 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6325 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6326 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6327 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3124510"></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>
6328 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6329 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span> In
6330 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6331 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6332 </p><p>
6333
6334 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> has
6335 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6336 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6337 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6338 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6339 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6340 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6341 expanded <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6342 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6343 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6344 </p><p>
6345 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6346 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6347 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6348 today.
6349 </p><p>
6350 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6351 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6352 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6353 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6354 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6355 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6356 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6357 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6358 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6359 </p><p>
6360 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6361 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6362 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6363 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6364 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6365 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6366 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6367 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6368 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6369 </p><p>
6370
6371 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6372 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6373 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6374 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6375 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6376 our culture than now</em></span>.
6377 </p><p>
6378 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6379 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6380 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6381 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6382 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6383 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6384 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6385 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6386 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6387 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6388 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6389 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6390 known.<sup>[<a name="id3124842" href="#ftn.id3124842" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6391 </p><p>
6392 <span class="strong"><strong>This has been</strong></span> a long chapter. Its point
6393 can now be briefly stated.
6394 </p><p>
6395 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6396 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6397 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6398 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6399 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6400 </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>
6401
6402 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6403 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6404 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6405 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6406 free.
6407 </p><p>
6408 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6409 </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>
6410 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6411 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6412 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6413 essentially free.
6414 </p><p>
6415 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6416 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6417 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6418 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6419 look like this:
6420 </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>
6421 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6422 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6423 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6424 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6425 like this:
6426 </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>
6427
6428 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6429 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6430 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6431 commercial publishers.
6432 </p><p>
6433 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6434 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6435 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6436 actually does any good.
6437 </p><p>
6438 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6439 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6440 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6441 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6442 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6443 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Chapter 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6444 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6445 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6446 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6447 </p><p>
6448 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6449 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
6450 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6451 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6452 rights<sup>[<a name="id3125203" href="#ftn.id3125203" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6453 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6454 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6455 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6456 tradition, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6457 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6458 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6459 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6460 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3125243"></a><p>
6461
6462 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6463 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
6464 birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6465 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6466 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> is animated by
6467 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6468 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6469 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6470 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6471 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6472 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6473 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6474 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6475 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6476 </p><p>
6477 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6478 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6479 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6480 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6481 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6482 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6483 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6484 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6485 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6486 with a lawyer.
6487 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3119833" href="#id3119833" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6488
6489
6490 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6491 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6492 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6493 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6494 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6495 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3119902" href="#id3119902" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6496
6497
6498 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6499 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6500 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property right</span>»</span> to my car gives me the right
6501 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6502 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
6503 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6504 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6505 26&#8211;27.
6506 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3120350" href="#id3120350" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6507
6508
6509 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6510 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6511 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6512 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6513 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6514 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6515 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6516 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6517 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3120425" href="#id3120425" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6518
6519 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They
6520 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6521 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6522 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6523 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6524 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6525 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6526 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6527 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6528 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6529 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6530 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6531 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6532 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6533 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6534 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6535 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6536 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>»</span> in
6537 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6538 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6539 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6540 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6541 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6542 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6543 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6544 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6545 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3120479"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3120488"></a>
6546 <a class="indexterm" name="id3120494"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3120501"></a>
6547 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3120687" href="#id3120687" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6548
6549
6550 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6551 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
6552 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6553 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6554 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6555 #24</a>.
6556 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3120761" href="#id3120761" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6557
6558
6559 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6560 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6561 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3120933" href="#id3120933" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6562
6563
6564 Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6565 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6566 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6567 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121164" href="#id3121164" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6568
6569 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6570 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6571 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6572 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6573 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
6574 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3121182"></a>
6575 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121232" href="#id3121232" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6576
6577
6578 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6579 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6580 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6581 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6582 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6583 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6584 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6585 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6586 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6587 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6588 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6589 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6590 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6591 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121299" href="#id3121299" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6592
6593
6594 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6595 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6596 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6597 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6598 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6599 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6600 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
6601 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6602 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121357" href="#id3121357" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6603
6604
6605 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121466" href="#id3121466" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6606
6607
6608 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6609 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6610 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6611 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
6612 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121631" href="#id3121631" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6613
6614
6615 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6616 Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6617 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6618 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6619 1987).
6620
6621 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121718" href="#id3121718" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6622
6623 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
6624 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="id3121748"></a>
6625 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121767" href="#id3121767" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6626
6627 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6628 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6629 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and derivative
6630 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6631 Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6632 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3121785"></a>
6633 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121833" href="#id3121833" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6634
6635
6636 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6637 regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6638 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6639 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6640 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span>;
6641 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6642 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span>
6643 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6644 is a copy, there is a right.
6645 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121912" href="#id3121912" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6646
6647
6648 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6649 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6650 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6651 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6652 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121842" href="#id3121842" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6653
6654
6655 I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6656 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6657 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6658 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6659 number of copies remain.
6660 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3122536" href="#id3122536" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6661
6662
6663 Se David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
6664 and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172&#8211;73.
6665 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3122563" href="#id3122563" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6666
6667 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6668 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3122550"></a>
6669 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3122860" href="#id3122860" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6670
6671
6672 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6673 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6674 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6675 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6676 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6677 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6678 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3123272" href="#id3123272" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6679
6680 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6681 Science,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6682 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6683 New Tricks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6684 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>»</span>
6685 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6686 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6687 Concerns,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6688 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6689 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6690 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6691 Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3123328"></a>
6692 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3123665" href="#id3123665" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6693
6694 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6695 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6696 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6697 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6698 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3122571"></a>
6699 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3123869" href="#id3123869" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6700
6701
6702 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
6703 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
6704 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6705 (1997): 651.
6706 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3123989" href="#id3123989" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6707
6708
6709 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6710 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6711 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124001" href="#id3124001" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6712
6713
6714 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6715 Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6716 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124019" href="#id3124019" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6717
6718
6719 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span>
6720 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6721 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124113" href="#id3124113" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6722
6723 James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6724 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3124132"></a>
6725 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124240" href="#id3124240" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6726
6727
6728 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6729 Center Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span>
6730 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6731 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6732 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6733 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124303" href="#id3124303" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6734
6735
6736 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6737 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6738 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6739 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6740 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6741 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6742 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124331" href="#id3124331" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6743
6744
6745 ibid.
6746 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124387" href="#id3124387" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6747
6748
6749 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
6750 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
6751 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6752 #31</a>.
6753 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124445" href="#id3124445" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6754
6755
6756 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6757 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6758 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6759 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6760 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6761 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6762 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6763 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6764 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6765 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6766 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124598" href="#id3124598" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6767
6768 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6769 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6770 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against [their]
6771 policy.</span>»</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6772 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6773 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6774 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6775 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6776 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6777 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6778 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6779 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6780 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6781 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6782 Radio,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6783 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6784 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6785 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6786 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6787 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6788 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6789 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6790 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
6791 the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124662"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124670"></a>
6792 <a class="indexterm" name="id3124676"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124683"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124689"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124695"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3124702"></a>
6793 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124842" href="#id3124842" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6794
6795 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire
6796 kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
6797 Vaidhyanathan, 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3124634"></a>
6798 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3125203" href="#id3125203" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6799
6800 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6801 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6802 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6803 Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6804 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6805 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3125219"></a>
6806 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Part III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 11. Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Chapter 11. Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6807 <span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> short story by
6808 H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an ice
6809 slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in the Peruvian
6810 Andes.<sup>[<a name="id3125370" href="#ftn.id3125370" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is extraordinarily
6811 beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich
6812 brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But
6813 the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In
6814 the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man
6815 is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life
6816 as a king.
6817 </p><p>
6818 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6819 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6820 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind.</span>»</span> They don't have the word
6821 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6822 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6823 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6824 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6825 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6826 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>»</span>
6827 </p><p>
6828
6829
6830 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6831 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6832 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6833 of creation,</span>»</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6834 what he sees <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6835 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6836 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She
6837 did not believe,</span>»</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">she could only half
6838 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>»</span>
6839 </p><p>
6840 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mysteriously
6841 delighted</span>»</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You see,
6842 my dear,</span>»</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6843 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>»</span> They take Nunez to the
6844 village doctor.
6845 </p><p>
6846 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">His brain
6847 is affected,</span>»</span> he reports.
6848 </p><p>
6849 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>»</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Those queer things
6850 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6851 affect his brain.</span>»</span>
6852 </p><p>
6853 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6854 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6855 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6856 eyes].</span>»</span>
6857 </p><p>
6858 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6859 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6860 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6861 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)
6862 </p><p>
6863
6864 <span class="strong"><strong>It sometimes</strong></span> happens that the eggs of
6865 twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
6866 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature with two sets of
6867 DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of
6868 the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6869 mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6870 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>»</span>
6871 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3125532"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3125541"></a><p>
6872 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6873 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6874 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6875 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6876 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> should
6877 reflect this reality.
6878 </p><p>
6879 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6880 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6881 enough, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>»</span> the more I think we're dealing
6882 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What is
6883 p2p file sharing?</span>»</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6884 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6885 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6886 years without any question at all.</span>»</span> That's true, at least in
6887 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6888 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6889 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6890 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6891 </p><p>
6892 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6893 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6894 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6895 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6896 friends</span>»</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6897 friend is what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>»</span> we have not
6898 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6899 friends.</span>»</span>
6900 </p><p>
6901 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6902 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6903 it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6904 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6905 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6906 <a class="indexterm" name="id3125624"></a>
6907 </p><p>
6908
6909
6910
6911 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6912 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6913 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6914 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6915 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6916 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6917 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6918 </p><p>
6919 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6920 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6921 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6922 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6923 rules should govern it?
6924 </p><p>
6925 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6926 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6927 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6928 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6929 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6930 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6931 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id3125665" href="#ftn.id3125665" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6932
6933 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3125771"></a><p>
6934 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6935 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6936 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6937 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6938 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6939 </p><p>
6940 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6941 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6942 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6943 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6944 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6945 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6946 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6947 of the two extremes.
6948 </p><p>
6949
6950
6951
6952 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6953 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6954 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6955 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6956 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6957 will be lost.
6958 </p><p>
6959 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
6960 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6961 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6962 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6963 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6964 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6965 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6966 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6967 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6968 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6969 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6970 and we want to protect those rights.
6971 </p><p>
6972 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6973 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6974 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6975 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6976 industry model.
6977 </p><p>
6978 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6979 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6980 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6981 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6982 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6983 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6984 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6985 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id3125869" href="#ftn.id3125869" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6986 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6987 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6988 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
6989 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3125894"></a>
6990 </p><p>
6991 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6992 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6993 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6994 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3125370" href="#id3125370" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6995
6996
6997 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
6998 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6999 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
7000 Press, 1996).
7001 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3125665" href="#id3125665" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
7002
7003 <a class="indexterm" name="id3125668"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
7004 report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
7005 at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
7006 World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers
7007 Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that
7008 would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
7009 punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
7010 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
7011 Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #34</a>. Civil penalties are
7012 currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
7013 legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
7014 user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
7015 <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
7016 re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24
7017 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
7018 million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
7019 in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
7020 $17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
7021 networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
7022 could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
7023 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com, August
7024 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7025 #35</a>. For an example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing,
7026 and of the subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer
7027 identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
7028 Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003,
7029 D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7030 #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3125757"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3125763"></a>
7031 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3125869" href="#id3125869" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
7032
7033
7034 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
7035 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
7036 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
7037 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
7038 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7039 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Chapter 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
7040 <span class="strong"><strong>To fight</strong></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to
7041 protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the content industry has launched a
7042 war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
7043 government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
7044 and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these damages will be
7045 suffered most by our own people.
7046 </p><p>
7047 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7048 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now
7049 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7050 justified?
7051 </p><p>
7052 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7053 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7054 the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest
7055 in our history.
7056 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3125961"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3125967"></a><p>
7057 Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7058 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7059 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7060 rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
7061 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3125986"></a><p>
7062
7063
7064 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7065 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7066 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7067 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7068 today's monopolists of culture.
7069 </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>
7070 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7071 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7072 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7073 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7074 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7075 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7076 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7077 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7078 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7079 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7080 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7081 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7082 </p><p>
7083 This digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> is in part an extension of
7084 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7085 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7086 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7087 digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> promises a world of
7088 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7089 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7090 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7091 contribute to the culture all around.
7092 </p><p>
7093
7094 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7095 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7096 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7097 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7098 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7099 </p><p>
7100 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7101 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7102 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7103 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7104 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7105 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7106 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7107 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7108 presumptively illegal.
7109 </p><p>
7110 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7111 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7112 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7113 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7114 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7115 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7116 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7117 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7118 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7119 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id3126089" href="#ftn.id3126089" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7120 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7121 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7122 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id3126128" href="#ftn.id3126128" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7123 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7124 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7125 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id3126171"></a>
7126 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126179"></a><p>
7127 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7128 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7129 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7130 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7131 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7132 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7133 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7134 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7135 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7136 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7137 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7138 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal
7139 art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3126197" href="#ftn.id3126197" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7140 what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7141 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7142 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126243"></a><p>
7143 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7144 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7145 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7146 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7147 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7148 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7149 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7150 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7151 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126272"></a><p>
7152 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7153 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7154 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7155 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7156 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7157 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7158 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7159 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7160 them is not similarly free.
7161 </p><p>
7162 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7163 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7164 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7165 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7166 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7167 </p><p>
7168
7169
7170
7171 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7172 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7173 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7174 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7175 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7176 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7177 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7178 on the rule of law.
7179 </p><p>
7180 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7181 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">breathing room</span>»</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7182 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7183 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7184 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7185 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7186 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7187 relationship to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law</span>»</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7188 </p><p>
7189 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7190 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7191 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7192 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7193 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7194 that pass under the name <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> silence speech and
7195 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7196 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7197 </p><p>
7198 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7199 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7200
7201 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7202 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7203 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7204 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7205 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7206 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even
7207 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7208 which they control it.
7209 </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>
7210 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7211 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7212 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7213 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7214 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7215 you.
7216 </p><p>
7217 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7218 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7219 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7220 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7221 substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span> every place I've spoken of
7222 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7223 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7224 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126416"></a><p>
7225 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7226 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7227 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7228 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7229 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7230 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7231 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7232 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7233 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7234 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7235 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126424"></a><p>
7236
7237 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7238 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7239 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7240 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7241 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7242 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7243 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7244 calls a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the
7245 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7246 </p><p>
7247 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7248 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7249 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7250 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126480"></a><p>
7251 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7252 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7253 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7254 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7255 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7256 the creators.
7257 </p><p>
7258 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7259 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7260 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7261 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7262 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3126503"></a>
7263 </p><p>
7264 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7265 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7266 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7267 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7268 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7269 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7270 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7271 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7272 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7273 </p><p>
7274
7275 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7276 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7277 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7278 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7279 the users liked.
7280 </p><p>
7281 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7282 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7283 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7284 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7285 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7286 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7287 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7288 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7289 something they had already bought.
7290 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7291 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7292 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7293 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7294 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7295 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7296 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7297 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7298 </p><p>
7299 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7300 </p><p>
7301 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7302 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7303 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7304 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7305 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7306 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7307 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7308 </p><p>
7309
7310 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7311 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7312 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7313 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7314 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7315 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7316 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7317 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126607"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3126615"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3126621"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3126628"></a><p>
7318 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7319 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7320 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7321 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id3126641" href="#ftn.id3126641" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7322 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7323 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7324 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7325 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7326 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7327 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7328 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7329 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7330 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7331 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id3126688"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3126694"></a>
7332 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3126703"></a><p>
7333 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7334 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7335 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7336 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7337 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7338 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id3126372" href="#ftn.id3126372" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7339 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7340 Dette er verden til mafiaen&#8212;fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
7341 livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
7342 loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
7343 åpenbart og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å
7344 starte et selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av
7345 søksmål.
7346 </p><p>
7347
7348
7349
7350 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7351 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal.</span>»</span> The law
7352 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7353 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7354 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7355 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7356 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7357 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7358 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7359 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7360 and much less creativity.
7361 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126790"></a><p>
7362 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7363 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7364 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7365 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7366 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7367 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7368 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7369 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7370 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7371 </p><p>
7372
7373 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7374 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7375 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7376 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7377 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7378 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7379 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7380 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7381 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7382 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7383 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7384 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7385 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7386 justifying to justify that result.
7387 </p><p>
7388 <span class="strong"><strong>The uncertainty</strong></span> of the law is one burden
7389 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7390 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7391 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7392 content.
7393 </p><p>
7394 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7395 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7396 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7397 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bug.</span>»</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7398 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7399 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7400 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then, this
7401 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7402 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3126867"></a><p>
7403 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7404 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7405 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7406 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id3126881" href="#ftn.id3126881" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7407 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on
7408 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7409 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7410 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7411 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7412 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id3126910" href="#ftn.id3126910" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7413 </p><p>
7414
7415 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7416 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7417 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7418 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7419 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7420 </p><p>
7421 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7422 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7423 impose.<sup>[<a name="id3126934" href="#ftn.id3126934" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7424 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7425 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3126946"></a>
7426 </p><p>
7427 <span class="strong"><strong>There is one</strong></span> more obvious way in which
7428 this war has harmed innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite
7429 familiar to the free market crowd.
7430 </p><p>
7431 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7432 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7433 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7434 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7435 </p><p>
7436 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7437 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7438 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id3126986" href="#ftn.id3126986" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7439 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7440 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7441 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7442 case of the VCR) has been another.
7443 </p><p>
7444 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7445 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7446 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7447 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7448 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7449 </p><p>
7450 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id3127022" href="#ftn.id3127022" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7451 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7452 here.<sup>[<a name="id3127063" href="#ftn.id3127063" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7453 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7454 radio.
7455 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3127124"></a><p>
7456
7457
7458 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7459 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
7460 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7461 version of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7462 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7463 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7464 owners of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> would get some money, whereas
7465 Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3127163"></a>
7466 </p><p>
7467 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7468 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7469 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7470 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7471 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7472 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7473 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7474 compensation to the recording artists.
7475 </p><p>
7476 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7477 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7478 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7479 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tune in</span>»</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7480 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7481 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7482 </p><p>
7483 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7484 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7485 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7486 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7487 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7488 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7489 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7490 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7491 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7492 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7493 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3127227"></a><p>
7494
7495
7496
7497 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7498 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7499 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7500 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7501 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7502 struggle to enable FM radio,
7503 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7504 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7505 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7506 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7507 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7508 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7509 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7510 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7511 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7512 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7513 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7514 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7515 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id3126719" href="#ftn.id3126719" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7516 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7517 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7518 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7519 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3127280" href="#ftn.id3127280" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7520 </p><p>
7521 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7522 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7523 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7524 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7525 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7526 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments2"></a><p>
7527
7528 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7529 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7530 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7531 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7532 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7533 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7534 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> on the
7535 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7536 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7537 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7538 </p><p>
7539 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7540 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7541 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7542 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7543 year.<sup>[<a name="id3127344" href="#ftn.id3127344" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7544 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7545 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3127400"></a><p>
7546 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7547 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7548 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7549 transaction</em></span>:
7550 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7551 navn på tjenesten,
7552 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7553 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7554 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7555 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7556 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7557 dato for sending;
7558 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7559 tidspunkt for sending;
7560 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7561 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7562 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7563 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7564 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7565 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7566 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7567 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7568 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7569 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7570 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7571 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7572 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7573 the track;
7574 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7575 spillende plateartist;
7576 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7577 tittel på album i butikker;
7578 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7579 plateselskap;
7580 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7581 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7582 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7583 katalognummer;
7584 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7585 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7586 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7587 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7588 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7589 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7590 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7591 kanal eller program;
7592 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7593 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7594 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7595 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7596 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7597 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7598 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7599 unik bruker-identifikator;
7600 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7601 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7602 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7603 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7604 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7605 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7606 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7607 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7608 not.
7609 </p><p>
7610 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7611 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7612 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7613 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3127575"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
7614 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7615 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7616 Real Networks, told me,
7617 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7618
7619 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7620 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7621 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7622 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7623 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How do you come
7624 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7625 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7626 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7627 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>»</span>
7628 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3127609"></a><p>
7629 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7630 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7631 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7632 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis added.)
7633 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3127649"></a><p>
7634 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7635 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7636 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7637 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7638 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7639 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7640 </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>
7641 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7642 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7643 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7644 </p><p>
7645 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7646 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7647 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7648 </p><p>
7649
7650 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7651 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7652 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7653 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id3127701" href="#ftn.id3127701" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7654 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7655 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7656 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7657 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7658 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7659 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7660 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7661 </p><p>
7662 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7663 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7664 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7665 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7666 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7667 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7668 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7669 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7670 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7671 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7672 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id3127334" href="#ftn.id3127334" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7673 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7674 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7675 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7676 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7677 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7678 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7679 </p><p>
7680 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7681 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7682 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7683 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7684 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7685 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7686 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7687 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id3127782" href="#ftn.id3127782" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7688 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7689 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id3127799" href="#ftn.id3127799" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7690 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7691 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7692 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id3127816" href="#ftn.id3127816" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
7693 society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7694 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7695 regularly violate at least some law.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3127837"></a>
7696 </p><p>
7697 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7698 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7699 about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
7700 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7701 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7702 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7703 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7704 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7705 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7706 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7707 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7708 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7709 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7710 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7711 <a class="indexterm" name="id3127856"></a>
7712 </p><p>
7713 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7714 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7715 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7716 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7717 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7718 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7719 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7720 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7721 </p><p>
7722
7723
7724
7725 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7726 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7727 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7728 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7729 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7730 </p><p>
7731 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7732 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7733 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7734 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7735 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7736 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7737 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7738 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7739 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7740 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7741 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing.</span>»</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7742 Americans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">citizens,</span>»</span> not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">felons.</span>»</span>
7743 </p><p>
7744 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7745 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7746 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7747 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7748 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7749 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7750 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7751 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7752 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7753 </p><p>
7754 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7755 </p><p>
7756
7757 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7758 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7759 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7760 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7761 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of the
7762 recordings is free.
7763 </p><p>
7764 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7765 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7766 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> to copy, or
7767 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip,</span>»</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7768 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was
7769 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7770 Burn</span>»</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7771 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3127983"></a><p>
7772 This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7773 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7774 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7775 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7776 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7777 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7778 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7779 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7780 right.
7781 </p><p>
7782 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7783 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7784 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7785 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7786 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7787 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7788 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7789 </p><p>
7790
7791 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7792 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7793 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7794 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7795 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7796 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7797 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7798 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7799 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
7800 </p><p>
7801 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7802 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7803 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7804 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7805 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7806 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7807 easily?
7808 </p><p>
7809 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7810 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7811 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7812 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7813 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7814 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7815 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7816 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7817 </p><p>
7818 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7819 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7820 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7821 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7822 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7823 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7824 horse-drawn buggy.
7825 </p><p>
7826 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7827 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7828 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7829 as criminals and their own survival.
7830 </p><p>
7831
7832 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7833 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7834 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7835 important as our tradition of free culture.
7836 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3128090"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
7837 <span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
7838 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7839 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7840 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral
7841 damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7842 of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This is the collateral damage to
7843 civil liberties generally.
7844 </p><p>
7845 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
7846 von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id3128138"></a>
7847 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7848 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7849 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7850 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7851 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7852 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7853 soon as we think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7854 lawbreaker.</span>»</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7855 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7856 into <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>»</span>
7857 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7858 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7859 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7860 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7861 </p><p>
7862 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7863 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7864 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7865 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7866 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7867 user is revealed.
7868 </p><p>
7869
7870 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7871 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7872 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7873 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7874 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7875 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7876 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id3128196" href="#ftn.id3128196" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7877
7878 </p><p>
7879 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7880 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7881 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id3128252" href="#ftn.id3128252" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7882 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7883 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7884 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
7885 </p><p>
7886 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7887 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7888 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7889 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7890 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7891 if the college network is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cooperating</span>»</span> with the RIAA's
7892 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7893 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7894 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules
7895 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id3128296" href="#ftn.id3128296" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7896 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7897 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3128368"></a><p>
7898 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7899 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7900 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7901 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7902 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7903 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7904 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7905 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7906 Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id3128392"></a>
7907 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7908 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7909 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7910 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7911 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7912 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7913 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7914 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7915 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7916 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7917 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7918 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7919 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7920 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7921 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7922 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7923 million of them.
7924 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7925 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7926 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals</span>»</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7927 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7928 millions being considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain?
7929 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7930 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7931 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126089" href="#id3126089" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7932
7933 Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7934 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7935 for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7936 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
7937 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7938 #37</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3126115"></a>
7939 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126128" href="#id3126128" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7940  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7941 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7942 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7943 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7944 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7945 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7946 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7947 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7948 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3126159"></a>
7949 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126197" href="#id3126197" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7950
7951
7952
7953 Se Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free</span>»</span>,
7954 <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
7955 utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7956 #41</a>.
7957 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126641" href="#id3126641" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7958
7959
7960 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span>
7961 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7962 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7963 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>»</span>
7964 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,
7965 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7966 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7967 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126372" href="#id3126372" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7968
7969 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s</span>»</span>,
7970 <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
7971 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3126739"></a>
7972 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126881" href="#id3126881" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7973
7974 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span>
7975 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7976 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7977 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126910" href="#id3126910" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7978
7979
7980 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7981 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126934" href="#id3126934" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7982
7983
7984 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span>
7985 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7986 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126986" href="#id3126986" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7987
7988 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7989 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3126993"></a>
7990 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127022" href="#id3127022" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7991
7992 <a class="indexterm" name="id3127025"></a> The only circuit court exception is
7993 found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry Association of America
7994 (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180
7995 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
7996 reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player were not liable for
7997 contributory copyright infringement for a device that is unable to record or
7998 redistribute music (a device whose only copying function is to render
7999 portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).  At the
8000 district court level, the only exception is found in
8001 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
8002 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
8003 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
8004 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
8005 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
8006 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127063" href="#id3127063" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
8007
8008 <a class="indexterm" name="id3127066"></a> For example, in July 2002,
8009 Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention
8010 Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for
8011 damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop
8012 copyright infringement. In August 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin
8013 introduced a bill to mandate that technologies capable of rebroadcasting
8014 digital copies of films broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a
8015 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would disable copying of that
8016 content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced
8017 the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, which mandated
8018 copyright protection technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2,
8019 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
8020 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3127101"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3127107"></a>
8021 <a class="indexterm" name="id3127114"></a>
8022 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3126719" href="#id3126719" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
8023
8024
8025 Lessing, 239.
8026 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127280" href="#id3127280" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
8027
8028
8029 Ibid., 229.
8030 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127344" href="#id3127344" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
8031
8032 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
8033 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
8034 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
8035 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
8036 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
8037 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
8038 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
8039 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright as
8040 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
8041 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
8042 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
8043 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
8044 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
8045 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
8046 media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3127380"></a>
8047 <a class="indexterm" name="id3127390"></a>
8048 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127701" href="#id3127701" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
8049
8050 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
8051 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
8052 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8053 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8054 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127334" href="#id3127334" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8055
8056
8057 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8058 Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8059 Business.
8060 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127782" href="#id3127782" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8061
8062
8063 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8064 Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8065 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8066 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127799" href="#id3127799" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8067
8068
8069 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8070 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8071 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8072 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3127816" href="#id3127816" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8073
8074
8075 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
8076 Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8077 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8078 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3128196" href="#id3128196" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8079
8080
8081 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8082 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
8083 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8084 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8085 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8086 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8087 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording
8088 Industry Sues Parents,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8089 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8090 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8091 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
8092 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8093 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3128252" href="#id3128252" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8094
8095
8096 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
8097 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
8098 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3128296" href="#id3128296" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8099
8100
8101 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8102 Penitent,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8103 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8104 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>»</span>
8105 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8106 Armstrong, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>»</span>
8107 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8108 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8109 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>»</span>
8110 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8111 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>»</span>
8112 <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,
8113 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8114 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8115 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8116 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8117 September 2000, 3D.
8118 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Part IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
8119 <span class="strong"><strong>Så her</strong></span> er bildet: Du står på siden av
8120 veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro
8121 til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av
8122 deg er en bøtte, fylt med bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8123 </p><p>
8124 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8125 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8126 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8127 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8128 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8129 </p><p>
8130 <span class="strong"><strong>En krig</strong></span> om opphavsrett pågår over
8131 alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at
8132 dagens teknologier truer eksisterende virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true
8133 artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.  Industrien og teknologer har en
8134 rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte dem selv mot dagens trusler på
8135 Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til seg selv vil brenne ut.
8136 </p><p>
8137
8138
8139 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8140 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8141 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8142 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8143 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8144 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8145 </p><p>
8146 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8147 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8148 bensin på denne brannen.
8149 </p><p>
8150 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8151 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8152 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8153 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8154 burde holde øynene på veien.
8155 </p><p>
8156 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8157 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8158 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8159 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8160 å lykkes.
8161 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Chapter 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8162 <span class="strong"><strong>In 1995</strong></span>, a father was frustrated that his
8163 daughters didn't seem to like Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one
8164 such father, but at least one did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired
8165 computer programmer living in New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the
8166 Web. An electronic version, Eldred thought, with links to pictures and
8167 explanatory text, would make this nineteenth-century author's work come
8168 alive.
8169 </p><p>
8170 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8171 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8172 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8173 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8174 </p><p>
8175
8176 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8177 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8178 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8179 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8180 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8181 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8182 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8183 </p><p>
8184 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8185 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8186 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8187 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8188 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8189 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8190 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8191 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8192 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8193 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8194 works.
8195 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3128658"></a><p>
8196 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8197 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8198 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8199 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8200 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8201 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the Internet
8202 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8203 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8204 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id3128681" href="#ftn.id3128681" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8205 </p><p>
8206 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8207 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8208 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8209 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8210 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8211 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8212 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8213 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8214 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8215 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8216 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3128720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3128736"></a><p>
8217
8218
8219 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8220 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8221 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8222 forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3128750" href="#ftn.id3128750" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8223
8224 </p><p>
8225 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8226 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8227 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8228 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8229 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8230 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8231 </p><p>
8232 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8233 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8234 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8235 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8236 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8237 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8238 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8239 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8240 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8241 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8242 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8243 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8244 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8245 example, to regulate <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> or
8246 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">declare War.</span>»</span> But here, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something</span>»</span> is
8247 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8248 Progress</span>»</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8249 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8250 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
8251 </p><p>
8252 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8253 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8254 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8255 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> will have no practical
8256 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8257 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8258 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>»</span> as
8259 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3128861"></a>
8260 </p><p>
8261 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8262 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8263 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8264 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8265 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8266 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8267 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8268 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8269 </p><p>
8270 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8271 government. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Corruption</span>»</span> not in the sense that representatives
8272 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">corruption</span>»</span> in the sense that the system
8273 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8274 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8275 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8276 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8277 </p><p>
8278 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8279 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8280 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8281 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8282 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8283 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8284 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8285 </p><p>
8286 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8287 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8288 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8289 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8290 </p><p>
8291
8292 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Next year,</span>»</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8293 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8294 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8295 of those works.</span>»</span>
8296 </p><p>
8297 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>»</span> she continues,
8298 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8299 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8300 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>»</span>
8301 </p><p>
8302 <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
8303 something about it?</span>»</span>
8304 </p><p>
8305 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We could
8306 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8307 that they support the bill.</span>»</span>
8308 </p><p>
8309 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8310 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much would we get
8311 if this extension were passed?</span>»</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much
8312 is it worth?</span>»</span>
8313 </p><p>
8314 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well,</span>»</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8315 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8316 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8317 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>»</span>
8318 </p><p>
8319 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8320 conclusion:
8321 </p><p>
8322 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8323 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8324 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>»</span>
8325 </p><p>
8326 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8327 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8328 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>»</span>
8329 </p><p>
8330
8331 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8332 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8333 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8334 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8335 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8336 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8337 extended.
8338 </p><p>
8339 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8340 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8341 buy further extensions of copyright.
8342 </p><p>
8343 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8344 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
8345 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8346 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8347 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3129055" href="#ftn.id3129055" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8348 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8349 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3129073" href="#ftn.id3129073" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8350 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id3129091" href="#ftn.id3129091" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8351
8352 </p><p>
8353 <span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious to
8354 the obvious. Or at least, it need not be. So when I was considering Eldred's
8355 complaint, this reality about the never-ending incentives to increase the
8356 copyright term was central to my thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court
8357 committed to interpreting and applying the Constitution of our framers would
8358 see that if Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then there
8359 would be no effective constitutional requirement that terms be
8360 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they could extend it once, they would extend it
8361 again and again and again.
8362 </p><p>
8363
8364 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8365 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8366 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8367 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8368 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8369 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8370 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8371 </p><p>
8372 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8373 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8374 only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> (aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interstate
8375 commerce</span>»</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8376 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8377 </p><p>
8378 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8379 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8380 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8381 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8382 limit.
8383 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3129175"></a><p>
8384 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8385 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8386 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8387 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8388 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8389 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8390 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8391 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8392 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8393 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8394 </p><p>
8395 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8396 arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id3129208" href="#ftn.id3129208" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8397 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8398 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8399 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8400 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id3129235" href="#ftn.id3129235" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8401 </p><p>
8402
8403 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8404 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id3129255" href="#ftn.id3129255" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8405 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8406 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8407 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping
8408 point</span>»</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8409 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8410 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8411 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8412 </p><p>
8413 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8414 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8415 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8416 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8417 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8418 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8419 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fidelity</span>»</span>
8420 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8421 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8422 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8423 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8424 </p><p>
8425 <span class="strong"><strong>Now let's pause</strong></span> for a moment to make sure
8426 we understand what the argument in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not
8427 about. By insisting on the Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously
8428 Eldred was not endorsing piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was
8429 fighting a kind of piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert
8430 Frost wrote his work and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum
8431 copyright term was just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost
8432 and Disney had already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their
8433 work. They had gotten the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution
8434 envisions: In exchange for a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they
8435 created new work. But now these entities were using their
8436 power&#8212;expressed through the power of lobbyists' money&#8212;to get
8437 another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop would be
8438 taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a piracy that affects
8439 us all.
8440 </p><p>
8441 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8442 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8443 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3129351" href="#ftn.id3129351" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8444 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8445 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8446 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3129376"></a>
8447 </p><p>
8448 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8449 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8450 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8451 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8452 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8453 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8454 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8455 </p><p>
8456 <span class="strong"><strong>It is valuable</strong></span> copyrights that are
8457 responsible for terms being extended.  Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in
8458 Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too valuable for copyright owners to
8459 ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright extensions is not
8460 that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert
8461 Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s that have continuing
8462 commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes not from these
8463 famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not
8464 commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8465 </p><p>
8466 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8467 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8468 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8469 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8470 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8471 generally.<sup>[<a name="id3129426" href="#ftn.id3129426" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8472
8473 </p><p>
8474
8475 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8476 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8477 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8478 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8479 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8480 have to do?
8481 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3129453"></a><p>
8482 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8483 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8484 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8485 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8486 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8487 under copyright.
8488 </p><p>
8489 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8490 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8491 </p><p>
8492 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8493 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8494 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8495 </p><p>
8496 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8497 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8498 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8499 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8500 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8501 </p><p>
8502 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>»</span> the
8503 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8504 copyright owners?</span>»</span>
8505 </p><p>
8506 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8507 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8508 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8509 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8510 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8511 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8512 </p><p>
8513
8514 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8515 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8516 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8517 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8518 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8519 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8520 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8521 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8522 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8523 </p><p>
8524 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8525 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8526 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8527 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8528 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8529 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8530 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8531 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8532 to be used.
8533 </p><p>
8534 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8535 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8536 creative works is much more dire.
8537 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3129573"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3129579"></a><p>
8538 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8539 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8540 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8541 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8542 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8543 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8544 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8545 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8546 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8547 films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3129603" href="#ftn.id3129603" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3129626"></a>
8548 </p><p>
8549 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8550 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8551 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8552 a whole generation of American film.
8553 </p><p>
8554
8555 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8556 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8557 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8558 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8559 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8560 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8561 </p><p>
8562 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8563 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8564 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8565 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8566 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id3129663" href="#ftn.id3129663" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8567
8568 </p><p>
8569 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8570 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8571 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8572 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8573 locate the copyright owner.
8574 </p><p>
8575 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8576 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8577 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8578 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8579 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8580 exceptionally high.
8581 </p><p>
8582 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8583 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>»</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8584 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8585 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8586 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8587 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8588 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8589 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8590 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8591 </p><p>
8592
8593 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8594 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8595 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8596 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8597 expires.
8598 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3129740"></a><p>
8599 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8600 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8601 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8602 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8603 </p><p>
8604 <span class="strong"><strong>Of all the</strong></span> creative work produced by
8605 humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has continuing commercial value. For that
8606 tiny fraction, the copyright is a crucially important legal device. For that
8607 tiny fraction, the copyright creates incentives to produce and distribute
8608 the creative work. For that tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an
8609 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free expression.</span>»</span>
8610 </p><p>
8611 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8612 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8613 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8614 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8615 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8616 commercial life ends.
8617 </p><p>
8618 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8619 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8620 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8621 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8622 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8623 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8624 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8625 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8626 </p><p>
8627
8628 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8629 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8630 context do no good.
8631 </p><p>
8632 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8633 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8634 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8635 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8636 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8637 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8638 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8639 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8640 </p><p>
8641 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8642 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8643 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8644 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8645 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8646 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8647 </p><p>
8648 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8649 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8650 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8651 interfered with anything.
8652 </p><p>
8653 But this situation has now changed.
8654 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
8655 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8656 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8657 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8658 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8659 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8660 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8661 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8662 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8663 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8664 </p><p>
8665
8666
8667 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8668 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8669 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8670 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8671 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8672 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8673 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8674 radically different context.
8675 </p><p>
8676 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8677 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8678 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8679 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8680 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8681 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8682 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8683 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8684 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8685 </p><p>
8686 You may well ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8687 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8688 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8689 widely?</span>»</span>
8690 </p><p>
8691 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8692 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8693 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8694 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8695 what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the market</span>»</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8696 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8697 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8698 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8699 work for us.
8700 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3129933"></a><p>
8701 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8702 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8703 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8704 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8705 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8706 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8707 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8708 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id3129959" href="#ftn.id3129959" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8709
8710 </p><p>
8711 <span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit on
8712 Eric Eldred's behalf in federal district court in Washington, D.C., asking
8713 the court to declare the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
8714 unconstitutional. The two central claims that we made were (1)  that
8715 extending existing terms violated the Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited
8716 Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that extending terms by another twenty
8717 years violated the First Amendment.
8718 </p><p>
8719 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8720 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8721 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8722 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8723 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8724 </p><p>
8725 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8726 be for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8727 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8728 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8729 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8730 grant terms that are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8731 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> to give it
8732 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8733 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8734 </p><p>
8735 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8736 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8737 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8738 the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
8739 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130043"></a><p>
8740
8741 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8742 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8743 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8744 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8745 bounds.
8746 </p><p>
8747 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8748 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8749 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8750 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8751 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8752 </p><p>
8753 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8754 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8755 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8756 </p><p>
8757 <span class="strong"><strong>It is over</strong></span> a year later as I write these
8758 words. It is still astonishingly hard. If you know anything at all about
8759 this story, you know that we lost the appeal. And if you know something more
8760 than just the minimum, you probably think there was no way this case could
8761 have been won. After our defeat, I received literally thousands of missives
8762 by well-wishers and supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this
8763 noble but doomed cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me
8764 than the e-mail from my client, Eric Eldred.
8765 </p><p>
8766 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8767 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8768 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8769 at vi ikke vant.
8770 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130104"></a><p>
8771
8772 <span class="strong"><strong>Feil</strong></span> ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble
8773 først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær
8774 advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han
8775 flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra
8776 sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De
8777 ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville
8778 gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele saken.
8779 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130132"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3130138"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3130145"></a><p>
8780 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8781 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8782 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8783 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8784 få problemet til å virke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">viktig</span>»</span> for Høyesterett. Det måtte
8785 synes som om dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur,
8786 ellers ville de aldri stemt mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de mektigste mediaselskapene i
8787 verden</span>»</span>.
8788 </p><p>
8789 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8790 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8791 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8792 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8793 <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
8794 <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
8795 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8796 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8797 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8798 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8799 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8800 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8801 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8802 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8803 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8804 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8805 put in the Constitution.
8806 </p><p>
8807 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8808 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8809 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8810 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8811 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8812 </p><p>
8813
8814 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8815 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8816 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8817 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8818 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8819 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8820 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8821 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8822 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8823 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8824 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8825 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8826 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8827 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8828 </p><p>
8829 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8830 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8831 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8832 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8833 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8834 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8835 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8836 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>»</span> The answer, as the
8837 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8838 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8839 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8840 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3130271"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3130278"></a>
8841 </p><p>
8842 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8843 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8844 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8845 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8846 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8847 </p><p>
8848 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8849 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8850 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8851 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8852 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8853 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8854 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8855 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8856 <a class="indexterm" name="id3130307"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3130315"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3130321"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3130328"></a>
8857 </p><p>
8858 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8859 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8860 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8861 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3130341"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3130348"></a>
8862 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130356"></a><p>
8863 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8864 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8865 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8866 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8867 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130370"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3130376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3130382"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3130389"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3130395"></a><p>
8868 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8869 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8870 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8871 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8872 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8873 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8874 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8875 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8876 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8877 </p><p>
8878 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8879 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8880 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8881 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8882 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8883 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8884 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8885 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8886 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8887 <a class="indexterm" name="id3130431"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3130439"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3130445"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3130452"></a>
8888 </p><p>
8889 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8890 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8891 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8892 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8893 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8894 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8895 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8896 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8897 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3130472"></a>
8898 </p><p>
8899 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8900 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
8901 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8902 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8903 holders.
8904 </p><p>
8905 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8906 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8907 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8908 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8909 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8910 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8911 </p><p>
8912 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8913 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8914 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8915 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8916 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3130512" href="#ftn.id3130512" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8917 which defended its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George
8918 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8919 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8920 cast.<sup>[<a name="id3130536" href="#ftn.id3130536" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8921 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8922 help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3130553"></a>
8923 </p><p>
8924 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8925 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8926 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8927 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8928 Congress and say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8929 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8930 else.</span>»</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8931 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8932 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8933 traditionally meant to block.
8934 </p><p>
8935 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8936 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8937 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8938 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8939 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.
8940 </p><p>
8941 <span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there was
8942 little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the
8943 strategy.
8944 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3130606"></a><p>
8945 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8946 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
8947 Rest.</span>»</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8948 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8949 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8950 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8951 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8952 that Congress's powers had limits.
8953 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130633"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
8954
8955 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8956 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8957 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8958 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8959 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8960 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8961 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8962 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8963 </p><p>
8964 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8965 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8966 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8967 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8968 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8969 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8970 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8971 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8972 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130680"></a><p>
8973 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8974 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8975 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8976 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8977 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8978 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130696"></a><p>
8979 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8980 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8981 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8982 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8983 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8984 confident he would recognize limits here.
8985 </p><p>
8986 This analysis of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest</span>»</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8987 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8988 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8989 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8990 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8991 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8992 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8993 </p><p>
8994
8995 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8996 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8997 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8998 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8999 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
9000 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Our aim would be
9001 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
9002 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
9003 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
9004 limited.
9005 </p><p>
9006 <span class="strong"><strong>The argument</strong></span> on the government's side
9007 came down to this: Congress has done it before. It should be allowed to do
9008 it again. The government claimed that from the very beginning, Congress has
9009 been extending the term of existing copyrights. So, the government argued,
9010 the Court should not now say that practice is unconstitutional.
9011 </p><p>
9012 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
9013 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
9014 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
9015 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
9016 </p><p>
9017 But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
9018 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
9019 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
9020 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
9021 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
9022 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
9023 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
9024 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
9025 couldn't intervene here.
9026 </p><p>
9027
9028 <span class="strong"><strong>Oral argument</strong></span> was scheduled for the first
9029 week in October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During
9030 those two weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had
9031 volunteered to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically
9032 practice rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
9033 </p><p>
9034 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
9035 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
9036 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
9037 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
9038 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
9039 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
9040 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130835"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3130842"></a><p>
9041 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
9042 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
9043 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
9044 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id3130855"></a>
9045 </p><p>
9046 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
9047 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
9048 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
9049 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
9050 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
9051 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130867"></a><p>
9052 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
9053 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
9054 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
9055 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9056 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9057 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9058 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9059 politicians learn to see that it was also good.
9060 </p><p>
9061
9062 <span class="strong"><strong>The night before</strong></span> the argument, a line of
9063 people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The case had become a
9064 focus of the press and of the movement to free culture. Hundreds stood in
9065 line for the chance to see the proceedings. Scores spent the night on the
9066 Supreme Court steps so that they would be assured a seat.
9067 </p><p>
9068 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9069 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9070 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9071 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9072 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9073 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9074 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9075 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9076 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9077 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9078 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9079 </p><p>
9080 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9081 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9082 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9083 powers had any limit.
9084 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3130934"></a><p>
9085 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9086 was bothering her.
9087 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9088 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9089 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9090 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9091 act.
9092 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9093 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9094 of what the framers had in mind.</span>»</span> But my response again and again was
9095 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9096 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9097
9098 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9099 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9100 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9101 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9102 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9103 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9104 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9105 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9106 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9107 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9108 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9109 evidence for that.
9110 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9111 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9112 answered,
9113 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9114 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9115 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9116 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9117 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9118 under the copyright laws.
9119 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3131011"></a><p>
9120 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9121 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9122 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9123 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9124 was a swing and a miss.
9125 </p><p>
9126 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9127 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9128 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9129 </p><p>
9130
9131 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9132 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9133
9134
9135 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9136 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9137 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9138 </p><p>
9139 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9140 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9141 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9142 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9143 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3131060"></a><p>
9144 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9145 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9146 General Olson,
9147 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9148 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9149 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9150 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9151 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9152 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9153 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9154 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9155 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9156 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9157 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9158 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9159 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9160 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9161 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9162 Court to my side.
9163 </p><p>
9164
9165 <span class="strong"><strong>As I left</strong></span> the court that day, I knew
9166 there were a hundred points I wished I could remake. There were a hundred
9167 questions I wished I had answered differently. But one way of thinking about
9168 this case left me optimistic.
9169 </p><p>
9170 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9171 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9172 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9173 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9174 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9175 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9176 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9177 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9178 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9179 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9180 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9181 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9182 </p><p>
9183 <span class="strong"><strong>The morning</strong></span> of January 15, 2003, I was
9184 five minutes late to the office and missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the
9185 Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the message, I could tell in an instant
9186 that she had bad news to report.The Supreme Court had affirmed the decision
9187 of the Court of Appeals. Seven justices had voted in the majority. There
9188 were two dissents.
9189 </p><p>
9190 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9191 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9192 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9193 </p><p>
9194 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9195 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9196 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9197 </p><p>
9198 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9199 principle in this case from the principle in
9200 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9201 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9202 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9203 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131178"></a><p>
9204
9205
9206
9207 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9208 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9209 Congress's power not limited here.
9210 </p><p>
9211 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9212 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9213 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9214 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9215 </p><p>
9216 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9217 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9218 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9219 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9220 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9221 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9222 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9223 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9224 context it would not.
9225 </p><p>
9226 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9227 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9228 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9229 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9230 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9231 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9232 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9233 will respect, that is the system we have.
9234 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131224"></a><p>
9235 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9236 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9237 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9238 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9239 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9240 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9241 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9242 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9243 charge go unanswered.
9244 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131253"></a><p>
9245
9246
9247 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9248 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9249 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9250 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9251 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9252 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9253 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> and the existing
9254 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9255 unconstitutional.
9256 </p><p>
9257 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9258 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9259 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9260 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9261 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9262 Prince.
9263 </p><p>
9264 <span class="strong"><strong>Defeat brings depression</strong></span>. They say it is
9265 a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger came quickly,
9266 but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9267 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131305"></a><p>
9268 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have
9269 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9270 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9271 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9272 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9273 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9274 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9275 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9276 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9277 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9278 other <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalist</span>»</span> rulings. Where was their
9279 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span> now?
9280 </p><p>
9281
9282 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9283 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9284 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9285 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9286 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9287 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9288 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9289 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9290 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9291 consistent with their own principles.
9292 </p><p>
9293 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9294 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9295 it is.
9296 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131367"></a><p>
9297 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9298 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9299 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9300 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9301 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9302 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9303 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9304 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9305 popularity.
9306 </p><p>
9307
9308 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9309 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9310 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9311 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9312 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9313 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9314 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9315 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9316 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9317 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9318 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9319 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9320 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9321 on which a court should decide the issue.
9322 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131419"></a><p>
9323 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9324 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9325 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id3131430"></a>
9326 </p><p>
9327 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9328 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9329 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9330 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9331 </p><p>
9332 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9333 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9334 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9335 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9336 persuaded.
9337 </p><p>
9338 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9339 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9340 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9341 was a mistake. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9342 issue should not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3131464"></a>
9343 </p><p>
9344 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9345 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9346 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9347 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9348 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9349 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9350 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.
9351 </p><p>
9352
9353 <span class="strong"><strong>While the reaction</strong></span> to the Sonny Bono Act
9354 itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's decision
9355 was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that extending the
9356 term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over ideas. Where
9357 the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had been skeptical
9358 of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good thing, even if
9359 it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was attacked, it was
9360 attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful law. <em class="citetitle">The
9361 New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9362 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9363 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9364 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9365 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9366 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9367 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9368 creative ferment.
9369 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9370 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9371 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9372 case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figure 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
9373 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3131535"></a>
9374 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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="id3131556"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9375 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9376 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand
9377 experiment</span>»</span> we call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I
9378 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9379 Constitution.</span>»</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9380 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9381 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9382 have made them see differently.
9383 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3128681" href="#id3128681" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9384
9385
9386 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9387 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9388 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9389 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9390 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9391 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9392 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9393 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9394 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9395 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9396 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9397 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9398 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3128750" href="#id3128750" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9399
9400 <a class="indexterm" name="id3128755"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3128763"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9401 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9402 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9403 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9404 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9405 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
9406 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9407 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129055" href="#id3129055" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9408
9409 Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9410 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years</span>»</span>,
9411 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
9412 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129073" href="#id3129073" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9413
9414 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9415 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
9416 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129091" href="#id3129091" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9417
9418
9419 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars</span>»</span>,
9420 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
9421 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9422 #50</a>.
9423 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129208" href="#id3129208" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9424
9425 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9426 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9427 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129235" href="#id3129235" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9428
9429
9430 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9431 U.S. 598 (2000).
9432 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129255" href="#id3129255" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9433
9434
9435 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9436 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9437 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9438 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9439 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9440 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9441 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9442 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span>
9443 notwithstanding.
9444 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129351" href="#id3129351" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9445
9446
9447 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9448 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9449 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9450 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129426" href="#id3129426" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9451
9452 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9453 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9454 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9455 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9456 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129603" href="#id3129603" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9457
9458
9459 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9460 Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9461 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9462 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
9463 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9464 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129663" href="#id3129663" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9465
9466
9467 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9468 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9469 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9470 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9471 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9472 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9473 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3129959" href="#id3129959" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9474
9475
9476 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory</span>»</span>,
9477 20 December 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9478 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3130512" href="#id3130512" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9479
9480
9481 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9482 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9483 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3130536" href="#id3130536" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9484
9485
9486 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9487 Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9488 1998, B7.
9489 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Chapter 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9490 <span class="strong"><strong>The day</strong></span> <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
9491 decided, fate would have it that I was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The
9492 day the rehearing petition in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
9493 denied&#8212;meaning the case was really finally over&#8212;fate would have
9494 it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.)  This was a
9495 particularly long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city
9496 from Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and
9497 wrote an op-ed piece.
9498 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131612"></a><p>
9499 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9500 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9501 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9502 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9503 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9504 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>»</span> And
9505 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9506 turned to an argument of politics.
9507 </p><p>
9508
9509 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9510 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9511 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9512 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9513 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9514 </p><p>
9515 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9516 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9517 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9518 </p><p>
9519 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9520 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>»</span> or the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright
9521 Term Deregulation Act.</span>»</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9522 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9523 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9524 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9525 the content go.
9526 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131679"></a><p>
9527 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9528 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9529 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9530 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9531 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9532 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9533 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9534 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9535 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9536 </p><p>
9537 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9538 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9539 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9540 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9541 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9542 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9543 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9544 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9545 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131723"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3131729"></a><p>
9546
9547 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9548 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9549 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id3131747" href="#ftn.id3131747" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9550 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span>
9551 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9552 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9553 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9554 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9555 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9556 </p><p>
9557 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9558 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9559 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
9560 Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9561 what's protected and what's not.
9562 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3131815"></a><p>
9563 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9564 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9565 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9566 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9567 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9568 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9569 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9570 loss of widows' only income.
9571 </p><p>
9572 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9573 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9574 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9575 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9576 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9577 of registration.
9578 </p><p>
9579 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9580 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9581 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9582 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9583 imposed upon creators.
9584 </p><p>
9585
9586 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9587 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9588 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9589 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9590 a property right over the table <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturally,</span>»</span> and he can assert
9591 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9592 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9593 </p><p>
9594 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9595 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9596 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9597 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9598 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9599 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9600 </p><p>
9601 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9602 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9603 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9604 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9605 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9606 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9607 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9608 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9609 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9610 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9611 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9612 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9613 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9614 </p><p>
9615 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9616 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9617 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9618 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9619 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9620 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9621 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9622 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9623 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9624 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3131921"></a>
9625 </p><p>
9626 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9627 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9628 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get.</span>»</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9629 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9630 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">short,</span>»</span> then
9631 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9632 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9633 presumptively uncontrolled.
9634 </p><p>
9635 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9636 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9637 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9638 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9639 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9640 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9641 formalities</em></span>.
9642 </p><p>
9643 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9644 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9645 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9646 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9647 extended copyright term.
9648 </p><p>
9649 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9650 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9651 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9652 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9653 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9654 </p><p>
9655 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9656 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9657 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9658 registrering?
9659 </p><p>
9660
9661 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9662 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9663 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9664 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9665 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9666 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9667 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9668 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9669 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9670 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9671 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9672 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9673 years. What do you think?
9674 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3132014"></a><p>
9675 <span class="strong"><strong>Da Steve Forbes</strong></span> støttet idéen, begynte
9676 enkelte i Washington å følge med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til
9677 representanter som kan være villig til å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg
9678 hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de kan være villige til å ta det første
9679 skrittet.
9680 </p><p>
9681 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9682 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9683 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9684 opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9685 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi er nære</span>»</span>.  Det
9686 oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
9687 her.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3132056"></a>
9688 </p><p>
9689 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9690 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9691 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9692 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9693 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9694 about what this debate is really about.
9695 </p><p>
9696
9697 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9698 concept in the proposed bill</span>»</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9699 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>»</span> had
9700 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9701 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9702 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9703 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9704 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9705 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9706 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9707 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9708 impose <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enormous</span>»</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9709 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9710 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9711 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9712 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9713 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9714 </p><p>
9715 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9716 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9717 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9718 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9719 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9720 likely to.
9721 </p><p>
9722 <span class="strong"><strong>At the beginning</strong></span> of this book, I told two
9723 stories about the law reacting to changes in technology. In the one, common
9724 sense prevailed.  In the other, common sense was delayed. The difference
9725 between the two stories was the power of the opposition&#8212;the power of
9726 the side that fought to defend the status quo. In both cases, a new
9727 technology threatened old interests. But in only one case did those
9728 interest's have the power to protect themselves against this new competitive
9729 threat.
9730 </p><p>
9731 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9732 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9733 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9734 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9735 sunne fornuften?
9736 </p><p>
9737
9738
9739
9740 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9741 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9742 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9743 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9744 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9745 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9746 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9747 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9748 resistance.
9749 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3132166"></a><p>
9750 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9751 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9752 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9753 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9754 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9755 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>»</span> that fills archives
9756 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9757 ask one simple question:
9758 </p><p>
9759 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9760 </p><p>
9761 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9762 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9763 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9764 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9765 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9766 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9767 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9768 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9769 </p><p>
9770 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9771 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9772 the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9773 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9774 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9775 </p><p>
9776
9777 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9778 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9779 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9780 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9781 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9782 creation.
9783 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3132237"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3132243"></a><p>
9784 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9785 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9786 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9787 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9788 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9789 </p><p>
9790 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9791 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9792 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9793 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission
9794 society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9795 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9796 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9797 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3131747" href="#id3131747" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9798
9799 <a class="indexterm" name="id3131752"></a> Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the
9800 Berne Convention, national copyright legislation sometimes made protection
9801 depend upon compliance with formalities such as registration, deposit, and
9802 affixation of notice of the author's claim of copyright. However, starting
9803 with the 1908 act, every text of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
9804 enjoyment and the exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention
9805 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition
9806 against formalities is presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text
9807 of the Berne Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of
9808 deposit or registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of
9809 copyright. French law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works
9810 in national repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books
9811 published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
9812 Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
9813 the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
9814 works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
9815 Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
9816 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Chapter 15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
9817 <span class="strong"><strong>Det er mer</strong></span> enn trettifem millioner
9818 mennesker over hele verden med AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i
9819 Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten
9820 millioner afrikanere er prosentvis proporsjonalt med syv millioner
9821 amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er 17 millioner afrikanere.
9822 </p><p>
9823 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9824 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9825 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9826 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9827 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9828 usynlig.
9829 </p><p>
9830 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9831 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9832 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9833 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9834 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9835 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9836 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id3132371" href="#ftn.id3132371" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9837 </p><p>
9838
9839
9840 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9841 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9842 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9843 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9844 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9845 prisene høye.
9846 </p><p>
9847 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9848 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9849 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9850 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9851 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9852 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9853 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9854 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9855 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9856 </p><p>
9857 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9858 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9859 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9860 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9861 markedspris.
9862 </p><p>
9863 I 1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming.  Landet vedtok en lov som
9864 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9865 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren.  For eksempel,
9866 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9867 fra India.  Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
9868 tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
9869 europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id3132463" href="#ftn.id3132463" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9870 </p><p>
9871 Men USA var imot lovendringen.  Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9872 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9873 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika &#8230; til å ikke tillate
9874 tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3128830" href="#ftn.id3128830" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
9875 (USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven&#8212;og for å legge
9876 press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
9877 som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner.  Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9878 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9879 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU.  Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9880 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9881 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter&#8212;farmasøytiske
9882 patenter.  Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9883 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9884 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9885 Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id3132532" href="#ftn.id3132532" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9886 </p><p>
9887 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9888 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9889 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9890 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9891 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9892 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9893 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9894 </p><p>
9895 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9896 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9897 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9898 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9899 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9900 30 millioner liv.
9901 </p><p>
9902 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9903 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9904 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9905 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9906 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9907 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9908 selskapene betydelig.
9909 </p><p>
9910 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9911 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9912 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id3132626" href="#ftn.id3132626" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup>  Det var på
9913 grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
9914 medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika.  Det var prinsippet om
9915 viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
9916 myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9917 </p><p>
9918 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk.  En gang om tredve år vil våre
9919 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje?  Hvordan
9920 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få 15
9921 til 30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9922 fordel var å opprettholde <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ukrenkeligheten</span>»</span> til en idé?  Hva
9923 slags berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i
9924 så mange døde?  Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange
9925 dør for slik en abstraksjon?
9926 </p><p>
9927 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9928 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9929 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9930 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9931 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9932 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9933 </p><p>
9934 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9935 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9936 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9937 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9938 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9939 overvunnet.
9940 </p><p>
9941
9942 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9943 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9944 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvordan har det seg at du
9945 kan selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille
9946 koster en amerikansker $1 500?</span>»</span> Da det ikke finnes et
9947 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjapt svar</span>»</span> på det spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering
9948 av priser i Amerika.  Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å
9949 sikre at det første steget ikke tas.  De forsterker idéen om at
9950 eierrettigheter skal være ukrenkelige.  De legger seg på en rasjonell
9951 strategi i en irrasjonell omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at
9952 kanskje millioner dør.  Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
9953 hjel av dette ideal&#8212;helligheten til en idé som kalles
9954 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>.
9955 </p><p>
9956 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9957 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9958 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9959 </p><p>
9960 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9961 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9962 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9963 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9964 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9965 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9966 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9967 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9968 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9969 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9970 </p><p>
9971 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9972 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9973 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9974 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9975 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9976 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9977 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3132776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3132854"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3132863"></a><p>
9978
9979 <span class="strong"><strong>En enkel idé</strong></span> blender oss, og under dekke
9980 av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt
9981 med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke
9982 engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et
9983 folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til
9984 kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne
9985 eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
9986 demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
9987 som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
9988 denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9989 </p><p>
9990 Så langt sover sunn fornuft.  Det er intet opprør.  Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9991 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot.  Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9992 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9993 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene.  De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9994 bekjempe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og knuser kreativitetskultur.  De
9995 forsvarer idéen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt eierskap</span>»</span>, mens de endrer ekte
9996 skapere til moderne leilendinger.  De blir fornærmet av idéen om at
9997 rettigheter skulle være balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne
9998 innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal.  Hykleriet
9999 rår.  Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
10000 til.  Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
10001 gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
10002 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3132942"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3132961"></a><p>
10003 <span class="strong"><strong>I august 2003</strong></span> brøt en kamp ut i USA om en
10004 avgjørelse fra World Intellectual Property Organiation om å avlyse et
10005 møte.<sup>[<a name="id3132978" href="#ftn.id3132978" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
10006 med interressenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere
10007 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for
10008 felleskapet</span>»</span>.  Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å produsere goder
10009 for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære
10010 immaterielle rettigheter.  Eksempler inkluderer internettet og verdensveven,
10011 begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag av protokoller i allemannseie.  Det hadde
10012 med en begynnende trend for å støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og
10013 inkluderte Public Library of Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i
10014 etterordet.  Det inkluderte et prosjekt for a utvikle
10015 enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få stor betydning i
10016 biomedisinsk forskning.  (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av et konsortium av
10017 Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper, inkludert
10018 Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
10019 Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
10020 Searle.)  Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
10021 frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet.  Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og
10022 fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3133072"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3133080"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3133086"></a>
10023 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3133094"></a><p>
10024 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
10025 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
10026 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
10027 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
10028 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
10029 </p><p>
10030 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
10031 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id3133120" href="#ftn.id3133120" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
10032 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
10033 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
10034 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
10035 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
10036 </p><p>
10037
10038 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
10039 om WIPO.  I februar 2003 leverte jeg et hovedinnlegg på en forberedende
10040 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  På en
10041 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om.  Jeg
10042 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
10043 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet.  Ordstyreren
10044 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
10045 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
10046 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO.  I innlegget jeg hadde
10047 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
10048 hele.  Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
10049 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg.  Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
10050 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">informasjonssamfunn</span>»</span> uten at en også snakket om andelen av
10051 informasjon og kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten.  Mitt innlegg
10052 gjorde ikke min overivrige moderator veldig glad.  Og hun hadde uten tvil
10053 rett i at omfanget til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn
10054 under WIPO.  Men etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om
10055 hvor mye immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde
10056 selve idéen om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
10057 </p><p>
10058 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
10059 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde.  Og dermed
10060 møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
10061 fellesgoder</span>»</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
10062 </p><p>
10063 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
10064 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10065 programvare</span>»</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
10066 emnet. Fra deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen
10067 kildekode og fri programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples
10068 operativsystem.  Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med
10069 Microsofts programvare.  Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å
10070 utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
10071 stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare</span>»</span>, til sine egne interne
10072 behov.
10073 </p><p>
10074 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her.  Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
10075 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
10076 programvare.  Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
10077 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende.  IBM har i stadig større
10078 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
10079 biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>&#8212;og IBM er helt klart en
10080 kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
10081 ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører.  Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
10082 å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id3133262" href="#ftn.id3133262" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3133320"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3133326"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3133335"></a>
10083 <a class="indexterm" name="id3133341"></a>
10084 </p><p>
10085
10086 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10087 programvare</span>»</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
10088 kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span> er ikke programvare uten
10089 opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft,
10090 insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne av fri programvare ganske sterkt at
10091 vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir respektert av de som tar i bruk fri
10092 programvare.  Vilkårene i den lisensen er uten tvil forskjellig fra
10093 vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens.  For eksempel krever fri
10094 programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige lisensen (GPL), at
10095 kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle som endrer og
10096 videredistribuerer programvaren.  Men dette kravet er kun effektivt hvis
10097 opphavsrett råder over programvare.  Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over
10098 programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar
10099 i bruk programvaren.  Den er dermed like avhengig av opphavsrettsloven som
10100 Microsoft.
10101 </p><p>
10102 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10103 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10104 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10105 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10106 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10107 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10108 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id3133415" href="#ftn.id3133415" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10109 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3133432"></a>
10110 </p><p>
10111 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10112 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10113 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10114 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10115 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10116 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3133454"></a><p>
10117 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
10118 møtet.  Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
10119 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
10120 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er
10121 å fremme immaterielle rettigheter.</span>»</span>.  Hun skal i følge sitatet ha
10122 sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
10123 frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
10124 WIPO.</span>»</span>
10125 </p><p>
10126 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10127 </p><p>
10128 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige.  Som jeg beskrev, er det
10129 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
10130 immaterielle retten kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span>.  Uten den vil
10131 begrensningene definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si
10132 at de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">går imot</span>»</span> formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter
10133 å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse&#8212;den type feil som er
10134 tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
10135 statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
10136 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3133510"></a><p>
10137 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
10138 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt?  Som jeg fikk
10139 kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
10140 bare hvordan best beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den
10141 beste balansen rundt immaterielle rettigheter.  Som enhver økonom og advokat
10142 vet, er det vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den
10143 balansen.  Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt.  Man
10144 ønsker å spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på
10145 medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag?  Svekker
10146 allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter?  Ville det vært bedre om internettets
10147 protokoller hadde vært patentert?
10148 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3133548"></a><p>
10149 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
10150 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
10151 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper.  De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
10152 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som eier
10153 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> eller
10154 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frasi</span>»</span> seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår
10155 tradisjon.  Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål,
10156 så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet.  Det er heller
10157 tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
10158 retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span> eiendom.
10159 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxboland"></a><p>
10160
10161 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som har som sitt
10162 formål å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter</span>»</span>, så sier hun at
10163 WIPO har en interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier
10164 immaterielle rettigheter.  At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å
10165 stoppe individer fra å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fraskrive</span>»</span> eller
10166 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> seg sine immaterielle rettigheter.  At interessen
10167 til WIPO ikke bare er  maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men også at de
10168 skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
10169 </p><p>
10170 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
10171 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon.  Det kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">føydalisme</span>»</span>. Under
10172 føydalismen var eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall
10173 individer og aktører.  Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å
10174 sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene
10175 og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet.  Føydalismen var
10176 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon.  Det sloss mot enhver frihet
10177 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
10178 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3133656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3133662"></a><p>
10179 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10180 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3133675" href="#ftn.id3133675" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10181 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10182 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10183 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10184 mot det føydale.
10185 </p><p>
10186 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10187 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10188 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10189 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10190 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10191
10192 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
10193 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
10194 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
10195 immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>), ikke som den er.  Hvis vi snakket om
10196 verden slik den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt.  Men i
10197 verden slik Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe
10198 galt.  En må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår
10199 verden.
10200 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10201 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10202 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10203 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10204 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10205 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10206 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10207 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10208 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10209 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3133762"></a><p>
10210 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen.  I
10211 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
10212 skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
10213 riktige balanse</span>»</span> for immaterielle rettigheter.  Det var åpenbart
10214 tåpelig for ham.  Og det avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige
10215 utopisme.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Typisk for en akademiker</span>»</span>, kunne forfatteren like
10216 gjerne ha fortsatt.
10217 </p><p>
10218 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10219 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10220 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10221 eget lands historie).
10222 </p><p>
10223 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
10224 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">oppnå balanse</span>»</span>, da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det
10225 betyr at dette faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst.  Hvis det bør være åpenbart
10226 for alle at myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske
10227 enkelt et verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at idéen om å forvente bedre
10228 av myndighetene er absurd, at idéen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant
10229 og ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i
10230 verden, blitt?
10231 </p><p>
10232
10233 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10234 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10235 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10236 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10237 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10238 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3133841"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3133849"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3133855"></a><p>
10239 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart.
10240 </p><p>
10241 <span class="strong"><strong>Det finnes øyeblikk</strong></span> av håp i denne
10242 kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge
10243 eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere medieeierskap, dannet det
10244 seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av partiene for å bekjempe
10245 endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien organiserte interesser så
10246 forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William Safire, Ted Turner og
10247 Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne endringen i
10248 FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med krav om flere
10249 høringer og et annet resultat.
10250 </p><p>
10251 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10252 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10253 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10254 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10255 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10256 </p><p>
10257 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10258 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10259 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10260 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10261 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10262 </p><p>
10263 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10264 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10265 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10266 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10267 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10268 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10269 gjør størrelsen ille.
10270 </p><p>
10271 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10272 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10273 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10274 historie med å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stort</span>»</span>, klokt eller ikke. At vi kan
10275 være motivert til å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store</span>»</span> igjen ikke noe nytt.
10276 </p><p>
10277 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10278 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10279 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span>.  Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10280 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon.  Men fordi
10281 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles
10282 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke er lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10283 </p><p>
10284 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10285 for våre tragedie.
10286 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3133986"></a><p>
10287 <span class="strong"><strong>Mens jeg skriver</strong></span> disse avsluttende
10288 ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre
10289 individer.<sup>[<a name="id3134003" href="#ftn.id3134003" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup>  Eminem har nettopp blitt
10290 saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span> noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id3134067" href="#ftn.id3134067" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup>  Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan har
10291 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
10292 over.<sup>[<a name="id3134090" href="#ftn.id3134090" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup>  En på innsiden i
10293 Hollywood&#8212;som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym&#8212;rapporterer
10294 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.  De har fantastisk
10295 [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn
10296 av at de først må klarere rettighetene.  De har hauger med ungdommer som
10297 kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først kreve hauger
10298 med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>.  Kongressrepresentanter
10299 snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som
10300 antas å bryte loven.  Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker
10301 en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
10302 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3134136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3134142"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3134148"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3134155"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3134161"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3134167"></a><p>
10303
10304 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10305 bygge opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
10306 ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id3134186" href="#ftn.id3134186" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
10307 seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
10308 Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
10309 landet.<sup>[<a name="id3134209" href="#ftn.id3134209" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup>  Jeg har fortalt en mørk
10310 historie.  Sannheten er mer blandet.  En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
10311 Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
10312 Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
10313 taper og uten at potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust.  Det vil
10314 kreve omtanke, og viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omformer RCA-ene av i dag
10315 til Causbyere.
10316 </p><p>
10317
10318 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10319 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10320
10321
10322
10323 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3132371" href="#id3132371" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10324
10325 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10326 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
10327 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10328 #55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10329 9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10330 utviklingsland dem de trenger&#8212;og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10331 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3132463" href="#id3132463" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10332
10333 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10334 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10335 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3132472"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3132481"></a>
10336 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3128830" href="#id3128830" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10337
10338
10339 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10340 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10341 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10342 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10343 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10344 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10345 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10346 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10347 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3132532" href="#id3132532" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10348
10349
10350 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10351 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10352 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10353 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3132626" href="#id3132626" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10354
10355
10356
10357 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10358 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10359 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
10360 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10361 property protection</span>»</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10362 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>»</span>
10363 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10364 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10365 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10366 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10367 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10368 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10369
10370 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3132978" href="#id3132978" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10371
10372 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>,
10373 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
10374 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10375 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir</span>»</span>,
10376 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003,
10377 tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10378 #60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
10379 at WIPO</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
10380 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
10381 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3133120" href="#id3133120" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10382
10383 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10384 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3133262" href="#id3133262" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10385
10386
10387 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10388 sofistikert.  De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10389 programvare som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode</span>»</span> eller programvare som er
10390 allemannseie.  Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
10391 programvare</span>»</span> lisensiert med en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyleft</span>»</span>-lisens, som
10392 betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal adoptere same vilkår for
10393 ethvert avledet verk.  Se Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Software:
10394 Enabling the Marketplace to Decide</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
10395 Toward Open Source Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings
10396 Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
10397 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,
10398 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10399 Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
10400 Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10401 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3133415" href="#id3133415" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10402
10403
10404 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>.
10405 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3133675" href="#id3133675" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10406
10407 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10408 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3132526"></a>
10409 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3134003" href="#id3134003" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10410
10411
10412 John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
10413 september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica,
10414 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers</span>»</span>, CNN/Money, 8 september 2003,
10415 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10416 #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis Furman sammen med Robert Gearty,
10417 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers</span>»</span>,
10418 <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9. september 2003, 3; Frank
10419 Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
10420 Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants</span>»</span>,
10421 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10422 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wired
10423 News</em>, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10424 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3134067" href="#id3134067" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10425
10426
10427 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10428 Lady</span>»</span>, mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10429 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3134090" href="#id3134090" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10430
10431
10432
10433 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10434 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>.
10435
10436 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3134186" href="#id3134186" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10437
10438 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public</span>»</span>, pressemelding
10439 fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10440 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3134209" href="#id3134209" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10441
10442
10443 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil</span>»</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
10444 6. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #71</a>.
10445 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Chapter 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10446
10447
10448
10449 <span class="strong"><strong>I hvert fall</strong></span> noen av de som har lest helt
10450 hit vil være enig med meg om at noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi
10451 holder.  Balansen i denne boken kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10452 </p><p>
10453 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10454 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10455 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10456 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10457 </p><p>
10458 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10459 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10460 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10461 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10462 så viktig.
10463 </p><p>
10464 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10465 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10466 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10467 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10468 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10469 fri kultur.
10470 </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>
10471 <span class="strong"><strong>Common sense</strong></span> is with the copyright
10472 warriors because the debate so far has been framed at the extremes&#8212;as
10473 a grand either/or: either property or anarchy, either total control or
10474 artists won't be paid. If that really is the choice, then the warriors
10475 should win.
10476 </p><p>
10477 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10478 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10479 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>&#8212;
10480 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>»</span> The
10481 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10482 permission before you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10483 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10484 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10485 </p><p>
10486
10487 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10488 tilted in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> direction. Content could be
10489 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10490 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10491 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>»</span>
10492 Content was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10493 effectively unprotected.
10494 </p><p>
10495 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10496 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10497 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10498 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10499 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10500 default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>»</span> the future architecture will make
10501 the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>»</span> The architecture
10502 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10503 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut
10504 and paste</span>»</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10505 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span> world that is a creator's
10506 nightmare.
10507 </p><p>
10508 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10509 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but
10510 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>»</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10511 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10512 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10513 for granted before.
10514 </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><a class="indexterm" name="browsing"></a><p>
10515 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10516 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10517 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10518 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10519 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10520 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10521 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10522 </p><p>
10523 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10524 </p><p>
10525 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, your privacy was
10526 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10527 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10528 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10529 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10530 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10531 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10532 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10533 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10534 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in
10535 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10536 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10537 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3134513"></a><p>
10538 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10539 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10540 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10541 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recently
10542 viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10543 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10544 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
10545 protected by the friction disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3134536"></a>
10546 </p><p>
10547 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10548 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10549 should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
10550 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10551 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10552 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10553 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10554 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3134558"></a><p>
10555
10556 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10557 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10558 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10559 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id3134581" href="#ftn.id3134581" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10560 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10561 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10562 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10563 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10564 by default.
10565 </p><p>
10566 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10567 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10568 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10569 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10570 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10571 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3134623"></a>
10572 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3134635"></a><p>
10573 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10574 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10575 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10576 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10577 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10578 </p><p>
10579 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10580 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10581 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10582 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10583 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10584 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10585 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10586 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10587 else?
10588 </p><p>
10589 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10590 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10591 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10592 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10593 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10594 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10595 market than it was for you.
10596 </p><p>
10597
10598 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10599 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10600 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10601 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10602 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10603 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3134692"></a><p>
10604 Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10605 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10606 overleve.  Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
10607 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
10608 produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id3134714"></a>
10609 <a class="indexterm" name="id3134721"></a>
10610 </p><p>
10611 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10612 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10613 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10614 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10615 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10616 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10617 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10618 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10619 </p><p>
10620 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10621 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10622 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10623 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10624 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10625 passively guaranteed.
10626 </p><p>
10627 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10628 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10629 journals are produced.
10630 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10631
10632 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10633 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10634 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10635 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10636 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10637 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10638 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10639 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10640 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10641 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10642 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10643 opinion through their respective services.
10644 </p><p>
10645 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10646 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10647 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10648 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10649 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10650 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10651 the public domain.
10652 </p><p>
10653 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10654 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10655 data except by paying for a subscription?
10656 </p><p>
10657 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10658 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10659 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10660 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10661 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10662 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10663 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10664 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10665 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10666 paper journal.
10667 </p><p>
10668 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10669 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10670 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10671 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10672 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10673 </p><p>
10674 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10675 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10676 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10677 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10678 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10679 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10680 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10681 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10682 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3134863"></a>
10683 </p><p>
10684 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10685 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10686 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10687 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10688 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10689 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10690 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3134875"></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>
10691 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10692 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10693 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3134927"></a><p>
10694 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10695 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10696 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10697 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10698 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10699 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10700 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10701 possible.
10702 </p><p>
10703
10704 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10705 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10706 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10707 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10708 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10709 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10710 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10711 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10712 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10713 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10714 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10715 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
10716 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10717 freedoms are given.
10718 </p><p>
10719 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10720 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10721 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10722 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10723 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10724 uses (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>»</span>). Or any use so long as no
10725 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10726 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10727 educational use.
10728 </p><p>
10729 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10730 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10731 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10732 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10733 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10734 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10735 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10736 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10737 </p><p>
10738 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10739 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10740 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10741 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10742 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10743 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content
10744 conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10745 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10746 domain to other creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3135026"></a>
10747 </p><p>
10748 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The
10749 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10750 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10751 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10752 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10753 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10754 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10755 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10756 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10757 those rules.
10758 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline2"></a><p>
10759 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10760 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10761 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10762 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10763 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10764 </p><p>
10765 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10766 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10767 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10768 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10769 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10770 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10771 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10772 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10773 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10774 </p><p>
10775 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10776 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10777 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10778 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3135109"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3135116"></a><p>
10779
10780 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10781 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10782 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10783 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10784 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10785 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10786 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10787 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3135141"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3135152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3135159"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3135166"></a><p>
10788 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10789 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10790 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10791 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling license</span>»</span> do so because anything else would be
10792 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10793 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10794 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10795 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10796 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10797 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10798 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10799 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10800 are so high<sup>[<a name="id3135199" href="#ftn.id3135199" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10801 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10802 their form of creativity might grow.
10803 </p><p>
10804 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10805 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10806 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10807 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>
10808 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10809 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10810 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10811 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Some Rights
10812 Reserved,</span>»</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10813 </p><p>
10814
10815 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10816 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10817 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10818 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10819 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10820 build content based upon content set free.
10821 </p><p>
10822 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10823 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10824 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10825 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10826 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10827 possible.
10828 </p><p>
10829 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10830 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10831 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10832 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10833 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10834 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10835 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3135276"></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>
10836 <span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> not reclaim a free culture by
10837 individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We
10838 have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and
10839 implement these reforms.  But that also means that we have time to build
10840 awareness around the changes that we need.
10841 </p><p>
10842 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10843 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10844 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10845 end.
10846 </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>
10847 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10848 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10849 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10850 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10851 </p><p>
10852
10853
10854 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10855 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10856 </p><p>
10857 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10858 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10859 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10860 and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> are banished.
10861 </p><p>
10862 Why?
10863 </p><p>
10864 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10865 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10866 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10867 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10868 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10869 </p><p>
10870 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10871 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10872 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10873 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10874 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10875 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10876 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10877 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10878 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10879 </p><p>
10880 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id3135400" href="#ftn.id3135400" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10881 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10882 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10883 </p><p>
10884 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10885 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10886 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10887 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10888 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10889 approving standards developed by others.
10890 </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>
10891 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10892 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10893 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10894 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10895 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10896 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10897 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10898 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10899 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10900 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10901 </p><p>
10902 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10903 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10904 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10905 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10906 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10907 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10908 that the government sets.
10909 </p><p>
10910 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10911 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10912 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10913 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10914 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10915 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10916 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10917 </p><p>
10918
10919 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10920 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10921 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10922 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10923 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10924 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10925 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10926 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10927 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10928 </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>
10929 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10930 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10931 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10932 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10933 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10934 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10935 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10936 </p><p>
10937 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10938 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10939 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10940 </p><p>
10941 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10942 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10943 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10944 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10945 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10946 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10947 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10948 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10949 </p><p>
10950
10951 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10952 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10953 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10954 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10955 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10956 permission.<sup>[<a name="id3135528" href="#ftn.id3135528" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10957 work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>»</span> If
10958 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10959 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10960 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10961 their work.
10962 </p><p>
10963 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10964 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10965 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10966 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10967 elsewhere.
10968 </p><p>
10969 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10970 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10971 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10972 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10973 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10974 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10975 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10976 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10977 its other important functions.
10978 </p><p>
10979 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10980 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10981 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10982 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10983 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10984 possible.
10985 </p><p>
10986 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10987 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10988 unclear.
10989 </p><p>
10990 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10991 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10992 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10993 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10994 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10995 the appropriate time.
10996 </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>
10997 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10998 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10999 for individuelle forfattere.
11000 </p><p>
11001 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
11002 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
11003 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
11004 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
11005 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
11006 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
11007 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id3135661" href="#ftn.id3135661" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
11008 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
11009 </p><p>
11010 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
11011 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
11012 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
11013 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11014
11015
11016 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
11017 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
11018 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
11019 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
11020 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
11021 when it no longer benefits an author.
11022 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11023
11024
11025
11026 <span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
11027 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart.  Advokater
11028 liker uklarheten som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og forskjellen mellom
11029 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idéer</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uttrykk</span>»</span> har.  Denne type lovverk gir
11030 dem en masse arbeid.  Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé:
11031 vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at det er lite
11032 behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort.  En
11033 klar og aktiv <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span> gjør komplesiteten av
11034 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
11035 håndtere.
11036
11037 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11038
11039 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
11040 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
11041 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
11042 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
11043 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
11044 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id3135782" href="#ftn.id3135782" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
11045 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
11046 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
11047 <a class="indexterm" name="id3135803"></a>
11048 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11049
11050
11051 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
11052 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
11053 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
11054 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
11055 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
11056 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
11057 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
11058 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
11059 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
11060 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
11061 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
11062 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
11063 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
11064 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
11065 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
11066 det samme.
11067 </p><p>
11068 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene
11069 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikale</span>»</span>. (Tross alt, så kaller jeg dem
11070 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekstremister</span>»</span>.) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre
11071 enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det
11072 være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
11073 president?
11074 </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="id3135886"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3135893"></a><p>
11075 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11076 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11077 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11078 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11079 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11080 technology.
11081 </p><p>
11082 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive
11083 right</span>»</span> to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings.</span>»</span> Congress has given authors
11084 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings</span>»</span> plus any derivative
11085 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11086 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11087 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11088 movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
11089 </p><p>
11090 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11091 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11092 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id3135944" href="#ftn.id3135944" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11093 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11094 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11095 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3135960"></a>
11096 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11097 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11098 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11099 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11100 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id3135976" href="#ftn.id3135976" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11101 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11102 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11103 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11104 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11105 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11106 each limitation in turn.
11107 </p><p>
11108 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11109 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11110 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11111 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11112 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11113 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11114 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3136008"></a>
11115 </p><p>
11116 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11117 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11118 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11119 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11120 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reuse</span>»</span> of creative material was within the control of
11121 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11122 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11123 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11124 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11125 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11126 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3136040"></a><p>
11127 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11128 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11129 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11130 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11131 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11132 </p><p>
11133 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11134 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11135 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id3136063" href="#ftn.id3136063" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11136 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11137 </p><p>
11138 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11139 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11140 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11141 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11142 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11143 </p><p>
11144
11145 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11146 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11147 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11148 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11149 would earn artists more income.
11150 </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>
11151 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11152 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11153 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11154 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11155 music.
11156 </p><p>
11157 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11158 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11159 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11160 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11161 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11162 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11163 </p><p>
11164 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11165 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11166 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11167 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11168 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11169 </p><p>
11170 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11171 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11172 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, they enable four
11173 different kinds of sharing:
11174 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11175
11176
11177 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11178 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11179
11180
11181 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11182 purchasing CDs.
11183 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11184
11185
11186
11187
11188 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11189 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11190 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11191 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11192
11193
11194 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11195 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11196 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11197 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11198 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11199 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11200 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11201 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11202 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11203 weakened.
11204 </p><p>
11205 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11206 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11207 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11208 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11209 </p><p>
11210 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11211 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11212 </p><p>
11213 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11214 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11215 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11216 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11217 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11218 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11219 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11220 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11221 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11222 </p><p>
11223
11224 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11225 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11226 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11227 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11228 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11229 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11230 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11231 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11232 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11233 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11234 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11235 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3136273"></a><p>
11236 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11237 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11238 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11239 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11240 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11241 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11242 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11243 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11244 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11245 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11246 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11247 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11248 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11249 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11250 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11251 Web.<sup>[<a name="id3136328" href="#ftn.id3136328" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11252
11253 </p><p>
11254
11255 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11256 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with file
11257 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11258 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11259 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11260 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">solving</span>»</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11261 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11262 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11263 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11264 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11265 twenty-first-century technologies.
11266 </p><p>
11267 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11268 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problems</span>»</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11269 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11270 wants shared. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with this content is to make sure
11271 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11272 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11273 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11274 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11275 eliminate kidnapping.
11276 </p><p>
11277 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem.</span>»</span> This is content
11278 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11279 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11280 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11281 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11282 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11283 artist.
11284 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3136407"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3136418"></a><p>
11285 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11286 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11287 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11288 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11289 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11290 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11291 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing</span>»</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11292 than ideal.
11293 </p><p>
11294 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11295 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11296 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11297 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share</span>»</span> that content, even though
11298 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11299 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11300 should be as free as trading books.
11301 </p><p>
11302
11303
11304
11305 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11306 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11307 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11308 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11309 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11310 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11311 artists would benefit from this trade.
11312 </p><p>
11313 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11314 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11315 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11316 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11317 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11318 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11319 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11320 publisher.
11321 </p><p>
11322 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11323 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11324 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11325 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11326 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11327 content.
11328 </p><p>
11329 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11330 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11331 seg om.
11332 </p><p>
11333 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11334 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11335 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11336 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11337 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11338 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11339 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11340 industry.
11341 </p><p>
11342
11343
11344 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11345 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11346 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11347 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11348 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11349 </p><p>
11350 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11351 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id3136539" href="#ftn.id3136539" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11352 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11353 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11354 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11355 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11356 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11357 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11358 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11359 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11360 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3136740"></a><p>
11361 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11362 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11363 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11364 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11365 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11366 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11367 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11368 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11369 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11370 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11371 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11372 old system of controlling access.
11373 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3136768"></a><p>
11374
11375 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11376 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11377 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span> possible. But
11378 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11379 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11380 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11381 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11382 do with the content itself.
11383 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3136792"></a><p>
11384 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11385 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11386 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11387 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11388 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11389 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11390 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11391 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11392 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11393 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11394 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11395 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11396 on-line.
11397 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3136837"></a><p>
11398 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11399 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11400 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11401 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11402 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>»</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11403 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11404 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11405 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11406 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first class</span>»</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11407 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11408 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span>
11409 </p><p>
11410 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11411 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11412 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11413 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11414 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11415 strenge straffer fra loven.
11416 </p><p>
11417 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11418 </p><p>
11419
11420
11421
11422 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11423 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11424 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11425 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11426 </p><p>
11427 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11428 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11429
11430
11431 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11432 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11433
11434
11435 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11436 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11437 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11438
11439
11440 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11441 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11442 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11443 Men hva om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> ikke forsvinner?  Hva om det
11444 finnes et konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad,
11445 men et signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span>
11446 innhold uten å betale?  Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11447 </p><p>
11448 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11449 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11450 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11451 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11452 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11453 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11454 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11455 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11456 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11457 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11458 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11459 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11460 </p><p>
11461
11462 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11463 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11464 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11465 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11466 som internettet er.
11467 </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>
11468 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11469 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11470 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11471 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11472 </p><p>
11473 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11474 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11475 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11476 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11477 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11478 synet ødelegge loven.
11479 </p><p>
11480 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene.  Jeg er angrepet som en
11481 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
11482 argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
11483 betydningsfulle personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde
11484 for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
11485 vernetid var galskap.  Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
11486 foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11487 åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id3137075" href="#ftn.id3137075" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11488
11489 </p><p>
11490 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11491 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11492 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11493 </p><p>
11494 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11495 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11496 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11497 lav.<sup>[<a name="id3137113" href="#ftn.id3137113" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11498 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11499 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11500 </p><p>
11501
11502
11503 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11504 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11505 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11506 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11507 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11508 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11509 </p><p>
11510 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11511 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11512 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11513 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11514 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11515 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11516 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11517 </p><p>
11518 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11519 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11520 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11521 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11522 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11523 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11524 </p><p>
11525 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11526 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11527 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11528 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3137214"></a><p>
11529 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11530 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11531 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11532 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11533 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11534 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11535 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11536 </p><p>
11537
11538 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11539 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11540 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11541 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>»</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11542 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11543 ikke?</span>»</span>
11544 </p><p>
11545 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>»</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11546 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11547 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11548 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3134581" href="#id3134581" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11549
11550
11551
11552 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11553 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>»</span>
11554 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11555 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11556 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11557 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11558 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11559 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3135199" href="#id3135199" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11560
11561
11562 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11563 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11564 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11565 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3135400" href="#id3135400" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11566
11567
11568 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11569 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11570 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3135528" href="#id3135528" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11571
11572
11573 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11574 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11575 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11576 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3135661" href="#id3135661" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11577
11578
11579
11580 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11581 (25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11582 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3135782" href="#id3135782" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11583
11584
11585 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11586 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11587 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11588 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3135944" href="#id3135944" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11589
11590
11591 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11592 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11593 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3135976" href="#id3135976" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11594
11595 Ibid., 56.
11596 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3136063" href="#id3136063" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11597
11598 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11599 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11600 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3134596"></a>
11601 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3136328" href="#id3136328" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11602
11603
11604 For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch</span>»</span>, The J@pan
11605 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11606 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3136539" href="#id3136539" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11607
11608 <a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
11609 Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
11610 2000), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11611 #77</a>; William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law,
11612 and the Future of Entertainment</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford
11613 University Press, 2004), kap. 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11614 foreslått en relatert idé som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11615 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11616 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Impose a
11617 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
11618 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For andre
11619 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>»</span>
11620 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8. january 2002, A17; Philip
11621 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11622 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26. februar. 2002,
11623 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11624 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11625 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,
11626 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly</span>»</span>,
11627 <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,
11628 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right</span>»</span>, IEEE Spectrum Online, 1. juli 2002,
11629 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11630 #83</a>; Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign</span>»</span>,
11631 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
11632 er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman når det gjelder DAT.  I
11633 motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
11634 kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
11635 enn mindre populære.  Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
11636 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="id3136696"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3136703"></a>
11637 <a class="indexterm" name="id3136710"></a>
11638 <a class="indexterm" name="id3136717"></a>
11639 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3137075" href="#id3137075" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11640
11641
11642 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville
11643 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48
11644 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11645 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3137113" href="#id3137113" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11646
11647 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11648 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11649 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon&#8212;to ganger.  I starten
11650 predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade.  Han
11651 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11652 på nytt.  Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11653 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11654 York: Amacom, 2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11655 med Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11656 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
11657 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11658 fildelingsteknologi.  Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11659 til det juridiske system.  Se, for eksempel,
11660 <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3137090"></a>
11661 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Chapter 17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11662 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11663 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11664 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11665 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11666 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11667 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11668 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11669 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11670 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11671 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Chapter 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11672 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11673 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11674 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11675 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11676 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3137360"></a><p>
11677 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11678 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11679 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11680 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11681 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11682 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11683 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11684 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11685 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11686 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11687 </p><p>
11688
11689 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11690 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11691 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11692 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11693 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11694 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11695 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11696 mens jeg var der.
11697 </p><p>
11698 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11699 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11700 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11701 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11702 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11703 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11704 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11705 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11706 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11707 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11708 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11709 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11710 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11711 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Wink,</span>»</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>»</span> og Richard
11712 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11713 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11714 flotte svar.)
11715 </p><p>
11716 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11717 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11718 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11719 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11720 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11721 i denne boken.
11722 </p><p>
11723 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11724 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11725 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11726 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11727 </p></div><div class="index" title="Index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3137492"></a>Index</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>animasjonsfilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</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>(see also 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="#id3108362">«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: Fantasifoster</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>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bitiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>blogger (Web-logger), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</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>Engelsk opphavsrettslov utviklet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>gratis online-utgivelser av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</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>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tre typer bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bokselgere, Engelske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>bot-er, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</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>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</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>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>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: Fantasifoster</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: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</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="#id3108362">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>fantasifoster/chimera, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</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="#id3108362">«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>generiske medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</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><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><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>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</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>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3108362">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3108362">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</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>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</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>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</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>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3108362">«Piratvirksomhet»</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><dt>Jonson, Ben, <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>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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: Fantasifoster</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="#id3108362">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3108362">«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>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></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>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</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="#id3108362">«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 (see 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><dt>Tysk opphavsrettslov, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</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: Fantasifoster</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: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</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="#id3108362">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>